/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10878435]

>stop believing in free will
>no longer feel anger or vengeance towards people because they can't be faulted for who they became
Why haven't you taken the determinismpill yet?

[Anonymous No.10878439]

I have to feel anger it's not my choice to do so

[Anonymous No.10878602]

Take the egg pill. You are one soul taking turns being in every possible body, so you're actually everyone, just one at a time. You reach the same conclusion: it's pointless to be angry at anyone or to cause harm to anyone, since in the end you're doing it to yourself.

[Anonymous No.10878615]

Sound like you want life to put on the strap and bend you over

[Anonymous No.10878622]

>>10878602
That story was so retarded. I have no idea why it caught on.
Why would humans be part of a single time traveling amnesiac magic ghost-mind that only possesses bodies of that one species and not any of the other life on Earth even though Earth biology in its entirety is extremely self-similar?
And where's the cutoff line? Do earlier members of our genus not count e.g. neanderthals who we now know we carry the genetic legacy of and who were therefore interbreeding with homo sapiens? When was the first human involved in this magic possession scheme born?
Also why would dying and losing all capacity of your brain allow you more access to all the cognitive abilities and knowledge of your secret everyone-minded ghost form? If the brain were really functioning like a receiver that alters a signal still there after you die then people with Alzheimer's would become more aware of reality instead of degrading into an adult baby who can't handle eating or defecating without caretaker assistance.
tl;dr brains are data producers, not data receivers, and having this only apply to anatomically modern members of our genus is an arbitrary and nonsensical cutoff point to make.

[Anonymous No.10878630]

>>10878622
It caught on because Neil deGrasse Tyson read it out loud and if an idea sounds good on the surface then people skip actually thinking about it

[Anonymous No.10878638]

>>10878435
free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. E.g. free will is real, we can reason and choose options. This makes reality an interesting movie full of surprises. But if the big bang would happen again, it might be the exact same movie playing.

[Anonymous No.10878640]

>>10878615
life fucks everyone. one shouldnt stop trying, but it really fucks even the best plans people have, so better know in advance people will do dumb shit.

[Anonymous No.10878641]

>>10878638
t. brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10878642]

>>10878435
based and anti-ressentiment pilled desu

[Anonymous No.10878671]

>>10878435
absurdly based
but not believing in free will doesnt require deteminism it just requires denying the magical concept of free will

this primitive believe that people can just choose to be good or bad is honestly so retarded i have no idea how it became popular in the first place never mind that many people today still think like this. i guess if you never even think about it for 5 seconds it seems correct

[Anonymous No.10878675]

>>10878638

[Anonymous No.10878690]

>>10878638
>free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
this is actually something many philosophers agree with. it's called compatibilism and like 60% of philosophers believe this.
how funny is that? they are basically just massively coping by using a nonsense definition of free will so they can keep on claiming that „free will“ exists. makes me question the whole field, clearly they aren't just interested in the truth but in a comforting truth

[Anonymous No.10878947]

>>10878690
>>10878690
free will seems to be very ill-defined in general, because if free will is defined as the opposite of determinism, it doesnt even make sense to imagine a universe where that exists. The universe must be deterministic, because cause and effect is the way that things happen. There can't be an effect without a cause, or at least there is no reason to believe there can be. There is, however, much reason to believe that the universe is predictable, which I was say is the same as deterministic. If you can predict a ball of solid iron will fall to the earth when you let go of it, you will always be right. Humans can be observed to do things because of other things, like buying ice cream because the body craves sweetness, or painting a room a color other than black because the body feels better in a non-black room. It seems more logical, if a conclusion must be made, to extrapolate this cause-and-effect idea to all aspects of the universe, including humans ourselves. Yes, we make choices, but those choices have causes, and regardless of how you define free will, that is the case.

[Anonymous No.10878956]

>>10878435
people are complex functions that can be deterministically changed by input and their own output, kind of like sequential logic. if you give an input to one of these functions (albeit all inputs being ridiculously complex) it will give an output

this is all humanity

[Anonymous No.10878966]

>>10878622
>Alzheimer's would become more aware of reality instead of degrading into an adult baby who can't handle eating or defecating without caretaker assistance.
Doesn't make sense, when a receiver's busted it doesn't suddenly overload your TV with information, it just fails to receive it.

[Anonymous No.10878971]

>>10878435
That's absurd, just because someone had no choice in becoming a nasty piece of shit doesn't mean they cease to be a nasty piece of shit nor does it mean that you should have any less contempt for them.

If you become less discriminating because of a lack of understanding of the implications of determinism that just makes you stupid, and while maybe you couldn't help that, I still have nothing but contempt for your lack of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10878981]

>>10878435
acceptance goes against the very nature of life, which is to live by a belief and delude yourself

[Anonymous No.10878982]

>>10878435
Life is the biggest meme going.

[Anonymous No.10879027]

>>10878947
yeah, if you try to define „free will“ you either immediately realize that it cant be real or you just end up defining „will“ because „free will“ is just a non sense concept that requires magic

[Anonymous No.10879041]

>>10879027
What is difficult to understand about "will" free from compulsion? When you are not free to do what you want, you do not at that time have free will. If I pinned you down and fucked you raw, I would have, by overpowering you, removed your ability to consent or do what your will would cause you to do at that point, hence your will would be restricted, not free. When I leave your asshole gaping with my cum flowing out of it you will once again be free to do what you want, presumably cry in the shower and call someone to comfort you.

[Anonymous No.10879044]

woah, two free will threads. hope you don't mind if i copy and paste my thoughts from the other one.

the concept of free will is a psychological weapon that weakens the believer's understanding of cause and effect.

it's just the opposite of what this anon says: >>10878762. someone who's never been introduced to the concept would be more likely to make optimal decisions because they wouldn't be burdened by endlessly ruminating over fault or responsibility or guilt. we are indoctrinated with this mentally-fatiguing construct in order to keep us paralyzed.

it's a lot like OCD in many respects. it really puts the weight of the world on your shoulders. any precise definition of "free will" can be reduced to an absurdity. fortunately, it's not terribly hard to mitigate its psychological effects. one must not only understand that it's bunk, that's the easy part, but one must understand that rejecting the concept will not put you at a disadvantage, as this stupid asshole >>10878762 suggests that it will

[Anonymous No.10879063]

it's a demoralization campaign, thinly disguised as spiritualism. it's evil.

[Anonymous No.10879082]

or perhaps, like many other features of the english language, it's a tool used for persuasion.

[Anonymous No.10879148]

>>10879041
everyone in this thread is talking about a deeper concept of free will than you. what you are describing is obvious and uninteresting.

[Anonymous No.10879152]

>>10878971
seems like a waste of energy

[Anonymous No.10879348]

>>10878947
>>10878690
>do square shaped circles exist?

Well the shape of a square and the shape of a circle is mutually exclusive do clearly square shape circle just means a square with slightly rounded edges! So, yes. The answer is yes!

[Anonymous No.10879739]

>>10879148
>A deeper concept of free will
No they aren't, they're talking about an incoherent and contradictory concept of free will. One that really has nothing to do with the will in the first place.

[Anonymous No.10879800]

>>10878435
>Why haven't you taken the determinismpill yet?
because I don't have free will

[Anonymous No.10879849]

If our thought are chemical reactions in our brain then how can we have free will? Every chemical reaction must have been determined by previous reactions that gave the prerequisities for the next. Every action has a reaction, which gives that every reaction has an action before it that has already decided what the next action will be. So eberything that happens, including inside our brains, is just a string of predetermined actions and reactions that were set in motion by the very first thing that ever happened.

[Anonymous No.10879858]

>>10878435
So you turn into a cuck?

Damn I love pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.10879882]

>>10879849
but it feels like I'm making decisions myself ;_;

[Anonymous No.10879910]

[Anonymous No.10879953]

>>10878947
>>10879849
>>10879910
this.

[Anonymous No.10879997]

Based and blackpilled

[Anonymous No.10880000]

>>10879849
How do you know that chemical reactions are deterministic? At the quantum level things become far less straightforward.

[Anonymous No.10880037]

Why Your Decisions Are Meaningless And Choice Is An Illusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMVE0fN_Y4s

[Anonymous No.10880146]

>>10878966
>Doesn't make sense, when a receiver's busted it doesn't suddenly overload your TV with information, it just fails to receive it.
You're not mapping the analogy correctly.
First of all I want to make it clear I'm saying the "receiver" model for consciousness is completely retarded and wrong since you're putting me in the awkward position now of having to explain how the thing I disagree with works and without this clarification sentence I'd probably just confuse other anons into thinking I was arguing in favor of it.
That out of the way, the idea is your consciousness is the signal and it comes from outside your body / brain rather than it being produced by your brain.
So the TV you're talking about would be your body / brain, NOT your consciousness.
Note that this model is used to argue that when you die your consciousness is freed up from your bodily limitations and you experience total clarity and knowledge as a non-physical entity (like in that short story this was a response to).
Hence why the "receiver" model is wrong. If this scenario were really the case you would become more aware and more "yourself" with Alzeheimer's since it'd be the breakdown of that supposed filtering functionality your brain is serving in this way of thinking on how consciousness works. Instead what we see supports the idea the brain is in fact generating mental content rather than receiving it since people deteriorate and become less themselves and more like brain dead infants in adult bodies the more Alzheimer's eats away at their brain.

[Anonymous No.10880158]

>>10880146
>as a non-physical entity (like in that short story this was a response to).
You state this yourself and yet you don't get the problem? If we take the receiver model seriously (And I don't) then this clarity and knowledge wouldn't transfer onto the broken television. The majority of the consciousness of that person may well be experiencing some kind of gnosis but the machine(our brain), which is broken, cannot effectively relay that state of affairs, it can only relay as much as it is able to relay with broken equipment.

[Anonymous No.10880196]

>>10880146
And to clarify, it's bound in that it (the consciousness) would only be able to use what mechanisms are available to it in the brain, such as the faltering memory and intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10880199]

>>10880158
>then this clarity and knowledge wouldn't transfer onto the broken television
>The majority of the consciousness of that person may well be experiencing some kind of gnosis but the machine(our brain), which is broken, cannot effectively relay that state of affairs
(Quick reminder to anyone else reading this that receiver model of consciousness is something I don't subscribe to at all)
There are two different things going on here.
1) The ability to communicate information you have and
2) The information itself
People with Alzheimer's don't just go from total functionality to no functionality instantly. If their consciousness is freed up intermittently during the breakdown of their brain over the course of months or years then thing #1 (ability to communicate information they have) would only be down during the times when their consciousness is freed up. When their consciousness is getting back into their brain they wouldn't be unable to communicate at that point. The consciousness is you in this model, so if you only had mild Alzheimer's and your consciousness was out to lunch for a while that would be you out there experiencing it all, and when that instance of intermittent receiver failure resolved you would be able to again communicate. You might have some trouble communicating like a TV with static, but you would still be able to get the basic idea across just like you can still see the show on a TV in spite of some static.
I think the main misleading thing where this analogy starts to break down is that a TV signal isn't gaining new information from itself when it's cut of from a TV receiving it. A consciousness / soul on the other hand would supposedly gain new information when the brain is no longer inhibiting it according to this model when you die, which is why the lack of something similar with instances of brain decay / damage while still alive point less to this model and more to the standard one where the mind is generated by the brain.

[Anonymous No.10880206]

>>10880199
>If their consciousness is freed up intermittently during the breakdown of their brain over the course of months or years then thing #1 (ability to communicate information they have) would only be down during the times when their consciousness is freed up. When their consciousness is getting back into their brain they wouldn't be unable to communicate at that point.
Yes, but they would only be free to communicate what was available within their memory. It's possible that they're having some kind of gnosis, like I said, but are unable to communicate it because it's not something that's actually related to or recorded in the physical relaying device, and when they become more aware lets say, they lose access to that gnosis and are once again bound by the memories that bind them when they're aware.
>A consciousness / soul on the other hand would supposedly gain new information when the brain is no longer inhibiting it according to this model when you die
See this is the miscommunication here, even supposing the soul does, the brain does not. When the consciousness returns to some kind of lucidity it only has access to what is actually recorded within the brain, and presumably if this experience has taken place entirely outside of the brain there's no reason to suppose an experience that has taken place there would be recorded in the brain at all.

[Anonymous No.10880225]

>>10880206
If you need the brain to have memories then that means it's no longer a receiver; it's a content producer.

[Anonymous No.10880233]

>>10880225
But the content it produces isn't necessarily the consciousness. The consciousness in this scenario would be what makes it possible to actually experience what is being recorded.

[Anonymous No.10880249]

>>10880233
If the brain this receiver model is what handles memories and not consciousness / the soul, then I don't think you'd be able to function at all after your body dies. And if there are two separate instances of memory handling, one with the brain and one with consciousness / the soul, then this is really becoming very little like a receiver / signal situation and more like some bizarre split personality deal where the soul and the brain each have their own redundant cognitive functions.

[Anonymous No.10880253]

>>10880249
>then I don't think you'd be able to function at all after your body dies.
Playing devil's advocate I think there are two scenarios
1) Your consciousness gets transferred to a much larger substrate, like a mind-at-large
2) You dissolve into pure consciousness without intelligence, memory, metacognition
A lot of panpsychists/panprotopsychists go in for the second situation, which is effectively death even if consciousness isn't altogether obliterated. Not particularly comforting.
>and more like some bizarre split personality deal where the soul and the brain each have their own redundant cognitive functions.
Well yeah, exactly. Utimately when people talk about the brain as a receiver for a larger consciousness or a mind-at-large (The idealists tend to do this) they're not speaking literally, they're just talking metaphorically in order to explain that our brain isn't the only substrate for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10880270]

>>10878435
I do not think taking the determinism pill changes much. For example, a murderer or pedophile is still evil regardless if they are just acting out their role in a predestined universe. Even if they did not have a choice whether to commit murder or not, a good person would not have commuted murder. Regardless of if they had a choice or not, they are still a bad person and should be punished. This may violate the conventional morality that a person can only do evil if they have a choice between good and evil, but conventional morality is not formulated for a deterministic universe. Realizing the universe is deterministic is a philosophical paradigm shift, but it does not affect our day to day dealings significantly.

[Anonymous No.10880340]

>>10878435
So are you vegan? Or you murder animals just because they were born that way against their will?

[Anonymous No.10880343]

>>10878602
So you're vegan?

[Anonymous No.10880401]

>>10878671
Bad people tend to justfy their bad actions this way. By being explicit about these beliefs you are signalling that you need to justify yourself in this manner to clear your conscience, thus people tend to believe you are bad. Good people have good reason to learn to detect bad people. People might not be in control of their actions in the "free will"
sense, but bad and good behavior still emerge from the statistical distribution of human behavior and moral beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10880434]

>>10878435
not believing in free will is the most retarded fucking thing ever. do you really not see the irony in that? the idea that you suddenly give up on the belief that your choices are yours and they matter, when in reality under your parameters you never had the choice whether to believe or not in the first place? are you fucking retarded?

it does not matter one bit whether free will exists or does not. your belief in it is literally a cope just like everything else, and a complete waste of time and brain power regardless. it is the most anti-intellectual way of thinking, literally NPC level thinking. it shows you have understood nothing.

[Anonymous No.10880441]

>>10880434
>the idea that you suddenly give up on the belief that your choices are yours and they matter, when in reality under your parameters you never had the choice whether to believe or not in the first place
It's not that complicated, brainlet. OP was led to give up his belief in free will by actual physical causes rather than because of magic "will" flapdoodle.

[Anonymous No.10880443]

>>10879739
> you can control how the chemicals in your brain move and create your thoughts and feelings

[Anonymous No.10880535]

>>10880146
You failed to understand what the other anon told you, anon.

[Anonymous No.10880547]

>>10880443
Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.10880550]

>>10880441
>If I mimic Gell-Mann's verbiage I'll recieve his intelligence by a kind of linguistic osmosis
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.10880613]

>>10880441
and so in the same sense, you were led through physical memes to become a giant faggot?

[Anonymous No.10880626]

>>10880550
>>10880613
Feel free to start making an actual argument any time.
>>10880535
Why would you respond to a post declaring "you didn't understand" without including any sort of description for what you think wasn't understood? That doesn't help at all.
Also there was a conversation that went beyond that post where ideas were further clarified, so you can go ahead and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10880641]

You need the anime pill, never surrender, never give up.

Prove them all wrong, never doubt yourself.

[Anonymous No.10880671]

>>10880626
You didn't make an argument.

[Anonymous No.10880687]

If it feels to us like we have agency and free will, does it really matter if we don't actually have them? Isn't our sense of reality more important than the truth of reality, practically speaking?

[Anonymous No.10880736]

>>10880671
I did. OP not believing in free will isn't "ironic" unless you assume he somehow needed to "will" this lack of belief into existence. If he just came to that conclusion because he was led to do so by physical causes then there's no problem.
Feel free to start making an actual argument any time.

[Anonymous No.10880762]

>>10880736
>"will" this lack of belief into existence.
Are you denying that OP's lack of belief is a product of his will? Leaving aside whether or not that will is "free" OP's beliefs are absolutely a product of his will.
>If he just came to that conclusion because he was led to do so by physical causes then there's no problem.
Physical causes -> OP's thoughts and will.
The joke of your position is that you chose to take issue with the concept of will in and of itself, which is not in dispute. Coupling that with the Gell-Mann LARP outed you as a pseud. If that wasn't bad enough you took serious issue with a post which seems to contradict itself between paragraphs and argue opposite cases, meaning it was either a troll post or a schizo.

[Anonymous No.10880766]

>>10880547
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10880771]

>>10878435
>Why haven't you taken the determinismpill yet?
Implying I have the free will to choose my own opinions

[Anonymous No.10880784]

>>10880766
It is for
>>10879041
These reasons, which motivated the opponent in the argument to say that they were contemplating a "deeper" meaning of free will hence the motivation for >>10879739
It's not a deeper meaning, it's just self-contradictory nonsense.

The problem of free will couldn't possibly be simpler, but there's a tumorous growth on the back of it that's developed as a result of Christian apologetics which attempt to absolve God of moral culpability for evil by foisting it onto man in the form of a supposedly "free will" of choices. But I'm not a Theologist and I'm not interested in defending God's moral status, the sense of free will which actually concerns common life couldn't be simpler: If you aren't being forced to do something you do not want to do, your will (what you want to do) is free. If you were a starving kid in Africa who desperately wanted to eat but was being prevented from it by circumstances which prevent him exercising his will, he has less free will, he is not free to do what he wants.

Why people willingly overcomplicate this problem for themselves and turn it into a giant moral/logical/theological dilemma I will never, ever know.

[Anonymous No.10880786]

>>10880784
If you were that kid, in that situation, you would not be free to do what you want, you wouldn't have free will.

[Anonymous No.10880792]

>>10878947
Your brain is a quantum machine at the base lvl,
just because we do not understand how random choice comes into play, doesn’t mean it is not there.
None of you determinists actually behave like you believe in it in your day to day life with other people or in your politics anyways

[Anonymous No.10880847]

>>10880792
The choices you make are determined by your personality which in turn is defined partly by your parents, how you were raised, your environment, and many other things beyond your control. If you make a choice, you were compelled to do so by a reason r1; however, r1 needs to have significance and thus another reason, r2, for r1 being a reason and so on ad infinitum. Eventually you get to a r_n where "randomness" is important for which event shall occur, but this (seemingly) randomness is still dictated by convoluted physical and chemical interactions.

[Anonymous No.10880854]

>>10880847
Oh, now I get it. This guy is a /lit/ import.

[Anonymous No.10880865]

>>10880847
Nice red harring

[Anonymous No.10880880]

>>10878435
Free will exists in that people's wills (even if determined) can be impeded or unimpeded. Consider a prisoner. He wants to go for a walk but cannot. His free will is impeded. Now consider yourself, your will is not impeded in this way, you can go for a walk if you will it. Free will exists in this sense even if you're a determinist. Take the compatibilism pill. You can keep the enhanced sense of empathy by continuing to rightly believe we are ultimately the result of nature and nurture and thusly determined.

[Anonymous No.10880882]

>>10878435
because it's false. The Huemer-god said so.

https://www.owl232.net/papers/fwill.htm

[Anonymous No.10880907]

>>10880762
>Are you denying that OP's lack of belief is a product of his will?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm denying.
>Leaving aside whether or not that will is "free" OP's beliefs are absolutely a product of his will.
Nope. You don't "will" beliefs into existence, dummy. Try again.

[Anonymous No.10880911]

>>10878435
>>10880847
>everything is deterministic
>webm lizard doll fart cartoons were predetermined at the beginning of time.
You would go mad thinking about this absurdity.
If everything is chemistry, than everything is math, everything is determined, is wrong.
Hint:the answer is rounding errors being a function and not an error in gods plan

[Anonymous No.10880915]

>>10880880
>Take the fence-sitting intellectual coward pill

[Anonymous No.10880931]

>>10880915
It's in how you define the term/conceptualise the issue. I'm deflating the argument not fence sitting, bub.

[Anonymous No.10880936]

>>10880907
>Yes, that's exactly what I'm denying.
Then you're an idiot.
>Nope. You don't "will" beliefs into existence, dummy. Try again.
Yes you do, it is tautologically true that you believe what you choose to believe. Even if that is the only choice available, it is still your choice. Beliefs aren't sustained by some magic element, your desires(will) influence your reasoning which in turn causes your conclusion.

This is classic David Hume "reason is the slave of the passions" stuff.

[Anonymous No.10880937]

>>10878435
because my non-free will hasn't made me take it yet

[Anonymous No.10880945]

>>10880915
See, that's your problem. You've conceptualised this whole thing as a challenge to your macho, your objectivity, your ability to deal with uncomfortable concepts. You've abused semantics to make the concept as hostile as possible so that you feel like a big macho man accepting it.

It's pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10880959]

>>10880936
>it is tautologically true
It isn't. You're appealing to people saying "I chose this" to make it sound tautologically true. Which doesn't work because people also still call sunrises "sunrises" even though just about the entire planet's adult population now recognizes geocentrism was a mistake.
Language is filled with artifacts of mistaken ideas.

[Anonymous No.10880968]

>>10880865
It's literally an explanation of the discussion at hand. If you're not going to contribute to either side of the argument/discussion, then buzz off.

Even if you read into compatibilism, you have to address how one came to be in their current state, mentally speaking. If you consider how an agent is subject to myriad casual influences, you could view the sum total of such influences as a boundary for how probable a specific choice is to be acted on; however, this should not immediately imply that an agent is making a choice within that boundary free of subconscious influencers and statistical laws.

[Anonymous No.10880984]

>>10880959
>It isn't.
It literally is.
>Which doesn't work because people also still call sunrises "sunrises" even though just about the entire planet's adult population now recognizes geocentrism was a mistake.
That's a kind of category mistake.

What you're suggesting is that the word choice is an artefact of a mistaken understanding but it's not, it has two different and equally well-defined meanings, one which refers to acting on desires (Which is the ordinary meaning for commonplace activity) and the other refers to being able to do one of a number of different things. Unlike the linguistic artefact that you're talking about, the former definition refers to something we know to be true, we know for a fact that people act on their desires, in fact unless literally forced to do otherwise, they could not do otherwise. It is therefore not a mistaken definition in the vein of sunrise, because it is not referring to an imagined state of affairs which does not exist. In fact, it is the latter academic definition to which people have the strongest conceptual objections, including myself. Absolutely nobody is in doubt people act on their desires.

[Anonymous No.10880990]

>>10880968
To add, I am not arguing for free will, compatibilism, or against free will: I believe people should practice more skepticism and agnosticism for all three. I believe we do not have complete models for neuroscience, psychology, chemistry, and physics to fully tackle and understand such a problem.

I also should make the disclaimer that I am not >>10878947, as I believe other anons may have been mistaken when replying to my post.

[Anonymous No.10881006]

>>10880626
alright anon

[Anonymous No.10881015]

>>10880199
>Quick reminder to anyone else reading this that receiver model of consciousness is something I don't subscribe to at all
Literally nobody here gives a shit what you adscribe to.

[Anonymous No.10881023]

Am I on /sci/ or/x/

[Anonymous No.10881043]

>>10881023
What if I told you... that you were in both?

[Anonymous No.10881048]

>>10881043
/sci/ is genuinely /x/ with delusions of grandeur at this point. What a farce.

[Anonymous No.10881053]

>>10878435
>Why haven't you
What choice do I have?

[Anonymous No.10881101]

>>10880792
Quantum mechanics was the worst thing to happen in terms of the determinism vs free will thing. Having been completely and conclusively wrecked over and over, the freecuck turns to "b-but quantum mechanics!" as his last resort. Of course it is hard to blame him for this, since there was never any real possibility that he would not.

[Anonymous No.10881107]

>>10878435
>>stop believing in free will
This assumes I have a choice.

[Anonymous No.10881276]

>>10878435
You had no choice in stopping or making this stupid thread. Living as a determinist is neither edifying or coherent.

[Anonymous No.10881511]

>>10881048
At this rate I'm just glad it wasn't another IQ thread.

[Anonymous No.10881524]

>>10881511
What if people who have more free will have higher IQ's?

[Anonymous No.10881712]

>>10880401
You can imprison a criminal for they danger they pose to others, but not necessarily because you hate them.

[Anonymous No.10882126]

>>10878638
this is b8

[Anonymous No.10882169]

>>10881524
I've noticed that brainlets get really angry if you tell them about determinism. Big brain people will be more open to this kind of ideas.

[Anonymous No.10882175]

>>10882169
The future cannot be fixed.