Determinism is incompatible with free will

[Anonymous No.14522579]

Do you submit your lack of free will?

[Anonymous No.14522587]

>>14522579
We have free will faggot

[Anonymous No.14522589]

>>14522579
>my vacuous metaphysical dogma is incompatible with my personal incoherent concept of free will

[Anonymous No.14522594]

Determinists are like creationists. You can present reasons that they cannot refute, but they will not change their beliefs because they haven't reasoned into them. It's an anti-scientific religious devotion in both cases.

[Anonymous No.14522601]

>>14522594
Yes, the previous two responses prove this

[Anonymous No.14522604]

>>14522601
People have simply realized that it's pointless arguing against them, as they do not respond to reason and evidence. All that is left is to mock them.

[Anonymous No.14522605]

>people i'm butthurt about are like other people i'm butthurt about
>they all live rent-free in my head
>[overused midwit cliche]
>generic boogeyman bad

[Anonymous No.14522606]

>>14522589
>I'll mask my inability to answer the question by what I think is clever word-play
Do you have free will?

[Anonymous No.14522607]

>>14522605
Do you have free will?

[Anonymous No.14522610]

>>14522606
Mask my what? I just gave an accurate summary of "your" position, and I use the word "your" loosely, because you are unable to form any thoughts of your own, and are simply sharting out the pop-soi canards of this age.

[Anonymous No.14522615]

>>14522579
Hey, what's stopping me from saying you're a retard?

[Anonymous No.14522626]

>>14522610
I just figured this out by myself, I also think all the time.
Answer me, anon, do you have free will?

[Anonymous No.14522628]

>>14522579
Of course you don't have free will, you dolt.

The experience of consciousness is a dynamic process corresponding to electrochemical activity in the nervous system which is a deterministic process ultimately and inevitably resulting from the interactions of fundamental physical forces and energy.

The concept of "free will" is an illusion of the ego, the mentally-created concept of the self, viewing this dynamic process through the limited perception of the senses through a linear perspective of time.

Free will is made up, it doesn't exit, all that is real is determined by the conditions of the past and all that will ever be in the future is determined by the conditions of the present.

Will you then live as a man? Or perish like a dog?

[Anonymous No.14522634]

>>14522626
>do you have free will?
Yes, and in a sense that doesn't depend on your metaphysical pseudoscientific dogma in any case. Does this make you seethe?

[Anonymous No.14522635]

I hate these threads so much. I don't know why I still come to this board. It's trash

[Anonymous No.14522636]

>>14522579
Most people don’t understand free will. They think that this world could not possibly exist without free will. If they understood that we have no way of knowing if we have free will or not, then they probably wouldn’t believe in it. The same argument can be made for objective morality, souls, and other woowoo

[Anonymous No.14522640]

Why are philosotards so simple minded? Many laws of physics are deterministic but that doesn't prevent free will from starting new chains of deterministic events. Only NPCs are lacking free will.

[Anonymous No.14522642]

>Many laws of physics are deterministic but that doesn't prevent free will from starting new chains of deterministic events

[Anonymous No.14522643]

>determinism
it's like talking about what happened before the big bang.
a 'deterministic' universe from a human perspective isn't a thing because it's not deterministic if you're not the universe.

[Anonymous No.14522650]

>>14522635
>I don't know why I still come to this board.
You no longer have a choice. Using 4chan for extended periods severs your divine light.

[Anonymous No.14522652]

>>14522636
The only woowoo ITT is your vacuous shart, and the concept of determinism. lol

[Anonymous No.14522656]

>>14522650
I don't believe in concepts like "flesh" "automaton" "divine light" or "severing".

[Anonymous No.14522660]

>>14522634
>>14522640
Then this world is not deterministic. Or are you not a part of this world?
>>14522636
Fair point. I thought about it myself but Occam razor points to free will, imo.
>>14522628
You're speaking like there is a scientific consensus on this when in fact scientists can't agree whether it will rain tomorrow or not, let alone understand the brain.
When one is asked to pick number 1 or pick number 2, I doubt his choice is explained by subconscious processes that can be traced back to the big bang.

[Anonymous No.14522661]

>>14522656
You couldn't make yourself look like more of a drone if you intentionally tried.

[Anonymous No.14522666]

>>14522660
>Then this world is not deterministic. Or are you not a part of this world?
Completely incongruent response. Obvious bot.

[Anonymous No.14522667]

>>14522661
I don't believe in concepts like "drones", "intentionality", or "trying".

[Anonymous No.14522669]

>>14522660
Of course the world isn't entirely deterministic. Do you even quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.14522671]

>>14522642
Then the world is not deterministic as those new chains of event are unpredictable and random

[Anonymous No.14522673]

>>14522667
Don't care, you absolute dipstick. Some levels of autism are genuinely indistinguishable from a poorly coded AI.

[Anonymous No.14522677]

>>14522671
Another completely incongruent response.

[Anonymous No.14522679]

Instead of making threads like this, why not makes threads that have to do with actual science?
I'm tired of fucking AI threads make by retards who've never programmed a machine learning algorithm.
I'm tired of people talking about quantum mechanics who have never taken a class on quantum mechanics.
People talking about genetically engineering humans who've never modified an allele in any organism.
This board is fucking garbaggio it's full of pop science retards talking about pop science fiction as though it's actual science.

[Anonymous No.14522680]

>>14522677
Care to retort?

[Anonymous No.14522683]

>>14522660
>I thought about it myself but Occam razor points to free will, imo
It’s not just about simplicity. Determinism actually has an explanation, but no one can explain how free will works. We are all just following our greatest desires at the moment, with the illusion that we could have chosen otherwise, because we can consider multiple options, and feel multiple desires. But of course we always do what we feel like doing most. This doesn’t require free will as we cannot control our desires. Even the desire to ignore a desire is a desire itself. Thoughts also cannot be controlled.

But what is free will, exactly? No one knows

[Anonymous No.14522690]

>>14522680
Retort what? You are either a literal spambot, or sub-80-IQ. You don't seem capable of reading.

[Anonymous No.14522693]

>>14522679
There's plenty of threads with actual science yet you clicked on my thread and took your time to whine about it

[Anonymous No.14522696]

>>14522673
how do I repair the divine light?

[Anonymous No.14522700]

>>14522696
You can't. You're here forever. :^)

[Anonymous No.14522706]

People with free will are making the rules for those who don't have free will.

[Anonymous No.14522708]

According to the great mathematical physicist Frederic Schuller, thrown stones don't follow trajectories and even birds have free will
https://youtu.be/GbqA9Xn_iM0?t=95

[Anonymous No.14522709]

>>14522660
The fact that scientists cannot predict things with accuracy does not mean they're unpredictable.

Consider the cast of a die. It's impossible for scientists to predict the result with certainty because there are too many variables at play and too much information required that isn't really attainable with present day technology to make an exact prediction. Yet it should be clearly understood that it is only the basic laws of physics and the start conditions: position, velocity, acceleration, air temperature, flow and pressure, etc. Clearly, given enough information and computing power the result of the cast of a die can be predicted with perfect accuracy.

The same is true of the universe, just on a larger scale. It's pure fantasy to think that the limits of our current measuring and calculating technology mean actually you're possessed by some spooky ghost that makes decisions without being influenced by the laws of physics and brain chemistry that we can already partially map out.

[Anonymous No.14522711]

When NPCs say they don't have free will, I trust them. When they call me an NPC I laugh.

[Anonymous No.14522714]

>>14522690
My IQ is 125, Mensa confirmed test.
>Retort what?
Thought you could figure it out? Anyways I'll help...
You have submitted that free will is not deterministic but the world is. Tell me how the random deterministic chains of events that free will starts can be predicted beforehand when those choices are random?
They can't be predicted obviously thus the world is not deterministic
Don't bother replying if it's going to be another ad hominem
>>14522709
Well now you're just speculating then

[Anonymous No.14522717]

>It's pure fantasy to think that the limits of our current measuring and calculating technology mean actually you're possessed by some spooky ghost that makes decisions without being influenced by the laws of physics and brain chemistry that we can already partially map out.
Imagine being such a poorly educated imbecile that you think it's a technological limitation.

[Anonymous No.14522723]

>>14522711
NPC’s don’t even realize they’re NPC’s. Of course they would believe in free will also.

[Anonymous No.14522726]

>>14522714
>You have submitted that free will is not deterministic but the world is
I haven't.

[Anonymous No.14522728]

>>14522714
>My IQ is 125
Congrats on being a midwit.

[Anonymous No.14522731]

>>14522717
Ironically, you're the one so close minded that he can't break the chains of known physics

[Anonymous No.14522732]

>>14522723
>NPC’s don’t even realize they’re NPC’s
So it seems. Now please tell me more about how science proves that there is on meaningful distinction between you and a rock. It's very enlightening. :^)

[Anonymous No.14522734]

>>14522723
Many NPCs realize they're NPCs as this thread proves. They also think everyone else is a NPC but that's beside the point.

[Anonymous No.14522736]

>>14522731
It really feels like there's a bunch of bots ITT spamming some determinitard pastas and then completely random reactions based off of keywords or something. No way you're a real person.

[Anonymous No.14522737]

No Turing machine can predict what porn I will fap to today. This proves free will.

[Anonymous No.14522738]

>>14522728
I know. I'm not proud either. But it's not 80.
>>14522726
Tell me how what I said is incongruent then.

[Anonymous No.14522740]

>>14522738
But now think of how it feels for you to talk to someone with IQ 80. This is exactly how I feel when talking to you.

[Anonymous No.14522745]

>>14522740
You're totally the 1 in 6 000 000 with an IQ of 140+.
Btw, you haven't demonstrated any rationalising on determinism so far

[Anonymous No.14522749]

>>14522579
>Determinism is incompatible with free will
Determinism isn't real

[Anonymous No.14522758]

So far no one has explained how determinism is compatible with free will (although they are obviously mutually exclusive)

[Anonymous No.14522760]

>>14522579
>Do you submit your lack of free will?

Well, if they dont, it is not their fault, they are just like broken clocks that dont tell time truthfully.

One problem is what is meant by free will.

In English Law, freedom is defined thusly:

"Freedom is the natural faculty of doing whatever one wishes, except as forbidden by force or by law."

So, if free will is "doing whatever one wishes," wishes could be determined by material interactions, free will is simply doing as you wish.

But if free will means some sort of metaphysical free will, that is garbage.

Events are either causally determined, or random, or, more sophisticated determinism, within some range of possibilities, so it is "mathematically possible" that you might, for example, just suddenly snap into frame in Hawaii from Denver, Colorado, it is "improbable."

In either of these cases, I cannot for the life of me conceive of how this "free will" interacts with the material world to influence it. It seems like a recapitulation of the epiphenomenal account of the mind/body problem.

[Anonymous No.14522761]

>>14522745
160+ to be precise. And I already said the world isn't entirely deterministic. People smarter than you learn quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14522765]

>>14522640
>Many laws of physics are deterministic but that doesn't prevent free will from starting new chains of deterministic events

What's the mechanism? Like, presumably you agree with neurology and pharmacology, so the motion called "voluntary" is caused by neurological structures having electrical impulses caused by neurotransmitters, etc. etc. as another anon said.

Is there some cortex responsible for "free will" that is exempt from the laws (rule of action) of physics?

[Anonymous No.14522767]

>>14522758
>So far no one has explained how determinism is compatible with free will (although they are obviously mutually exclusive)
So far, no one has demonstrated that determinism is true in the first place, nor can they do so in principle, and that's even ignoring the quantum scale. Nothing is compatible with your retarded and self-contradicting notion of free will, which is what you demand proof of, but you're too dumb to see it.

[Anonymous No.14522772]

>>14522660
>Occam razor points to free will

A river follows the course of its embankment.
Rain falls from the sky, never goes up.
Rocks fall down the side of a mountain.

But you think Occam's Razor says it is likely you are NOT, just a talking mountain out of which air is blown, coordinated by rivers of fluids?

[Anonymous No.14522775]

>>14522760
It's very hard to conceive, maybe impossible for us, yes. That's why I simplify the model to
If free will
Then world isn't random

Although it's simple, it's true (as far as we can be rational)

[Anonymous No.14522777]

>>14522673
>Some levels of autism are genuinely indistinguishable from a poorly coded AI.

Nah, he's just not a retard. But because we ahve no free will, it's not like you could CHOOSE not to be a retard.

[Anonymous No.14522780]

>>14522579
>incompatible
proofs or you're full of shit

[Anonymous No.14522781]

>>14522732
Conscious experience, imagination, and the co-existence of multiple desires don’t imply the existence of free will. See >>14522636. You can’t explain what free will means

[Anonymous No.14522782]

>>14522683
>Even the desire to ignore a desire is a desire itself

Aristotle conceives of it being two faculties, the faculty of locomotion and that of judgment. He says in De Anima that locomotion never arises without "desire" (tho I dont think he is considered seizures) but he also says that judgment may restrain desire.

[Anonymous No.14522786]

>>14522690
>Retort what? You are either a literal spambot, or sub-80-IQ. You don't seem capable of reading.

I was what is called a "gifted" child, my IQ was tested at 145, and he is not the retard, you are.

[Anonymous No.14522789]

>>14522594
>reasons
Wet dreams. Schizo screeching aren't reasons, not even remotely.

[Anonymous No.14522791]

>>14522777
Trips wasted on another autistic drone. Your irrational kneejerk reaction against some imagined free will boogeyman is pretty funny.

[Anonymous No.14522793]

>>14522782
Judgment is based on desire, though. In order for me to judge something as bad, I have to desire something greater. For example, refusing candy because I desire good health. It is not a purely rational process. With reason alone, there is no reason to do anything.

[Anonymous No.14522797]

>>14522579
determinism is fake and gay

[Anonymous No.14522799]

>>14522781
Another incongruent, botlike response. Interesting pattern here.

[Anonymous No.14522801]

>>14522709
>Clearly, given enough information and computing power the result of the cast of a die can be predicted with perfect accuracy.

And even if you could not, e.g. true randomness existed, and it were not possible to predict how a die would land (tho I have trouble seeing how this is true, if you allow for the problem to be something like "based on observing a die 10ms before its bottom edge is parallel to the table, can you observe how it will land?" to which the obvious answer is yes) this would in no way allow for "free will," it might allow for "indeterministic will," e.g. it would be impossible to predict what a thing or body would do next, but that isnt free will either.

Free will is an incoherent concept, like the immortality of the soul, but, like the soul, it has many adherents, who are often very smart.

Imagine a kid who could memorize the entirity of Harry Potter and point out its consistencies but who was unaware Harry Potter was make believe.

But if hje has no free will, it's not like he could will himself to be different, he is just hereditarily retarded.

[Anonymous No.14522802]

>>14522782
aristotle also thinks there are 4 elements and their properties of fire, earth, water or air are determined by the shape of their particles being squares or triangles so idk if he is the best source here

[Anonymous No.14522806]

>>14522728
>>My IQ is 125
>Congrats on being a midwit.

That's not midwit, his IQ is high enough that with proper training he can follow the arguments against metaphysics, dialectics, free will, etc. if he is put on that trajectory.

The world is, of course, governed by impersonal forces, and Her name is Eris.

[Anonymous No.14522811]

>>14522737
>No Turing machine can predict what porn I will fap to today.

post proof that the fapping problem is equivalent to the halting problem.

[Anonymous No.14522812]

>>14522789
Project harder schizo. Your belief is based on a literal magical fairy tale that you cannot observe nor prove.

[Anonymous No.14522813]

>>14522806
>his IQ is high enough that with proper training he can follow the arguments against metaphysics, dialectics, free will, etc. if he is put on that trajectory.
If he's put on the midwit treadmill?

[Anonymous No.14522816]

Only NPCs are deterministic.

[Anonymous No.14522817]

>>14522714
>not believing in made up fantasy stories is just speculating!!

>125 iq brainlet
Ah, sorry. You're literally too stupid to realize you don't have free will.

[Anonymous No.14522819]

>>14522813
If he starts listening to Neil DeGrasse Tyson 24/7
I'm sure he'll come to believe these things.

[Anonymous No.14522822]

>>14522761
>160+ to be precise
If true then mirin'
>I already submitted world isn't (entirely)
deterministic
Thought you were another anon.
>>14522767
How is my notion of free will self-contradicting, dumbass?
>>14522772
Fair point actually, I submit.
>>14522786
Samefag

[Anonymous No.14522823]

>>14522579
makes no difference and i dont give a fuck retard

[Anonymous No.14522824]

>>14522799
just reiterating the main points because no one is responding. I recognize my conscious experience, I don’t claim to be an NPC. I don’t think non-NPC’s can have free will at all. NPC’s are almost indistinguishable from non-NPC’s, which is proof that free will doesn’t exist, or that it likely doesn’t. Being conscious doesn’t magically give you free will. Define free will. You can’t

[Anonymous No.14522826]

>>14522817
You believe in the fantasy made up story of determinism, that you cannot observe or prove, all because it gives you comfort to think you're not responsible for anything you do.

[Anonymous No.14522828]

>>14522822
>How is my notion of free will self-contradicting, dumbass?
By being "incompatible with determinism" while you undoubtedly postulate that the only options are determinism and randomnbess.

[Anonymous No.14522829]

>>14522765
You are asking for a deterministic mechanism of something inherently nondeterministic. Way to out yourself as an NPC. The brain is way too complex to understand the origin of every process taking place in it on a microlevel with your primitive models btw.

[Anonymous No.14522832]

>>14522761
>160+ to be precise. And I already said the world isn't entirely deterministic. People smarter than you learn quantum mechanics.

Whether the world is deterministic or indeterminstic or random, I don't see how you get free will.

Even if we cannot calculate the state of the universe or an object, from the preceding state, that doesnt suggest free will, it simply suggests something random.

But I dont know how you could ever determine random universe from determinstic universe, because over a finite period any truly random source could give any output, it's only if you are using a pseudorandom source for some economic/crypto purpose that you want the "properties of true randomness" to be satisfied, but there's no reason I can think of why a random sequence couldn't output something that DOES NOT pass the PRNG tests for randomness, it would simply be that such a source would not satisfy the crypto use case.

So PRNGs are more about "unpredictability" not randomness.

[Anonymous No.14522833]

>>14522824
If you believe free will doesn't exist, then by definition you're a NPC.

[Anonymous No.14522836]

>>14522579
How do you know your free will is really free and not predetermined?
It's a futile argument in any case, kind of like the simulation theory, it just eventually runs up to the point where asking any more questions would be meaningless, because we will never have the answers and who cares anyway, just do drugs and have fun while you aren't a rotting corpse

[Anonymous No.14522837]

>>14522824
See >>14522799

[Anonymous No.14522841]

>>14522817
Ok rare genius, care to actually show some reasoning and talk about the subject? Everyone mocking me for my 95th percentile iq yet no one brings forward any arguments on the subject.
Go back to /Pol/

[Anonymous No.14522842]

>>14522836
>How do you know your free will is really free and not predetermined?
Because I know the difference between choosing something and being forced to do something.

[Anonymous No.14522845]

>>14522791
>Your irrational kneejerk reaction against some imagined free will boogeyman is pretty funny.

It's not an imagined bogeyman, talking about free will is like talking about angels. I will agree asking "is free will compatible with determinism" is sort of stupid, because it is like asking 'are angels compatible with physics?'

The answer is no because I have no idea how to even understand what is meant by angels, unless they're aliens or something corporeal.

[Anonymous No.14522849]

>>14522828
That's not self-contradicting. The world isn't entirely deterministic if free will is random. Can't believe you're not grasping this

[Anonymous No.14522850]

>>14522802
>aristotle also thinks there are 4 elements and their properties of fire, earth, water or air are determined by the shape of their particles being squares or triangles so idk if he is the best source here

That seems a lot like chemistry with orbitals, he just has only 4 elements instead of how many we have in the periodic table. Even once you go to the orbitals being probabilities that the electron is found, it is still absically an "atomist" notion, tho I dont know if ARistotle is an atomist per se, like Democritus.

[Anonymous No.14522852]

>>14522841
I've already presented my reasoning, you just decided that since your made up fairy-tale cannot actually disproven, as it is a non-falsifiable claim like all other religious beliefs, you're going to continue believing it because it feels better than accepting that you believe in an illusion with no rational basis.

You're past the point of reason; or maybe, given your midwit IQ just not quite up to being able to see reason.

[Anonymous No.14522853]

>>14522845
>I will agree asking "is free will compatible with determinism" is sort of stupid, because it is like asking 'are angels compatible with physics?'
Determinism is a mystical theological notion that nobody can ever provide a coherent definition of.

[Anonymous No.14522855]

>>14522845
Modern physics is not deterministic.

[Anonymous No.14522859]

>>14522842
>bUt HoW dO yOu kNoW yOu rEaLlY ChOsE
Determinism fags the mock us for believing in magic while they shit like this

[Anonymous No.14522860]

>>14522813
>If he's put on the midwit treadmill?

If Eris wills it, it shall be. Same as it ever was.

[Anonymous No.14522861]

>>14522852
>made up fairy-tale cannot actually disproven, as it is a non-falsifiable claim like all other religious beliefs, you're going to continue believing it because it feels better than accepting that you believe in an illusion with no rational basis.
Ummm are you talking about determinism there buddy? Because that's exactly how determinists think lol.

[Anonymous No.14522864]

>>14522832
Please state your background in quantum mechanics before I decide whether it's worth wasting my time explaining such simple and well-known facts to you.

[Anonymous No.14522868]

>>14522849
>That's not self-contradicting.
It is. You're a confirmed 90 IQ retard if you don't see it.

[Anonymous No.14522873]

>>14522833
not an argument + doesn’t make sense
>>14522842
See>>14522636
You don’t understand the issue here

[Anonymous No.14522875]

>>14522826
>all because it gives you comfort to think you're not responsible for anything you do.

What is "you"? Where is the border between "you" and the universe that only goes one way, YOU act upon the Universe, but the Universe does not act upon YOU? You are outside of the Universe? But that is nonsense.

It recapitulates the mind/body problem, see Richard Rorty for a good analysis of why these problems are bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14522876]

>>14522845
>It's not an imagined bogeyman, talking about free will is like talking about angels
Yep. You're not human, and neither are any of the other determinitards ITT. I thought it was severe autism, but now I see you'd fail a Winograd schema.

[Anonymous No.14522877]

>>14522842
But you can not determine whether your choice was your own or already predetermined, even this very discussion we're having and whatever we choose to write could be predetermined without your knowledge, just an illusion of free will.
But again, it's pointless to argue over shit like this, because there are no answers and all questions lead to nowhere, it's a waste of time and energy.

[Anonymous No.14522879]

>>14522852
Your iq is statistically speaking much more likely to be lower than mine.
Anyways, then just fucking say you don't have free will, don't be so butthurt about it

[Anonymous No.14522884]

>>14522877
but muh feefees

[Anonymous No.14522885]

>>14522873
>no argument, just schizophrenic screeching
You can keep believing in your fairy tales anon. If you get too angry you can just leave the thread.

[Anonymous No.14522890]

>>14522829
>You are asking for a deterministic mechanism of something inherently nondeterministic

I, I am saying that determinism is a red herring, whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, I have no idea how that accounts for free will becuse free will is an inocherent concept, unless you mean "the freedom for me to do as I desire without constrainst," which doesnt mean it is "free" in the metaphysical sense, it just means "if I desire ot eat a baby, I eat a baby," the process that creates the desire could be deterministic or indeterministic.

Freedom and Servitude are the legal contraries.

Freedom is the natural power of doing as one wishes except as forbidden by law or by force.

Servitude, on the contrary, is when one is bound upon a covenant to do something or not to do it.

So, removing "law" in the sense of non-physical law, we are left with force, an overwhelming agency that cannot be resisted.

Freedom is the natural power of doing whatever is not prohibited by force.

Simple as.

[Anonymous No.14522893]

>>14522868
The irony is that you're the retard and don't see it

[Anonymous No.14522896]

>>14522885
you people are retards. Free will =/= making decisions. Artificial intelligence and primitive organisms make decisions all the time. Being conscious doesn’t give you free will, either. Perhaps you’d like to explain why that isn’t the case (you didn’t, you can’t, you won’t). This world is perfectly explainable without free will + illusion of free will. You can’t even define it

[Anonymous No.14522901]

>>14522875
>What is "you"?
I'm me. The person who is writing this post right now.
>Where is the border between "you" and the universe that only goes one way, YOU act upon the Universe, but the Universe does not act upon YOU?
Obviously it's a two way street. Universe acts on me and I act on the universe. I wouldn't exist without the universe.
>You are outside of the Universe? But that is nonsense.
Correct, you're stating nonsense. I don't know why though.
>see Richard Rorty
lol

[Anonymous No.14522905]

>>14522853
>Determinism is a mystical theological notion that nobody can ever provide a coherent definition of.

I'll agree to that, but I don't see how you can't also apply the same to free will. What is teh coherent definition of free will? What is the definition of "will"? and of "Free"?

[Anonymous No.14522907]

>>14522893
How is your notion of free will any more compatible with randomness than it is with determinism? If there are only two possibilities and it's incompatible with both, how is your notion of free will a coherent concept?

[Anonymous No.14522911]

>>14522877
>But you can not determine whether your choice was your own or already predetermined
You are the one to say huh?
>even this very discussion we're having and whatever we choose to write could be predetermined without your knowledge
Yeah we could totally be like uhhh brains in a vat bro... Maybe we're all marionettes controlled by aliens... Totally dude... It may all be an illusion dude...
>because there are no answers and all questions lead to nowhere, it's a waste of time and energy.
Only when you believe in schizophrenic mystical fairy tales like determinism.

[Anonymous No.14522912]

The universe is not deterministic, and there is no free will
We are trapped in the chaos

[Anonymous No.14522913]

>>14522855
>Modern physics is not deterministic.

This doesn't mean it supports free will, this is sort of using the incoherency or lack of evidence for determinism as a sort of back door to get free will.

Just because things are NOT deterministic is not evidence people have free will, it just means human behavior is indeterministic, like everything else.

[Anonymous No.14522917]

>>14522907
Free will is compatible with randomness.
>But how?
First answer how is determinism compatible with free will

[Anonymous No.14522919]

>>14522905
Free will = that thing that happens when you make choices. That's all there is to it. Some actions are my choice, others are not. Free will = those actions that are my choice. Nothing mystical or magical about it.

[Anonymous No.14522921]

>>14522917
>Free will is compatible with randomness.
What makes your notion of free will incompatible with determinism, but compatible with randomness?

[Anonymous No.14522923]

>>14522890
This is just word salad. Your definition is pseudointellectual gibberish and falls apart as soon as you are asked to justify it. You're still caught in the midwit definition game.

[Anonymous No.14522925]

>>14522911
You ignored his point completely. How do you KNOW that you aren’t living a predetermined life?

[Anonymous No.14522927]

>>14522864
>Please state your background in quantum mechanics before I decide whether it's worth wasting my time explaining such simple and well-known facts to you.

This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it really doesn't, this is just something that VERY bright, not arguing there, scientists do to save their folk-belief in the utterly metaphysical concept of freedom of the will.

Do humans have wills?
Do dogs have wills?
Do insects have wills?

Well, why does the planet not have a will?

The "free will" problem is basically a part of the whole vitalist dogma of humans and animals and plants having some "elan vital" or "esprit de corps": or other such thing that differentiates then at some fundamental level from rocks and gasses and fluids and whatever other forms of matter there be.

[Anonymous No.14522930]

>>14522919
Does AI have free will? What about dogs? Worms? What is a “choice” ? Following a desire?

[Anonymous No.14522931]

>>14522923
>This is just word salad.
It is just word salad. There is a bot operating ITT spouting barely coherent no-free-will rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.14522935]

>>14522919
This is the only definition of free will that makes any sense, as it is merely describing and observable deterministic phenomenon instead of trying to make up some fairy tale about "actually I made this choice all on my own based on nothing"

[Anonymous No.14522937]

>>14522864
>Please state your background in quantum mechanics

Also, please state your background in analytic philosophy before you play the role of schizophrenic physicist who goes

"BECAUSE T THERE IS FREE WILL!" where T is some scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.14522941]

>>14522921
If an entity existing in this world can be random (by having free will), then this world is not entirely deterministic
No problem with the world being random though, obviously

Now tell me (for the first time) HOW I'm wrong, I answered your question

[Anonymous No.14522942]

>>14522876
>Yep. You're not human, and neither are any of the other determinitards ITT. I thought it was severe autism, but now I see you'd fail a Winograd schema.

Presuming I am human and not some AI interacting w/ you over the Internet (which we could only prove by meeting up in meatspace, tho we could BOTH be AIs in that case, I guess) then you would be wrong about my being human, and also a great many things.

As far as I am aware, I am a human sitting on a desk, but it is conceptually possible you exist in the real world, and my perception of sitting at a desk writing to you is just how some sort of weird AI program "experiences itself," I think that is legit.

[Anonymous No.14522949]

>>14522935
>deterministic
Not yet grown out of the woo-woo, I see.
>"actually I made this choice all on my own based on nothing"
I'm pretty sure nobody believes this.

[Anonymous No.14522951]

Free willies probably believe in actual infinities too lmao

[Anonymous No.14522952]

>>14522941
>I answered your question
You didn't, but your post definitely confirms that there is a bot spamming this thread.

[Anonymous No.14522955]

>>14522951
Hilbert spaces

[Anonymous No.14522958]

>>14522930
>Does AI have free will?
Not any AI that I know of.
>What about dogs?
Sure.
>Worms?
In a way, sure.
>What is a “choice” ?
My intuition is that it's a notion that's kind of primitive, one which you cannot reduce to simpler concepts. Other examples include the concept of probability, of the past, of the future, of action, etc.
>Following a desire?
No. Sometimes I choose to do something that I don't desire.

[Anonymous No.14522959]

>>14522879
>Anyways, then just fucking say you don't have free will, don't be so butthurt about it

If he has no free will, he can't, he's gotta be conditioned ;)

[Anonymous No.14522963]

>>14522949
>I'm pretty sure nobody believes this.
Yes they do. They make a distinction between “I” and everything that forms the self. They claim that genetics, environment, laws of physics, desires, etc. only influence their decision-making process but ultimately the “I” makes the choice. If you ask them HOW they make choices they respond “because I can.”

[Anonymous No.14522967]

>>14522952
>ad hominem again
I knew it. You're an absolute moron whose sole idea that gets anal about the semantics of the word "free" makes him think that he is a misunderstood genius. Cringe and gay. Fuck off brainlet

[Anonymous No.14522969]

>>14522949
Yeah, most free will believers call it "God" or "a soul" but this is a science board so I'm using the scientific term for it.

[Anonymous No.14522970]

>>14522901
>Obviously it's a two way street. Universe acts on me and I act on the universe. I wouldn't exist without the universe.

Is the Universe exercising its free will when it acts on you? If not, then how is it that you have free will but the Universe does not?

[Anonymous No.14522974]

>>14522963
OP here and once again I submit that Occam razor is on your side and I'm more inclined not to believe in free will.

Yet all I said is that free will is not compatible with determinism, so I stay correct

[Anonymous No.14522976]

>>14522958
>Sometimes I choose to do something that I don't desire.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, you fucking retard. The fact that you did it means you desired it. This is such a low IQ mistake. You refuse to see the fact that you have MULTIPLE desires. You think that you avoided a desire for no reason, you don’t realize that you simply had a GREATER desire. If you have a desire to smoke, you can still have a desire not to smoke, because you desire health.

[Anonymous No.14522979]

>>14522589
>>14522587
ad hominem

[Anonymous No.14522978]

>>14522963
>They claim that genetics, environment, laws of physics, desires, etc. only influence their decision-making process
So it's not based on nothing then. You switched what you were talking about.
>but ultimately the “I” makes the choice
I believe this.
>you ask them HOW they make choices they respond “because I can.”
It's a pretty pointless question. What kind of answer do you expect?

[Anonymous No.14522982]

>>14522683
>But what is free will, exactly?
Freedom for external influence.
See https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/adults-with-autism-make-more-consistent-choices.html - normie mind has no homeostasis and can be tampered with in real time. Normies are at the mercy of tampering, while autists are free from such influence, that's how free will works.

[Anonymous No.14522985]

>>14522967
Call me back when they update your semantic analysis so that you can write vaguely coherent responses. If you are actually human, I'm appalled.

[Anonymous No.14522987]

>>14522937
"Analytic philosophy" is quite literally the most cringeworthy midwit NPC bullshit I've ever encountered. It is of no intellectual merit at all. Just a bunch of arrogant and simultaneously unintelligent larpers who are flinging shit over inconsistent definitions, claiming superiority and rigor even though they are even to dumb for the most fundamental math or science basics.

[Anonymous No.14522990]

>>14522970
>Is the Universe exercising its free will when it acts on you?
I don't believe the universe itself has agency. None of my interactions on earth so far lead me to believe that there is a grand unified agent in all of the universe. Parts of the universe have agency though, e.g. humans.
>If not, then how is it that you have free will but the Universe does not?
Idk. How is it that elephants are big and cats are small? I don't see a problem there.

[Anonymous No.14522989]

>>14522963
>All animals act on instinct except humans that can suppress instincts and create spaceships
>Appeals to nature
Retard

[Anonymous No.14522992]

>>14522912
>We are trapped in the chaos

Her name is Eris.

[Anonymous No.14522994]

>>14522963
our entire modern capitalist society is founded on the religious belief in the ego as an existing quasi-spiritual entity and the highest form of intelligence and thus the most important element of life

[Anonymous No.14522995]

>>14522978
Suppose two people had the same genetics, personality, environment, etc. Consider a simulation that allows this to occur. How could they not always make the same decision? What is it that ultimately DETERMINES your actions, if not for things outside of your control?

[Anonymous No.14522996]

>>14522992
As long as she's a giantess I'm all for it

[Anonymous No.14522998]

>>14522989
dogs can ignore instincts as well. It’s not magical woo-woo free will. It’s just a consequence of higher understanding, imagining a future based on your actions

[Anonymous No.14523000]

>>14522987
So, you're totally uneducated in the field then?

[Anonymous No.14523001]

>>14522985
>I'm too smart for you and don't want to waste my time with you but continue to waste my time with you
This is you. No arguments, full of flex

[Anonymous No.14523003]

>>14522919
>Free will = that thing that happens when you make choices.

And what causes your choices? The reason we have the free will debate is that for much of history people would have said your soul is why you have free will, and a rock has no soul,t herefore it has no free will.

Are you a religious person who believes you have a soul? That is a fine belief, but IMO it is only by positing something obviously unamenable to physics that free will "makes sense," it is a religious concept.

So, for example, you are caused to be hungry due to various hormones, an empty tummy, etc. etc. You choose to get up and go to the kitchen and bite an apple.

ARe you a compatibilist who says that even if this process is a deterministic, or indeterministic physical process, it is still free will, or are you some sort of epiphenomenalist who says it is completely outside of physics?

[Anonymous No.14523007]

>>14522995
>Consider a simulation that allows this to occur.
Well I believe if you run the same algorithm, you are going to get the same output no matter what. So it doesn't matter that the program is a simulation, as long as it's an algorithm, you will get the same result.
>What is it that ultimately DETERMINES your actions, if not for things outside of your control?
In cases where I make a free decision, then it is I that ultimately determines my action. Why should it be anything else? In other cases it's pretty clear that I'm under a strong influence of external circumstances.

[Anonymous No.14523011]

>>14522923
>Your definition is pseudointellectual gibberish

No, they're definitions from Bracton's Laws and Customs of England, the definitions of freedom and servitude.

Calling someone a midwit and their writing pseudointellectual gibberish is NOT an argument, it is a bad habit that some very smart people have.

Also, the whole issue of communication requires definition, if we're not using words to mean the same things, we are not communicating.

Now, why is communication possible? maybe it is not, that's a fair point. But I think you believe you are communicating...

[Anonymous No.14523012]

>>14523007
“I” is an ill-defined concept. You are composed of multiple parts, desires, thoughts, etc.

[Anonymous No.14523014]

>>14523003
If I told you to pick the number 94853958 or 774837584
Do you still think that this is influenced by your nature or it's completely random?

[Anonymous No.14523015]

>>14522931
>It is just word salad. There is a bot operating ITT spouting barely coherent no-free-will rhetoric.

How would you prove that I am a bot? Do you want to make a bet? How much money do you bet that I am a bot, and what proof would you accept that I am not?

If you were wrong about me being a bot, would you also accept you could be wrong about a great many things?

[Anonymous No.14523018]

>>14523015
If you say you don't have free will then by definition you're a bot

[Anonymous No.14523022]

>>14522594
What about your evidence? Many in the scientific community have made claims without evidence. For example, claiming that evolution is “fact.” Nobody has ever watched total species transformation because it supposedly takes “millions of years.” Fine, then there is no reason for me to believe in macroevolution. No evidence, no reason to believe. The same goes for the origin of the universe. The “big bang” is speculation without evidence. Those who say “the universe is eternal” share a similar problem. Again, no evidence, no reason to believe. People need to quit teaching pseudoscience like evolution. It’s not real. It does not exist.

[Anonymous No.14523023]

>>14522579
I'm not even going to lie, I got hit by the materialism/fatalism/determinism/existential blackpill bug pretty hard but the only real defense mechanism against that is to just think and think and think and eventually you will come across ideas that are not compatible with determinism.

[Anonymous No.14523024]

>>14522579
It is. You would understnd it if you understood continuums and infinities in general.
My free will is determined alright, but it's determined by me as well. The cells of mine, the ideas of mine, the inspirations of mine, by me piling up the good insentives determining my free will of the future me.
Even if what I'm doing is determined, it's not known until it's over, so I play this game as if I am pre-determined to succeed. It is much pleasant and smash this way.

[Anonymous No.14523025]

>>14523003
>And what causes your choices?
Me.
>The reason we have the free will debate is that for much of history people would have said your soul is why you have free will, and a rock has no soul,t herefore it has no free will.
I don't find a soul to be a helpful concept. I don't believe rocks have any agency.
>Are you a religious person who believes you have a soul?
No I'm a strict atheist. Rejection of determinism is part of my rejection of theological belief.
>That is a fine belief, but IMO it is only by positing something obviously unamenable to physics that free will "makes sense," it is a religious concept.
It's the very opposite of a religious concept. It's simply giving a name to a phenomenon that I directly observe every day.
>ARe you a compatibilist who says that even if this process is a deterministic
I don't believe any large things are deterministic, except in very particular instances and in short time periods (the things we actually use the sciences to successfully predict).
> or indeterministic physical process
Yes I believe my free will is a natural physical process.
>epiphenomenalist who says it is completely outside of physics
I don't see any a priori reason why you couldn't use something like physics to analyze the phenomenon of free will. However I'm pretty sure whatever laws of descriptions you find, they won't be deterministic, unless you assume very strong unprovabla/religious idealism.

[Anonymous No.14523029]

>>14523000
>if someone criticizes my bullshit she must be uneducated
The most stale and stereotypical philosotard response. In his unlimited arrogance + ignorance the philosotard considers himself to be the infallible pinnacle of intellectualism. It is simple impossible in his world view that someone smarter and more educated than him would disagree with him. No, this can never be. Anyone who dares to disagree must be uneducated. Or else the philosotard would be forced to listen to arguments and address them, which he can't, because he never thought for himself but merely worships some texts by old white men his professors told him were authorities.

[Anonymous No.14523032]

>>14523012
And yet those desires, thoughts form a unity. There is an I that recognizes my past and future actions and ascribes agency to them. This concept of an I is helpful to myself in understanding my world and to others in understanding my behavior. It's a perfectly natural and useful concept.

[Anonymous No.14523033]

>>14522987
>even though they are even to dumb for the most fundamental math or science basics.

lol, the development of analytic philosophy was mostly by people who were qualified mathematicians in addition to being philosophers, tho they would often call themselves philosophers

I just want to be clear, you are disposing of the whole of analytic philosophy, and you are suggesting that free will is better explained by science and mathematics? Jesus Christ what a sperg.

[Anonymous No.14523034]

>the people saying they don't have free will are calling everyone else bots
The irony

[Anonymous No.14523038]

>>14522990
>How is it that elephants are big and cats are small? I don't see a problem there.

Well, they both have extension, take up space.

You are suggesting some sort of "quantum leap" from man to rock, which is what I have trouble even understanding, what you mean by "free will," leaving aside the question of determinism or indeterminism.

[Anonymous No.14523039]

>>14523011
Requiring definitions for every word of natural language is a sign of autism (a cognitive impairment) and is a futile endeavour.

[Anonymous No.14523042]

>>14522758
Compatibilism is the null hypothesis. On the first sight nothing prevents it, and nobody found anything that could prevent it. Incompatibilists never even managed to explain what they mean, so I'm not sure their beliefs even compete at all.

[Anonymous No.14523045]

>>14522996
>As long as she's a giantess I'm all for it
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html

[Anonymous No.14523048]

>>14523045
That's really long fren. Is she a giantess or not? I want to live inside her tummy

[Anonymous No.14523049]

>free will vs determinism

Such a pseud topic to argue about.

[Anonymous No.14523050]

a weird thing about determinism is that it actually points to an afterlife. if thoughts are physically real and are affected by cause and effect then they must physically do something post-mortem if all things are dictated by cause and effect.

[Anonymous No.14523053]

>>14523014
>Do you still think that this is influenced by your nature or it's completely random?

By my nature, what do you mean?

Where do I stop and the rest of the universe begins?

[Anonymous No.14523054]

>>14523032
It’s not a unity, it’s highly fragmented. You are just pure awareness, if anything. You exist without thoughts, or desires, or a body. You do not act.

[Anonymous No.14523055]

>>14523033
>I just want to be clear, you are disposing of the whole of analytic philosophy,
Yes.
>and you are suggesting that free will is better explained by science and mathematics?
No.

Please learn to read. It's cringe to see your strawmen.

[Anonymous No.14523056]

>>14523018
>If you say you don't have free will then by definition you're a bot

Well, I could be lying to get you stuck, couldn't I? Like, it is just the utterance that makes me a bot? Why can't I just be fucking with you?

So you are using "bot" to mean something colloquial like "NPC" not a literal computer program interacting w/ you via the internet, but having no body made of meat?

[Anonymous No.14523057]

>>14523049
It's not our fault you can't think for yourself and thus can't argue on topics that you weren't spoonfed in uni

[Anonymous No.14523058]

>>14523050
and I refuse to believe information in your mind just dissipates into heat energy or some crap like that.

[Anonymous No.14523062]

>>14523057
t. buttmad pseudy midwit

[Anonymous No.14523064]

Determinism and free will can't exist on the same causal regime, but our conscious experience spans two regimes.
The universe is technically deterministic but actually mutable because it isn't self-contained. We perceive a deterministic universe, but that's because any edits to the universe are retroactive.

[Anonymous No.14523065]

>>14523015
>How would you prove that I am a bot?
It's hilarious that you think I need to "prove" something to you or your likes.

[Anonymous No.14523066]

>>14523038
>Well, they both have extension, take up space.
I was illustrating a point. That was a rhetorical question.
>You are suggesting some sort of "quantum leap" from man to rock, which is what I have trouble even understanding
I don't understand. What's the leap?
>what you mean by "free will," leaving aside the question of determinism or indeterminism.
By free will I mean having agency. That means there is an I that makes a choice, a coherent unified agent that's not purely a product of external circumstances. Ultimately I think the agent has to define the boundary of agency itself. If an agent doesn't recognize it has agency, then it doesn't actually have agency.

[Anonymous No.14523072]

>>14523025
>No I'm a strict atheist. Rejection of determinism is part of my rejection of theological belief.

I've already said that determinism or indeterminism is a red herring.

What do you mean by free will? Agency is tied up in responsibility, it is basically a legal concept, like freedom.

If I hit an oil slick and run over an old lady, we dont say I had agency in running her over. If I just see her and decide to hit the gas, I do. So, how is it not that that in the latter case, your mind is the functional equivalent of an oil slick?

[Anonymous No.14523074]

>>14523053
>"So, for example, you are caused to be hungry due to various hormones, an empty tummy, etc. etc. You choose to get up and go to the kitchen and bite an apple."
This is what I mean by your nature. It's what you wrote to explain how free will can not be free will
So, answer, if you were to pick some number do you think it can be explained with nature
If you once again pretend not to understand nature I will find you and poke your eyes out

[Anonymous No.14523075]

>>14523029
>Or else the philosotard would be forced to listen to arguments and address them

I have not seen one argument here for free will, all I have seen is repeating gibberish about how people who dont believe in it are stupid.

[Anonymous No.14523078]

>>14523062
Of us, only one has been able to bring forward arguements on the subject

[Anonymous No.14523079]

>>14523066
There is no “I”

There are only desires, thoughts, the body. Anything you can perceive is not you. You are awareness itself. Even without desires or thoughts or choices, you still exist. An NPC has just as much free will as you. The only difference is that the NPC isn’t conscious.

[Anonymous No.14523082]

>>14523029
>merely worships some texts by old white men his professors told him were authorities.
This immediately outs you as having a personal vendetta and not actually caring about learning
Many philosophers were not white

[Anonymous No.14523085]

>>14522801
>Free will is an incoherent concept
It isn't. It means that an agent/observer's decisions are not determined by a deterministic causal chain of antecedent events going back to the initiation of the universe and that there are multiple possible future outcomes. And so you would have an aspect of agent causality. Perhaps you would have a system of a deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolving superposition of possible outcomes in which an observer can choose and bring about probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change and create information of the eigenvalue of that particular state at which time, after a collapse to an outcome, the reality is governed once again by the wave equation of possible outcomes again. Then you can have both a sort of determinism and also agent causation which is not pre-determined. Come to think of it, that is exactly how this universe works. And you can see that the reason for creating a reality that is fundamentally probabilistic is exactly because it is conducive to agent causation and free will. And this includes in to the past as well by the way, as was shown in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. That is to say, the past, as long as it is consistent with the now, is also rendered probabilistically in a retro-causal way as well. Also this
>And even if you could not, e.g. true randomness existed, and it were not possible to predict how a die would land (tho I have trouble seeing how this is true, if you allow for the problem to be something like "based on observing a die 10ms before its bottom edge is parallel to the table, can you observe how it will land?" to which the obvious answer is yes) this would in no way allow for "free will," it might allow for "indeterministic will," e.g. it would be impossible to predict what a thing or body would do next, but that isnt free will either.
is irrelevant to the idea of free will and the question of if there are multiple possible future outcomes.

[Anonymous No.14523086]

>>14523078
>muh arguments

Noone cares, turbovirgin.

[Anonymous No.14523087]

>>14523039
>Requiring definitions for every word of natural language is a sign of autism (a cognitive impairment) and is a futile endeavour.

Well, you def. run into metalogical problems in terms of the definition of definition.

I am not asking for a definition of every word of natural language, I am asking for a definition of the term free will.

I have no idea what you mean by it, other than that "there is some physical process in my body that causes me to choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla," not something like "I could have chosen vanilla, but instead I chose chocolate."

If you just mean you have a physical process and you think it is confined to your body, and that is "Free will," that is OK, but then you get the problem of forces acting at a distance and diminishing along a gradient, there is no distance at which there is ZERO interaction, it is just that at a distance those interactions are too weak to overcome closer interactions.

The moon is tugging on you right now, no matter where it is, but not enough to pull you through the earth if it is opposite you, or up into space if it is over you. Same for Pluto, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.14523088]

>>14523082
Name three black female philosophers.

[Anonymous No.14523089]

>>14523072
>What do you mean by free will?
Probably what you think I mean. Agency, ability to make choices etc.
>Agency is tied up in responsibility, it is basically a legal concept, like freedom
I agree. There is a legal aspect, and a philosophical aspect, and a personal aspect to it.
>So, how is it not that that in the latter case, your mind is the functional equivalent of an oil slick?
Because the mind often has reasons for its choices and can be influenced. It would make no sense to prosecute an oil slick.

[Anonymous No.14523094]

>>14523086
A literal retard lmao

[Anonymous No.14523099]

>>14523087
>a physical process that causes me
Nope. Free will is uncaused self-determinacy.

[Anonymous No.14523103]

>>14523086
>muh dick
Go back to /pol

[Anonymous No.14523104]

>>14523088
Irrelevant. There were many middle eastern and east asian philosophers, a lack of black female philosophers doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.14523107]

>>14523042
>Incompatibilists never even managed to explain what they mean, so I'm not sure their beliefs even compete at all.

This is a very jaundiced view, and, again, it is not an argument.

If you believe rocks and rivers dont have free will, the burden is on you to explain why you are somehow qualitatively different from a collection of very tiny rocks, fed by rivers.

The solid part of your body is "rock"
The liquid part is "river"
The gasses you inhale are dissolved into the river, delivered to the rock.

What is difficult about this?

The only way you could save your belief is something like primitive animism, a fairly common indigenous belief, e.g. 'the river has a will, that is why it flows the way it does.'

[Anonymous No.14523108]

>>14523079
>There is no “I”
>Anything you can perceive is not you
>there is no I but there is you
How do you square those two?

[Anonymous No.14523110]

>>14523048
>That's really long fren. Is she a giantess or not? I want to live inside her tummy

Just read it all, it will get you right with Goddess.

[Anonymous No.14523111]

>>14522579
I still haven't heard a good argument for them being incompatible

[Anonymous No.14523112]

>>14523104
You just did a racism.

[Anonymous No.14523115]

>>14523055
>Please learn to read. It's cringe to see your strawmen.

This is basically the entire argument offered by everyone arguing for free will.

"cringe, look at this guy!"

It's like getting uncomfortable when any religious dogma is challenged.

Free will is a religious dogma.

Adam could have ignored Eve, but instead he CHOSE to follow his wife instead of GOD!

Etc. etc.

It is inherently legalistic, aka bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14523119]

>>14523065
>It's hilarious that you think I need to "prove" something to you or your likes.

I didn;'t say you "need" to, I just asked how you would prove it.

[Anonymous No.14523121]

>>14523115
>le religion strawman
Take your meds, schizo. Nobody mentioned religion.

[Anonymous No.14523124]

>>14522853
Determinism is when the motion of a system is derived from the starting state, i.e. no new causal chains.

[Anonymous No.14523125]

>>14523111
1. Free will means that the only possible explanation of a person's action involves the notion of that person's agency, their "I".
2. If determinism is true, a much better, parsimonious explanation is that the action was done because it was determined that way much before he had even existed, and it was always going to be that way.
3. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will.

[Anonymous No.14523128]

>>14523066
>Ultimately I think the agent has to define the boundary of agency itself. If an agent doesn't recognize it has agency, then it doesn't actually have agency.

This sounds like agency is a psychological disposition which can be explained in terms of medicine, neurology, etc. I still don't understand how you have agency but a basketball doesn't. because you are the configuration of atoms (or elementary particles in the standard model) that is configured tom have agency and a basketball does not? Where is the line?

Do bacteria have agency? DO viruses?

Is a sperm exercising agency when it fertilizes an egg?

[Anonymous No.14523130]

>>14523108
I mean there is no I that makes choices. Yes I’m aware I’m using “I” right now, but it is convenient language. I do nothing, I am not the body.
>the words I speak to you I speak not of myself, rather it is the Father who works in me

[Anonymous No.14523131]

>>14523125
One premise is vague, the other is pure drivel, and the conclusion doesn't follow in any case. Well done, trog.

[Anonymous No.14523134]

>>14523074
>If you once again pretend not to understand nature I will find you and poke your eyes out

If by nature you mean my material constitution, e.g. that I have hemoglobin and DNA and lungs and a heart, and that I respire, obviously my nature is a precondition for a choice, and that would be why a basketball cannot choose.

I still don't see how any of this means my choice is a product of free will rather than physiology.

And if it is physiology which organ or organs are responsible for free will?

[Anonymous No.14523135]

>>14523128
It's sad to hear that you as an NPC have no more agency than a basketball. Rest assured though that there are other people who have more agency.

[Anonymous No.14523136]

>>14523131
How?

[Anonymous No.14523141]

>>14523112
I'm sure there were black women philosophers back then. Off my head Kimberlé Crenshaw is a modern philosopher that came up with CRT.
In terms of the ancient masters, the greeks and romans up and through the enlightenment, it was mostly white dudes, but then there were also white women too.
Anyway ultimately the point of studying past philosophers is that they were not in fact ignorant to the world and most likely any thought you have has already been thought by them and thoroughly analyzed and discussed. It's faster for you to just read what they say and learn from it than to pretend that you're smarter than them (you're not) or that you will think of something that they havent already thought of (you won't)

[Anonymous No.14523147]

>>14523136
In the most direct and simple sense.

[Anonymous No.14523150]

>>14523134
>Continues his intellectual dishonesty
I will find you and I will slowly kill you

[Anonymous No.14523154]

>>14523128
>This sounds like agency is a psychological disposition which can be explained in terms of medicine, neurology, etc.
Maybe it can, maybe it can't.
> I still don't understand how you have agency but a basketball doesn't.
Basketball's behavior is perfectly predictable. Nobody is ever surprised by what a basketball does.
>because you are the configuration of atoms (or elementary particles in the standard model) that is configured tom have agency and a basketball does not?
Yes.
>Where is the line?
Somewhere between myself and a basketball. Interesting fact: if I cut a hole in a basketball and put it on my head, I will still have agency.
>Do bacteria have agency? DO viruses?
In a sense, sure. Though I think they're much more predictable than humans.
>Is a sperm exercising agency when it fertilizes an egg?
Same.
I think though that maybe if I speak of agency I would like it to mean that there's a mind behind it.

[Anonymous No.14523155]

>>14523147
Lol. Nice try brainlet. Next time you come to play scientist actually form a real rebuttal with arguments

[Anonymous No.14523157]

>>14522772
the river creates its enbankment by moving away the earth of lesser will
rain descends from the heavens when it has grown sick of watching from afar
and after some time it will evaporate to return

[Anonymous No.14523159]

>>14523085
>.
>is irrelevant to the idea of free will and the question of if there are multiple possible future outcomes.

Multiple possible future outcomes, which I take to mean "indeterminism" does not provide for free will, it simply means that we cannot predict whether or not a basketball will go through a hope at time t, based on the starting conditions of the universe, even if we know them.

This could be a problem of computability, e.g. there is only one possibility, but there is no way to compute it, or it is that there are multiple possibilities, but we cannot know which one will happen until it does.

Any time you are trying to do this

"Free will is demonstrated by T" where T is a science experiment, you are just, IMO, failing to understand the problem.

"It means that an agent/observer's decisions are not determined by a deterministic causal chain of antecedent events going back to the initiation of the universe and that there are multiple possible future outcomes."

If this is what you mean by free will, this simply means the present is not computable from the past, even if we know 100% of the facts about the past, it doesn't mean the future has any component of free will.

But, again, if we lack free will, it is not possible for any of us to choose what we believe, so this is, IMO, a good sort of collateral argument for why none of us can convince the other, it is because we dont really have the capacity to go "oh, that is a good argument, I will believe it."

We're either conviced or we're not.

[Anonymous No.14523162]

>>14523130
>I mean
>I'm aware
>I do nothing
>I am not
>there is no I
Sorry bro but I genuinely don't understand you. Your statements seem obviously contradictory to me. Like how can you freely use the word I as a subject in a sentence and simultaneously deny that you exist?

[Anonymous No.14523169]

>>14523089
>Agency, ability to make choices etc.

Again, if by choice you mean e.g. blackboard, and different wavelengths of light reflect off its various parts, so that I see

"HAMBURGER, $5" in white on black, and
"HOT DOG, $2.50" in white on black

And I have $3 in my pocket, and those photons hit my retinas, and then are turned into some process in my brain, and I think "well, I cannot afford a hamburger, so I choose a hot dog" then I fail to see how this cannot be explained completely by physiology, physics of light in the atmosphere, etc. etc.

Is there some organ responsible for free will, such that you have it, but a basketball doesn't?

[Anonymous No.14523171]

>>14523099
>uncaused self-determinacy.

OK, so there is some rupture with the physical world, and even the physiological, because it is pretty well established that i could put two IVs in you, one giving you barbiturate, one amphetamine, and your choices would def be pretty well influenced by that.

[Anonymous No.14523172]

>>14523155
>form a real rebuttal
The rebuttal is that your premises are asinine garbage and your conclusion doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.14523175]

>>14523169
>baiting him to say brain
I know what you're doing
I'll find you

[Anonymous No.14523176]

>>14522801
So with regards to this
>>14523085
A world not designed for freewill would not have a wave function of possible outcomes. Or you could do the ultimate attempt at denial of the collapse of the wave function and the role of the observer and attempt to keep a universal, deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolving isolated reality, as everett did, and try to explain away the collapse postulate. Then you are forced to postulate infinite numbers of universes. By the way, consciousness is not 'in' the physical world, and so consciousness does not have to be bound by you ideas about if the physical world is deterministic of probabilistic. People get confused because we are given a first person shooter view by our consciousness. But in fact, the physical world is in our consciousness and we interface through immersion. But this immersion shouldn't be confused with being 'in' some kind of observer independent objective space time material world. Space time is virtual and emergent from processing by consciousness. It isn't fundamental.

[Anonymous No.14523177]

>>14523121
>Take your meds, schizo. Nobody mentioned religion.

The "will" and "life" are inherently religious concepts, and I presume one thinks humans only have free will when alive, no?

Or does free will persist into heaven?

[Anonymous No.14523181]

>>14523172
You can not explain how and why, you have no rebuttal. That's not how scientific discourse is done.

[Anonymous No.14523182]

>>14523169
>s there some organ responsible for free will, such that you have it, but a basketball doesn't?
Yes. A brain.
>, and then are turned into some process in my brain, and I think "well, I cannot afford a hamburger, so I choose a hot dog" then I fail to see how this cannot be explained completely by physiology, physics of light in the atmosphere, etc. etc.
Well it can be explained post hoc, but I don't think it can be accurately predicted. You can take any measurements of my brain and whatever initial conditions you want, and at the end of the day, I think you won't be able to predict my actions more than 5 minutes in the future, as long as I know that you're trying to predict my actions (so we disregard cases where I simply sleep, and you predicted that I sleep).

[Anonymous No.14523183]

>>14523182
Now he is going to ask you to explain how does the brain form a decision, to which you will not be able to respond and he will invalidate your human experience of free will by saying that because you don't know how a choice is formed then how can you claim to understand free will

He is so predictable

[Anonymous No.14523188]

>>14523162
the mind is not me. Through custom, the word “I” is used. The Self is not some sort of sum of parts, and it has nothing to do with the desires, mind, or body.

[Anonymous No.14523189]

>>14523135
>Rest assured though that there are other people who have more agency.

Most people who know me would say I exercise quite a bit of agency---but I what you are calling agency doesnt require any sort of free will to explain.

Let's say Mr. Jones goes to work at a factory every day, for 20 years making widgets. Then he sees a poster advertising something called an "Acid Test." He goes and sees a sign in front of a plate of sugar cubes that says "EAT ONE OR TWO MANY." He eats two and starts dancing, and he makes out with a couple of women, and then he goes and walks around until the morning comes, and then he falls asleep in a park.

Then he gets up, stops shaving, stops having his hair cut, buys a VW bus and starts following the acid tests around.

This is clearly a RUPTURE in Mr. Jones's historical routine, but is it not caused by his eating those "two many" sugar cubes?

So it seems drugs can influence what you're gonna call agency, so, again, I am confused as to how you say 'that is agency' vs. 'that is a drug's effect' (or a neurotransmitter, Leary called LSD a neurotransmitter).

So did LSD give Jones more agency? Let's say after he took that trip, he was far more varied in his activity. Unlike a basketball that predictably follows a path into a hoop, he just wont be pinned down now.

I think you are confusing unpredictability with agency.

[Anonymous No.14523192]

>>14523125
i disagree with your definition of free will, but I'll yield that for the sake of argument.
>if determinism is true ... determined that way much before he existed
this doesnt follow. Specifically, determinism to my knowledge doesnt preclude the notion of a event depending on causally disconnected chains. Consider the Free Will as a causally disconnected chain (a second parameter to time, `choice` if you will) which the event depends upon, and you maintain determinism.
>3.
invalidated

[Anonymous No.14523193]

>>14523181
>You can not explain how and why
I don't need to explain anything. You make unsubstantiated statements and then draw a conclusion which doesn't even follow. What is there to explain?

[Anonymous No.14523195]

>>14523150
>I will find you and I will slowly kill you

So are you saying there is no organ responsible for free will?
But certainly if you kill me, that terminates my free will, does it not?

[Anonymous No.14523197]

>>14523188
>The Self is not some sort of sum of parts, and it has nothing to do with the desires, mind, or body.
You do have desires, mind and a body, don't you?

[Anonymous No.14523198]

>>14523154
>Nobody is ever surprised by what a basketball does.

I think you would find that is just not the case. The basketball player thinks he has made the perfect shot but, DAMN IT, it hits the rim and they lose the Championship.

>Do bacteria have agency? DO viruses?
>>In a sense, sure. Though I think they're much more predictable than humans.

Yes, this is why I think youa re suggesting that free will is just another term for unpredictability, and I can't see how unpredictability makes you different from a basketball.

[Anonymous No.14523201]

>>14523193
You're an ordinary moron
>>14523195
I know very well what you're doing and I'm not willing to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, is intellectually dishonest and is a little troll

[Anonymous No.14523203]

>>14523197
I do not “have” a mind. I am aware of thoughts, and desires, and experiences, and a body.

[Anonymous No.14523204]

>>14523157
>the river creates its enbankment by moving away the earth of lesser will
>rain descends from the heavens when it has grown sick of watching from afar
>and after some time it will evaporate to return

This is at least sorta poetic.

[Anonymous No.14523206]

>>14523189
>my schizophrenic fantasies about imaginary characters prove something

[Anonymous No.14523207]

>>14523201
Why are you seething, brainlet? Feel free to substantiate your premises and fill in the gaps in what is plainly and self-evidently a nonsequitur.

[Anonymous No.14523208]

>>14523175
>I know what you're doing
>I'll find you

Will that be an exercise of free will, or are you like some immune cell trying to suppress the Clear Light? =]

[Anonymous No.14523210]

>>14523141
>Anyway ultimately the point of studying past philosophers is that they were not in fact ignorant to the world and most likely any thought you have has already been thought by them and thoroughly analyzed and discussed. It's faster for you to just read what they say and learn from it than to pretend that you're smarter than them (you're not) or that you will think of something that they havent already thought of (you won't)
This is wrong though. I am in fact smarter than those retards. Whenever I read philosophy, it's either trivial or cringe. I have yet to see any philosophical argument that convinces me and I haven't thought of myself.

[Anonymous No.14523214]

>>14523210
I don't care about you making shit up anon.
You are not smart and you do not come up with novel ideas. Pretending you do on 4chan isn't impressive.

[Anonymous No.14523219]

>>14523159
>Multiple possible future outcomes, which I take to mean "indeterminism" does not provide for free wil
Not in itself. But it takes away one of the tenets commonly used to try and deny the possibility of free will, which is the idea that physical events were set forth at the foundation of the universe in a deterministic, event causal fashion according to initial conditions and only one outcome was ever possible. You need multiple possible future outcomes for freewill. We have that. There is a reason for that. The creator seems SPECIFICALLY interested in the decisions of observers.
>This could be a problem of computability, e.g. there is only one possibility, but there is no way to compute it, or it is that there are multiple possibilities, but we cannot know which one will happen until it does.
This explains why it is
On testing the simulation theory

Abstract:
Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this question based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite
(i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a
system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that
information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of
detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection
would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality
server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe
conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

[Anonymous No.14523221]

>>14523171
There is no rupture with the physical world. The effects of uncaused self-determinacy are very physical. There is only a rupture with determinism, which is by far no law but merely an NPC cope. And medically putting the body to sleep doesn't refute the fact that some persons do have agency when awake. Your take is as retarded as holding a stone with your arms over your head and shouting "See? It doesn't fall down. Gravity disproved!"

[Anonymous No.14523226]

>>14523176
>Space time is virtual and emergent from processing by consciousness. It isn't fundamental.

Yeah, this is basically substituting "consciousness" for "GOD."

You could also say "hallucination."

You are what is called in philosophy an "idealist," a fairly radical one, IMO.

>By the way, consciousness is not 'in' the physical world

This is called epiphenomenalism. It is very difficult to explain how the epiphenomenon of mind/consciousness interacts with the physical world, e.g. to cause you to say "I want a vanilla ice cream." But you have explained that away by putting the idea/consciousness/mind FIRST, with space/time being an emergent property of mind'/consciousness.

IMO this is true of things like colour, but not of shape.

Colour is indeed all in the mind, nothing has a natural colour, there is no reason that X nM needs to be perceived as red any more than a hot bath needs to "feel hot."

So the colour of a basin is virtual and emergent from processing by consciousness (tho I think tat is a physical process, a non-physical, non-spatial process is just difficult for me to understand) but the volume of the basin is not.

I don't think it is an emergent property of a basin that holds 1L that if I put a 1L lead mass into it, it displaces all of the water. But how I perceive the colour of the lead/basin, and perhaps even how I "feel" them is.

[Anonymous No.14523228]

>>14523177
There is nothing religious about fundamental properties of the universe. Or would you also say the collapse of the wave function or the expansion of the universe is a "religious concept"?

[Anonymous No.14523229]

>>14523198
>es, this is why I think youa re suggesting that free will is just another term for unpredictabilit
Cards on the table, I don't think free will is a perfectly clear notion that can be asked about any object does it have free will or not. There are two aspects of free will that I care about. First, it's the free will as a personally observable phenomenon where some actions are a product of my choice and others are not. I have agency over some things and not others. The second is a philosophical aspect, which for me is basically the question of determinism. Is determinism true? I see no reason to believe in it, apart from blind faith.
But if we're trying to be more general about what we mean by free will, I think there's definitely more to it than just unpredictability. Ultimately I think what it comes down to for me is that a thing has free will if I can imagine being that thing and influencing things by making decisions. I cannot possibly imagine what it's like being a basketball, therefore I see no reason to think it has free will.

[Anonymous No.14523232]

>>14523183
>he will invalidate your human experience of free will

This is probably the best argument for free will you could offer, it is called a phenomenological argument.

Similar arguments are offered for colour. I don't believe things have colors, I believe they reflect wavelengths of light, which are interpretted into colours by the brain. That is why if you take drugs that have their activity in the brain, the colours of things can change.

>He is so predictable

One possible reason for this is that what I am saying is accurate, like, if I were saying "rain falls down from the sky and the ground gets wet when it rains," that would be something you would predict most people capable of clear thought would say.

[Anonymous No.14523236]

>>14523189
>Let's say Mr Jones
Nope. Not gonna read this chatbot-like babble. Wanna make an argument? Make it concise. This isn't your middle school creative writing class.

[Anonymous No.14523237]

>>14523197
>You do have desires, mind and a body, don't you?

What is the difference between the mind and the body?

[Anonymous No.14523242]

>>14523201
>I'm not willing to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith

lol, this was the go-to of a philosophy prof at my uni who some fellow faculty literally called "evil."

"I can't argue against you, but, uh, my intuition is you're arguing in bad faith, so I am no longer interested."

What do you mean by honest, anyway?

Can you find me an honest man?

[Anonymous No.14523243]

>>14523206
>>my schizophrenic fantasies about imaginary characters prove something

It is called a thought experiment, Mr. Jones.

You raise up your head and you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says, "It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?" and somebody else says, "Well, what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
But something is happening and you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we37yX3zpKA

[Anonymous No.14523244]

>>14523214
Philosotards are not smart and never come up with nontrivial ideas. It doesn't even take much intelligence to see through their bullshit. There's quite a lot of stuff I don't understand in research level math, so I'm by far not the smartest person in the world. But philosophy was always trivial to me.

[Anonymous No.14523247]

>>14523210
>I have yet to see any philosophical argument that convinces me and I haven't thought of myself.

This was mostly my experience doing a whole philosophy degree--I have a bit of money from my family, so I did the degree as a sort of anthropological exercise, because philosophers were fascinating characters.

Most of the problems of philosophy were things my friends and I talked about between the ages of 13-16 over lunch in highschool, and we basically settled on some of them being bullshit (free will) or physical in nature, e.g. colour perception.

Perhaps philosophy is a way to train developmentally disabled children to do what functional ppl do by untrained habit,.

[Anonymous No.14523249]

>>14523237
you can perceive products of the mind without the eyes. I could perceive seeing the brain in the body, but the mind itself is perceived without the eyes

[Anonymous No.14523255]

>>14523244
>Philosotards are not smart and never come up with nontrivial ideas.
Give a single example of you coming up with an argument against some philosophers idea, that wasn't already raised by another philosopher.
Give an example of specific idea in philosophy that you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14523256]

>>14523219
>You need multiple possible future outcomes for freewill

That would be necessary, but not sufficient.

>The creator seems SPECIFICALLY interested in the decisions of observers.

OK, you are religious. I would say free will is a theological concept, and theology is a valid branch of academic scholarship.

The highest degree at Oxford is Divinity (theology) followed by Law, followed by Medicine, followed by the various subordinate disciplines.

Kant's Conflict of the Faculties is an interesting read on this, as is Derrida's reply in Mochlos.

[Anonymous No.14523258]

>>14523226
>Colour is indeed all in the mind, nothing has a natural colour
this is just factually inaccurate. Color is a measurement of the distribution of photons along the wavelengths of visual light in a given area, purely physical.
>there is no reason that X nM needs to be perceived as red any more than a hot bath needs to "feel hot."
Hot is also not arbitrary at all, feeling heat is a result of kinetic energy being transferred into the system. This is also purely physical and real, so yes it needs to feel hot.
>So the colour of a basin is virtual and emergent from processing by consciousness (tho I think tat is a physical process, a non-physical, non-spatial process is just difficult for me to understand) but the volume of the basin is not.
all of these are equally fundamental quantities to the basin
>I don't think it is an emergent property of a basin that holds 1L that if I put a 1L lead mass into it, it displaces all of the water. But how I perceive the colour of the lead/basin, and perhaps even how I "feel" them is.
the qualia are not the things they measure or communicate, that doesn't mean that color or heat aren't real. Just like Time, everyone says it's fake; it just isn't what you think it is.

[Anonymous No.14523267]

>>14523219
>Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this question based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite

I saw a lecture by David Chalmers many years ago, and my first year epistemology prof Bill Boos made a comment just like this, re: finitary/infinitary problems with what he had said. Bill had a PhD in math AND in philosophy, great guy, died unexpectedly and never made tenure because he always ran up against ppl like the guys here trying to go "jeez, of coruse free will exists, what a midwit!"

But with him they couldn't do that, because he had two PhDs, they just sort of ignored him.

[Anonymous No.14523269]

>>14523221
>The effects of uncaused self-determinacy are very physical

Well, even if I gived you uncaused will, how does this uncaused will interact with the physical world? Is it localized in the brain?

[Anonymous No.14523276]

>>14523228
>There is nothing religious about fundamental properties of the universe

There is no universe, nothing contains everything.

This is provable if you accept the axioms of extension and specification, see Halmos's book on Naive Set Theory.

[Anonymous No.14523277]

>>14523243
>It is called a thought experiment
Call your schizophrenic fantasies what you like, but you never even approached making an actual point.

[Anonymous No.14523281]

>>14523229
>First, it's the free will as a personally observable phenomenon where some actions are a product of my choice and others are not. I have agency over some things and not others.

Sure, but this is, sort of at least partly physiology.

You have agency over choosing what flavor of ice cream you eat, you have no agency over choosing whether Russia invades Ukraine, and this is because there is no physiological mechanism for you to control the latter.

>The second is a philosophical aspect, which for me is basically the question of determinism

As I have said, I think this is a red herring, whether determinism or indeterminism is the case, I still dont see how either one support "free will."

> I think what it comes down to for me is that a thing has free will if I can imagine being that thing and influencing things by making decisions

I don't belive in free will, but I make decisions (there are processes in my brain) that influence things, e.g. I decide to go for a walk, so it influences other people, e.g. they see me walking.

[Anonymous No.14523287]

>>14523229
>Ultimately I think what it comes down to for me is that a thing has free will if I can imagine being that thing and influencing things by making decisions. I cannot possibly imagine what it's like being a basketball, therefore I see no reason to think it has free will.

One interesting idea is that delusional ideas like God, free will, etc. self-deception is actually beneficial for survival, there's no reason truth is necessarily optimal for survival.

[Anonymous No.14523291]

>>14523281
>As I have said, I think this is a red herring, whether determinism or indeterminism is the case, I still dont see how either one support "free will."
Neither support free will, but determinism goes against free will.
>I don't belive in free will, but I make decisions (there are processes in my brain) that influence things,
Don't you mean the universe and laws of physics make decisions for your body? What part of it do you have?

[Anonymous No.14523293]

>>14523236
>Not gonna read this chatbot-like babble. Wanna make an argument? Make it concise. This isn't your middle school creative writing class.


If you're not reading it, you have no idea it is chatbot like babble, that's a contradiction, you cant say what something is without reading it.

I think the guy who accused me of arguing in bad faith knew how to do this in a more academic fashion ;)

[Anonymous No.14523295]

>>14523247
Academic philosophy is but sophistry, there's no possible way the industry workers could fail to be aware of this as the difference between sophistry and philosophy is from Plato which I would think is one of the first classes they'd take, once investing years into a degree however if they had no family connections for a job they'd have no choice but to earn a living somehow, by taking up the reigns and perpetuating the system of sophist presentation of empty old philosophical writings in exchange for an increasingly extortionate tuition fee.

[Anonymous No.14523300]

>>14522579
I always find the problem here is an inconsistent definition of "free will".
Of course in a naturalistic universe governed by math there is no free will in the sense that our decisions, given the exact same circumstance, are predetermined.
The way "free will" might colloquially be used, having the freedom to make decisions, is of course real.

[Anonymous No.14523302]

>>14523210
>>14523295
>>14523247
samefagging is also not impressive
Give an example of the idea that you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14523303]

>>14523244
>But philosophy was always trivial to me.

IF you think philosophy is trivial, you prob. are just dismissive and arrogant---which is not wrong, philosophers are the same way, but they at least know how to throw the ball around.

A philosopher might privately have views about the problem of free will, but if he is teaching an undergrad class on it, he will have to compose a syllabus that contains a variety of views, because there are a variety of views.

There are, however, increasing more "assistant professors" who insist there is ONLY ONE VIEW, MINE! in spite of there being reams of philosophical literature on all sides of most problems.

This is very apparent in ethics, e.g. the Critical Legal Theory problem where the 'argument" for critical theory is that 'everyone who disagrees with me is racist and wants to maintain the power structure that benefits them.'

[Anonymous No.14523304]

>>14523249
>you can perceive products of the mind without the eyes

In what sense modality is that?

Is it like feeling happy? Or is it like seeing an apple in your "mind's eye"?

[Anonymous No.14523309]

>>14523107
If they are functionally equivalent, there's no qualitative difference, because free will being a function, is a function of both by definition of functional equivalence.

[Anonymous No.14523312]

Free Will isn't about the future, it's about now. It's about what past people will see if they look

[Anonymous No.14523318]

>>14523258
>Color is a measurement of the distribution of photons along the wavelengths of visual light in a given area, purely physical.

Nope, this is a problem of philosophy where there are different points of view.

" Not only does the scientific mainstream tradition conflict with the common-sense understanding of color in this way, but as well, the scientific tradition contains a very counter-intuitive conception of color. There is, to illustrate, the celebrated remark by David Hume:

Sounds, colors, heat and cold, according to modern philosophy are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind. (Hume 1738: Bk III, part I, Sect. 1, [1911: 177]; Bk I, IV, IV, [1911: 216])

Physicists who have subscribed to this doctrine include the luminaries: Galileo, Boyle, Descartes, Newton, Thomas Young, Maxwell and Hermann von Helmholtz. Maxwell, for example, wrote:

It seems almost a truism to say that color is a sensation; and yet Young, by honestly recognizing this elementary truth, established the first consistent theory of color. (Maxwell 1871: 13 [1970: 75])" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/))

And then you can eliminate minds by the premise that minds are a folk-scientific way of describing neurology, etc. It is called eliminativism.

Wavelengths do not have a color, they are length, not colors. The length interacts with the retina to produce a sensation of color, but the length itself is like a little rod, it doesn't have a color.

> Hot is also not arbitrary at all, feeling heat is a result of kinetic energy being transferred into the system. This is also purely physical and real, so yes it needs to feel hot.

Again, heat, kinetic energy, is different from hot/cold. You're conflating the two, like color and wavelength, IMO. Of course there are arguments to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.14523319]

>>14523303
>This is very apparent in ethics, e.g. the Critical Legal Theory problem where the 'argument" for critical theory is that 'everyone who disagrees with me is racist and wants to maintain the power structure that benefits them.'
prove it

[Anonymous No.14523320]

>>14523258
>this is just factually inaccurate. Color is a measurement of the distribution of photons along the wavelengths of visual light in a given area, purely physical.
You are literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.14523322]

>>14523258

>the qualia are not the things they measure or communicate, that doesn't mean that color or heat aren't real. Just like Time, everyone says it's fake; it just isn't what you think it is.

I do not believe in qualia, except in the limited sense that when people talk about qualia they are talking about sensations caused by their brains, using a folk-psychological language.

Its biggest application is in law where the "color" of an act is RIGHT or WRONG, and people refuse to accept that this is just, like, their perception, they want, nay DEMAND that the RIGHT or WRONG is in the fact, not in their perception of the fact, as a way of externalizing their judgment (or perception) and avoiding inherent responsibility for it, IMO.

It's a psychological desire to avoid saying 'well, this is my perception, this bath is hot.' Someone else might say it is 'cold, or lukewarm.'

[Anonymous No.14523324]

>>14523269
There is enough complexity in the brain for uncaused events to take place without being immediately detectable.

[Anonymous No.14523327]

Brainlet containment thread!

[Anonymous No.14523328]

>>14523277
>Call your schizophrenic fantasies what you like, but you never even approached making an actual point.

lol, it is called a thought experiment. Jesus Christ, you are abusive! But hey, it's not your fault, you just evolved that way =]

How does one make a point, anyway? A point in Euclid's sense?

[Anonymous No.14523329]

>>14523276
>schizo babble

[Anonymous No.14523330]

>>14523183
>Now he is going to ask you to explain how does the brain form a decision, to which you will not be able to respond and he will invalidate your human experience of free will by saying that because you don't know how a choice is formed then how can you claim to understand free will
what is wrong with him doing that?

[Anonymous No.14523331]

>>14522579
Thinking we don't have free will shows the ultimate misunderstanding of abstraction.
We can try to describe something like free will, for all we can abstract, maybe we don't have it.
But for practical terms, nothing has changed. People are responsible for their actions, and holding them accountable is something we're going to do free will or not.

Notice that if nobody is responsible for their actions, and we don't hold nobody accountable; a different behavior is induced than if we did punish people for their actions.
This free will bullshit fails to have any impact in the way we see the world, it is a failed abstraction.

[Anonymous No.14523335]

>>14523159
>Any time you are trying to do this
>Free will is demonstrated by T" where T is a science experiment, you are just, IMO, failing to understand the problem.
I am not doing that.
>If this is what you mean by free will
That's not what I mean by free will. That just lays the ground work for the possibility of free will and shows that this physical universe is conducive to free will. What I mean by free will is what I said here
>>14523085
> It means that an agent/observer's decisions are not determined by a deterministic causal chain of antecedent events going back to the initiation of the universe and that there are multiple possible future outcomes
An that would not be the totality of it either. There would be constraints on the free will, governed by things like genetics. So a profoundly retarded person might have a more impulsive and constrained version of free will. A drug addicted person's free will would also become constrained by their addiction. Their decisions would become weighted towards continuing the addiction and they would lose a bit of free will in that they would have almost another autonomous agent within their psyche which drives them to continue the addiction at all cost even when the reasonable part of their psyche is against it. A loss of executive function. This is reflected in an objectively observable way in hypofrontality it is called. The observer's physical brain can be changed by bad decision making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkOl7QIXxlQ


>But, again, if we lack free will, it is not possible for any of us to choose what we believe
True, there is no choice in a reality with only one possible outcome.

[Anonymous No.14523336]

>>14523291
>Don't you mean the universe and laws of physics make decisions for your body? What part of it do you have?

Well, this is sort of like saying "my car has brakes, and they cause it to stop."

We could say "it is, like, the universe braking" in the sense of that meme idea "we are the universe experiencing itself," but that still retains the "we."

So, it is the universe applying the brakes, I guess that is OK, but, pragmatically, we dont talk that way.

ARe you familiar w/ pragmatism?

[Anonymous No.14523338]

>>14523302
>Give an example of the idea that you're talking about.

I already did, color perception. Wavelengths dont have colors, IMO.

I was fascinated at University to find that people thought colours were "in the apples" or the wavelengths reflected off them." Seemed, like, bonkers to me, and these people are very numerous, so, you know, lerning about them is beneficial.

IMO they lack insight into their condition, but from dealing with htem, they think the same thing about me =]

[Anonymous No.14523340]

>>14523295
>Academic philosophy is but sophistry, there's no possible way the industry workers could fail to be aware of this as the difference between sophistry and philosophy is from Plato which I would think is one of the first classes they'd take, once investing years into a degree however if they had no family connections for a job they'd have no choice but to earn a living somehow, by taking up the reigns and perpetuating the system of sophist presentation of empty old philosophical writings in exchange for an increasingly extortionate tuition fee.


Ever read Aristophanes Clouds? He makes fun of Socrates in basically this way.

[Anonymous No.14523341]

>>14523328
>it is called a thought experiment
You invent some retarded story about a character who sounds like as much of a drone as you appear to be; then your imaginary character takes drugs and starts to behave erratically. Then the reader is asked to determine whether or not the drugs have increased your character's agency. How should anyone know what was supposed to be going on in the head of some imaginary character you invented? You're an actual, mouth-breathing imbecile, and the tragic thing is that you think your subhuman, 85-IQ drivel makes you sound like an intellectual. This board is a fucking disaster.

[Anonymous No.14523342]

>>14523338
No you didn't, as this is not your original idea.
I asked for you to give an original idea that you had, not you taking the physicalist position on this that was already hashed out by philosophers several hundred years ago (and proven wrong btw)

[Anonymous No.14523344]

>>14523125
That parsimonious explanation involves person's agency in an obscure form, thus satisfies p.1.

[Anonymous No.14523345]

>>14523309
>If they are functionally equivalent, there's no qualitative difference, because free will being a function, is a function of both by definition of functional equivalence.

Well, this is a functionalism account, e.g. of mind. But it still does not address what function you have that a river does not such that you have free will, but it does not.

[Anonymous No.14523349]

>>14523319
>>This is very apparent in ethics, e.g. the Critical Legal Theory problem where the 'argument" for critical theory is that 'everyone who disagrees with me is racist and wants to maintain the power structure that benefits them.'
>prove it

Which part? ARe you a Critical Legal Theory adherent? Do you think we live in a world where the powerful oppress the weak for their own benefit?

[Anonymous No.14523351]

>>14522579
You will NEVER disprove compatibilism. Do you hear me moron? NEVER.

[Anonymous No.14523353]

>>14523324
>There is enough complexity in the brain for uncaused events to take place without being immediately detectable.

Sure, but as soon as you are saying it is in the brain, not in the mind (which is not the brain) then whatever brain process you're describing can be explained by physiology, neurology &c. without recourse to "mind."

You can make a narrow argument that because we have not developed a way to 100% predict behavior, it is still "up in the air" but I find this sort of silly, tho I don't know if it is formally provable.

Sort of like saying because we cannot determine where every drop of rain is going to land every day on planet earth, rain might, in fact, be caused by Gods pissing through the aether.

[Anonymous No.14523354]

>>14523327
>Brainlet containment thread!

Tardfarming is honest work.

[Anonymous No.14523355]

>>14523349
Prove that
>'everyone who disagrees with me is racist and wants to maintain the power structure that benefits them.'
is what they believe.

[Anonymous No.14523357]

>>14523022
Evolution is so fucking easy to understand you must be retarded. Heritability of traits does automatically imply that after many iterations in a rough environment, the better adapted variation of genes will stay there.
It's a consequence of the law of large numbers, which is purely abstraction. Fucking dumbass.

I don't even believe anything about human species being related to whatever, I don't care, for me Earth could have been created a few days before I was born and everything be fake. But that's merely a probabilistic result in biological form. You must be a fucking dumbass. Your post wasn't even fun schizoposting it's just sad low IQ

[Anonymous No.14523368]

>>14523329
>>schizo babble

*shrug*, maybe there is some more complex argument that proves something contains everything, and it is called the universe, but I am skeptical.

[Anonymous No.14523371]

>>14523022
>Fine, then there is no reason for me to believe

oh no!

[Anonymous No.14523373]

>>14523357
>Evolution is so fucking easy to understand
Like anything that catches on with midwits, it's easy to understand so long as you're a moron who doesn't ask too many questions and doesn't concern himself with the details.

[Anonymous No.14523374]

>>14523330
>what is wrong with him doing that?

There is a phenomenological strain of philosophy, and it is a common experience, I think, that says to people that lived experience is "heckin' valid."

For example, my experience is that I have free will, and that the White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy is oppressing me.

I don't have to prove it, "proof" is something that white supremacist cisheterosexist patriarchs developed to oppress PoC, etc.

[Anonymous No.14523379]

>>14523345
I have mind and personality, river doesn't.

[Anonymous No.14523378]

>>14523331
>Notice that if nobody is responsible for their actions, and we don't hold nobody accountable

You can hold people to account without their being responsible for it.

It just means the judge is responsible for his judgment, not the people he executes.

Judges like to think "the victim made me do it!" Some of them, anyway.

[Anonymous No.14523382]

>>14523256
>OK, you are religious
You don't have to be religious to affirm the idea that systems which begin, such as the physical universe, are contingent. They can not initiate themselves, as in order to do this, they would have to have existed before their own beginning, which is illogical. So it's a question of logic, not faith. There must be an initiator. And before you ask 'who created the creator' I would add that only things which began need an explanation for their existence. see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

Long story short

Premise 1:
Anything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in the necessity of it's own nature or in an external explanation.
Premise 2:
The universe has an explanation for it's existence, and that explanation is grounded in a necessary being.
Premise 3:
The universe exists
Premise 4:
Therefore the universe has and explanation existence from 1 and 3.
Premise 5:
Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is grounded in a necessary being (from 2 and4).

>I would say free will is a theological concept
I would say the question has a metaphysical aspect but it also has a physical aspect in that you must establish that the physical world is conducive to it.

I just added this bit
>The creator seems SPECIFICALLY interested in the decisions of observers
as a speculation.

[Anonymous No.14523386]

>>14523335
>A drug addicted person's free will would also become constrained by their addiction.

This was def. part of the account of why drugs should be prohibited, because they interfere with the "Free will" of the addict, who if he were a mature responsible factory worker, his free will would cause himt o show up and make widgets, instead of mainlining heroin and cocaine until his heart gave out. I am skeptical it is accurate, tho prob. socially useful to perpetuate a society with widgets.

>This is reflected in an objectively observable way in hypofrontality it is called. The observer's physical brain can be changed by bad decision making.

This is what I find very weird, you are totally fine with a physiological understanding of "LACK OF FREE WILL."

it seems to me like that sort of gnostic view of things, where the matieral reality is this burdensome curtain over the pure realm of spirit. I just don't think it's possible.

It might be useful, tho, maybe there are useful lies, like useful drugs.

[Anonymous No.14523389]

>>14523335
>True, there is no choice in a reality with only one possible outcome.

yeah, but even multiple possible outcomes don't mean they're chosen, just like if there are multiple possible ways a basketball goes that are not possible to predict at the moment it leaves the thrower's hand, this doesn't mean the ball has free will.

[Anonymous No.14523398]

>>14523382
>they would have to have existed before their own beginning
It's sufficient if they exist at their beginning.

[Anonymous No.14523401]

>>14523341
>How should anyone know what was supposed to be going on in the head of some imaginary character you invented?

Well, it's called imagination. Do you have an imagination? Also, what is going on in his head is not so material, the point is that in the thought experiment, we accept Mr. Jones's alteration in predictability is a result of his trip...which is caued by a drug, not free will.

Another way to think about this is, if you are LSD-naive, and I give you a ton of it, can you just ignore it? Maybe, maybe not. If not, where is your free will if it doesnt even exist in your own "mind"?

> You're an actual, mouth-breathing imbecile, and the tragic thing is that you think your subhuman, 85-IQ drivel makes you sound like an intellectual. This board is a fucking disaster.

No, I really don't think that, but I have been told it by enough people that I think I have one or two things to say.

You know what a thought experiment is, right, boyo?

[Anonymous No.14523405]

>>14523318
that article almost makes some good points and ultimately has nothing against what I've said. Do you think I'm saying color is fundamental? I'm not, it isn't; neither is volume.
However when you measure the number of photons passing through an area, and the Energy/Wavelength of each, then take this whole data set, you get what will be measured by anything claiming to measure color. How exactly they measure, and thus what measure they claim is irrelevant, the physical 'stuff' is the same. And subject to change

[Anonymous No.14523406]

>>14523342
>(and proven wrong btw)

lol, when and where?

I also don't think I said original ideas, I said problems of philosohpy. They're the problems of our being in time, and insofar as we are beings in time, we all have these problems, whether we choose to examine them or not.

[Anonymous No.14523409]

>>14523351
>You will NEVER disprove compatibilism. Do you hear me moron? NEVER.

One does not have to if the concept of free will, agency, etc. is completely incoherent.

[Anonymous No.14523410]

>>14523382
If the creator didn't begin to exist, does it mean it existed before time? And for how long did it exist before time?

[Anonymous No.14523417]

>>14523355
>Prove that
>>'everyone who disagrees with me is racist and wants to maintain the power structure that benefits them.'
>is what they believe.

That is the stock critical legal realist argument.

For example, you would show that black people are "over-represented" in prison. If someone pipes up and says "well, maybe genetics, monoamine oxidase, lack of fathers, etc. explains this," then you are simply repeating discredited 19th century scientific racism, and there is no need to debate what has already been deboonked. The issue is that the people who benefit from racism maintain it, that is the dogma of the critical legal position. Often they don't even realize they're doing it, for ecxample, when they teach children arbnitrary "truths" like 1+2=3.

[Anonymous No.14523425]

>>14523373
>it's easy to understand so long as you're a moron who doesn't ask too many questions and doesn't concern himself with the details.

If I ask too many questions I might get sent to the Dean's office!

Had a carpenter who dropped out of his physics program in the 1980s because of this. He ended up having a kid that was a literal genius, like, did his undergrad when most of us were still jacking off to the prom queen, etc.

If intelligence is heritable...it's likely my carpenter was not the problem, the Dean/Prof were. You don't get a degree by ARGUING with your profs, you do by agreeing with them.

[Anonymous No.14523427]

>>14522579
Yes but the illusion that I have free will, will always be there and thats all i need

[Anonymous No.14523429]

>>14523409
Then fix the concept, happened many times. Free will is freedom from external influence - homeostasis. Try to find incoherence.

[Anonymous No.14523431]

>>14523379
>I have mind and personality, river doesn't.

Well, how would I know that? as far as I can tell, you both are a ditch full of water that flows across the ditch and makes sounds. You are just a more complex ditch!

[Anonymous No.14523433]

>>14523389
You are talking about epistemic indeterminacy, not ontic. In QM, it's ontic.
>Indeterminacy in measurement was not an innovation of quantum mechanics, since it had been established early on by experimentalists that errors in measurement may lead to indeterminate outcomes. By the later half of the 18th century, measurement errors were well understood, and it was known that they could either be reduced by better equipment or accounted for by statistical error models. In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.

[Anonymous No.14523435]

>>14523382
>They can not initiate themselves, as in order to do this, they would have to have existed before their own beginning, which is illogical. So it's a question of logic, not faith. There must be an initiator.

Why can't they just have always existed?

[Anonymous No.14523441]

>>14523405
>you get what will be measured by anything claiming to measure color.

No, you will get an average wavelength.

The color is in your "eyes" (brain) not in the external world, that's just wavelengths.

How do you explain colorblindness, are they not "seeing the real color of the photon"? Or they are "wrong" because they are a minority?

Like, think about a planet where there are more shades of red than green, unlike earth, where there are more shades of green than red. On Red Earth, creatures evolve to distinguish more shades of red, so on Red Earth, humans see Wavlengeths X and Y as two distinct shades, but on Green Earth, X and Y appear as the same shade to everyone.

[Anonymous No.14523444]

>>14523401
>Well, it's called imagination.
You will never have it. You are a subhuman drone with no mind of its own, which explains your utter lack of theory of mind: this is why your hypothetical characters have no minds, and why you assume that other minds will just read your shart and immediately accept whatever moronic implication you had in mind when you typed out your extremely poorly thought out story.

>what is going on in his head is not so material
It is absolutely crucial. I don't know why Mr. Jones was living such a mundane and predictable lifestyle: maybe he was exercising his free will and choosing to live like that because that's what he liked, or maybe he was mindless, just like you. I don't know why Mr. Jones was behaving erratically under LSD: maybe it was because he lost his capacity to exercise his agency and became impulsive, or maybe he had an epiphany and decided to exercise his agency for once. It is unclear how much capacity for agency he had in the first place, nor what influence his LSD trip had on his readiness to exercise whatever capacity for agency he did have. You know what's actually immaterial? Your sub-85-IQ story. Anyway, I'm bored with clinical subhumans like you. Your likes need to be silenced in one way or another, and we really need to be careful what kind of "people" we teach how to read and write.

[Anonymous No.14523447]

>>14523429
>Free will is freedom from external influence - homeostasis. Try to find incoherence.

Sure, but then it is just a physiological function, and physiology is not outside of the environment, for example, your homeostasis is a product of having enough protein, mineral, choline, etc.

So it's not "free" you gotta buy it with continual payments. And the amount you have is a function of what you put in. But ultimately, it's not like the protein, choline, etc. form into some "gestalt," there is no frame, that is, no universe, because, as the proof above indicates, nothing contains everything.

The universe would have to contain itself, but that does not make sense.

[Anonymous No.14523450]

>>14523433
>You are talking about epistemic indeterminacy, not ontic. In QM, it's ontic.

This is not a distinction I am familiar with, but it sounds like it is a mind/body problem, where this artificial bifurcation is tendered for mostly psychological reasons, tho one account of mind'/body problems is that you cannot solve them and that there is very little point in talking about them, it is not pragmatic, except as a sort of "oh, that is what he thinks," the goal is not to "solve the problem" because it is not solvable, because it is a foundational account in a universe without foundation.

[Anonymous No.14523459]

>>14523431
You can know that by studying the complexity.

[Anonymous No.14523465]

>>14523444
>why you assume that other minds will just read your shart and immediately accept whatever moronic implication you had in mind when you typed out your extremely poorly thought out story

You are very good at making statements, but you are not so good at argument.

"You are an idiot, and you have a low IQ, so you are wrong!"

This is not an argument. Free will sorta presupposes a will/mind, so that is what is being discussed, whether LSD acts on Mr. Jones's mind or on his body.

If you can't imagine why Mr. Jones was a factory worker in a world where most ppl are "factory" workers due to that being the alternative to starvation/lack of clothing, etc. then I guess you are not as imaginative as you thought.

It certainly could be that he enjoys it, that is another possibility.

Why is it that there are so many guys on 4chan who write like you? What was your K-12 social development like?

Or it could be an AI, I guess =]

[Anonymous No.14523469]

>>14523459
>You can know that by studying the complexity.

And how do you study which degree of complexity is sufficient to say 'this being has free will, and this being does not'? The issue isnt that you cannot distinguish degrees of complexity (e.g. number of bends in the river, length of the river) the issue is that I cannot fathom why a river of, say, 1 billion bends that is hundreds of miles long could have free will, but the panama canal can't.

[Anonymous No.14523471]

>>14523410
>If the creator didn't begin to exist, does it mean it existed before time?
Before the temporal constraint on this universe.
>And for how long did it exist before time?
This doesn't make sense as a question. Time is a constraint of this system, not that entity which set forth this system. If that were the case, you get an infinite regress of contingent entities.

[Anonymous No.14523475]

>>14523441
they are taking a different measurement of that same set of data I'm talking about, I don't care about your different measurements or perceptions of color or colorblindness, I'm generalizing all of them with the form they all fail to capture.

[Anonymous No.14523478]

>>14523398
Sufficient of what? That doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation at all.

[Anonymous No.14523479]

>>14523444

If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung
Would you hear my voice come through the music?
Would you hold it near, as it were your own?

It's a hand-me-down, the thoughts are broken
Perhaps they're better left unsung
I don't know, don't really care
Let there be songs to fill the air

Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow

Reach out your hand if your cup be empty
If your cup is full may it be again
Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man

There is a road, no simple highway
Between the dawn and the dark of night
And if you go, no one may follow
That path is for your steps alone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wh7ylJManI

[Anonymous No.14523480]

>>14523447
Free as in freedom, not as free beer.

[Anonymous No.14523483]

>>14523475
>they are taking a different measurement of that same set of data I'm talking about, I don't care about your different measurements or perceptions of color or colorblindness, I'm generalizing all of them with the form they all fail to capture.

OK, so someone who is colorblind is not properly "measuring," you see perception as a "measurement."

Are you suggesting that if I were perpendicular to a photon of wavelength N, let's say that's red, it would be red? I think not.

[Anonymous No.14523486]

>>14523480
>Free as in freedom, not as free beer.

Freedom isn't free, it's a constant struggle against entropy.

[Anonymous No.14523489]

>>14523374
>There is a phenomenological strain of philosophy, and it is a common experience, I think, that says to people that lived experience is "heckin' valid."
>For example, my experience is that I have free will, and that the White Supremacist Cisheteronormative Patriarchy is oppressing me.
>I don't have to prove it, "proof" is something that white supremacist cisheterosexist patriarchs developed to oppress PoC, etc.
Which strain of philosophy is this? Can you prove that they are saying what you claim they are saying? and can you provide the context?

[Anonymous No.14523492]

>>14523349
>Do you think we live in a world where the powerful oppress the weak for their own benefit?
Isn't this widely accepted?

[Anonymous No.14523496]

>>14523469
A being which has a function of free will, has it, if not then not. You can know it by studying it carefully and not making mistakes in it.

[Anonymous No.14523497]

>>14523417
I'm not asking you to elaborate (though you can if you want). I'm asking you to prove those claims.

[Anonymous No.14523502]

>>14523483
I wouldn't make the distinction of colorblind in the first place, thinking that anything less than a full comprehension of the wavelengths of light and the distribution of each (i.e. distinguishing red+green from yellow) is as good as colorblind.
>if I were perpendicular to a photon ...
do you mean to ask whether it is still red if you don't see it? If so my answer is yes, up to uncertainty

[Anonymous No.14523508]

>>14523471
If existence before time makes no sense, then the creator didn't exist before time. Then it began to exist.
Also what if the universe existed before the temporal constraint? The notion is strange, time is usually understood as a measure, not a constraint. How is it supposed to work as a constraint?

[Anonymous No.14523511]

>>14523489
>Which strain of philosophy is this? Can you prove that they are saying what you claim they are saying? and can you provide the context?

CITATION! CITATION! IM GOING TO NEED A CITATION.

We can address this another way, you know what "cancel culture" is, right? This is the philosophical basis for "cancelling" white supremacists, rather than arguing with them, using arguments literally perpetuates structural racism because arguments are restrictive structures designed to perpetuate white supremacist heterosexual hegemony.

[Anonymous No.14523513]

>>14523450
>This is not a distinction I am familiar with, but it sounds like it is a mind/body problem, where this artificial bifurcation is tendered for mostly psychological reasons,
I am an idealist, so I am a substance monist. The mind and body are both of a mental substance. When I look down at my body, I see a physical body rendered to me by my consciousness in my mind. When I will my body to move, this is a mental substance (mind) effecting a mental substance (the simulation of my physical matter avatar body rendered in my mind). If I give you a high five, I am high fiving your avatar which is rendered in my mind. Your avatar (body) is rendered to me in my mind and my avatar (body) is rendered in your mind. It's all mind. There is no problem of how two different substances effect each other.

[Anonymous No.14523514]

>>14523478
Sufficient to cause the universe. Before is too early, after is too late, at the beginning is just the right time to start.

[Anonymous No.14523515]

>>14523511
>IM GOING TO NEED A CITATION
yes

[Anonymous No.14523518]

>>14523492
>>Do you think we live in a world where the powerful oppress the weak for their own benefit?
>Isn't this widely accepted?

I would not say so, it is a sort of conspiratorial thinking that many people do not engage in, but it is a very popular genre of academic literature.

And, as I said elsewhere, if you try to argue 'well, the reason we dont have many black ppl getting to medical school based on GPA + MCAT is because of genetic factors relate--" you get cut off and someone shouts "OK, IM FEELING UNSAFE, ANYONE WANT TO PUNCH A NAZI?"

[Anonymous No.14523521]

>>14523496
>A being which has a function of free will, has it, if not then not

Yeah, but I am still not clear on what the function is. Like, it seems like you are presuming I know what you mean by free will, such that I have it, but a river does not. I don't know how I am anything more than a complex river.

[Anonymous No.14523522]

>>14523508
>If existence before time makes no sense
It makes sense. What doesn't make sense is existence before time within THIS physical universe.
>Also what if the universe existed before the temporal constraint?
Where did it exist?
There was no space.

[Anonymous No.14523523]

>>14523486
Systems with homeostasis process and repurpose entropy for their own operation, thus reaching independence from immediate external influence.

[Anonymous No.14523526]

>>14523521
Something can't cause itself. It would have to exist before it's own beginning.

[Anonymous No.14523527]

>>14523497
>I'm asking you to prove those claims.

In what manner, like, you want me to say who has said this and where? Are you completely ignorant of the issues on uni campuses regarding free speech? You are either being disingenuous or you live under a proverbial rock.

Even the crits have long ago abandoned arguing "what? what are you talking about?" except in the lay press, on university campuses they simply "dont argue with racists" and "Deplatform them" on the notion that their views are "toxic."

This is a wide-spread enough phenomenon that I am not going to provide citations.

I will give you an anecdote tho.

Like 20 years ago I did a seminar in my uni's art history department, 'theory and methods.' I mentioned something I thought was non-controversial, that premises were true or false. The prof sort of laughed like I "didn't get it." She said that we had moved "well beyond" non-contradiction. I sort of wondered how that was possible.

next class, she brought me an article with a title like "19th century skeletal racism."

Logic is just skeletal racism, it presupposes the validity of one structure over another.

[Anonymous No.14523531]

>>14523502
>do you mean to ask whether it is still red if you don't see it? If so my answer is yes, up to uncertainty

I realize you could not "see" a photon if it were perpendicular to you, because it is not striking your retina, which I think proves my point, it is not like there are epi-photons it is emitting that are red, it is simply a length of something that has no color.

[Anonymous No.14523534]

>>14523521
Free will is independence from external influence.

[Anonymous No.14523540]

>>14523513
>I am an idealist, so I am a substance monist.

OK, I find this fairly counter-intuitive, so that is prob. why we disagree.

For the peanut gallery, this is sort of why philosophy is valuable, a topic I've seen come up on /sci/ a few times.

We both disagree, and it is very unlikely that we are going to agree, but at least now we have some sense of WHY we disagree, and perhaps, seeing as we are thrown into a world together, we can now get along better.

But when we high-five, you think the fact that if my hand were, say, really a waffle iron, it would burn your hand, that is purely "mental"? I just cannot understand how that is true.

[Anonymous No.14523542]

>>14523514
>Sufficient to cause the universe. Before is too early, after is too late, at the beginning is just the right time to start.

Oh I know there is no place you can go to
And I know you don't know anyone at all
So come walking in the sun with me my little one
And remember that the only time is now

Well strange is the story your eyes tell me
And quiet all the few words that you say
So come and hold my hand for you see I'd understand
And remember that the only time is now

Oh I come to you a ragged laughing stranger (note 1)
And you come to me an angel of the night
So I'll dance and we will sing, for it doesn't mean a thing
To remember that the only time is now

So forget about your yesterdays of sorrow
And forget about the darkness you have seen
For there's only you and me at the edge of an endless sea
And remember that the only time is now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FD7ja0z3-Q

[Anonymous No.14523544]

>>14523523
>Systems with homeostasis process and repurpose entropy for their own operation, thus reaching independence from immediate external influence.

But it's not independence in any complete sense, it is like, there is a homeostatic process involving respiration, for example, to bind oxygen to hemoglobin. But if you hold my head unwater, I can't maintain homeostasis, so it seems like it is not "independent from immediate external influence."

The same is true wherther you intentionally hold me under water, or I drown in a horse trough as a baby (had a cousin who drowned this way!)

[Anonymous No.14523546]

>>14523531
>it is simply a length of something that has no color
no, it's a photon with an energy level in a range that we consider to be "red". Nothing need be emitted and you're better off forgetting that it is "wavelength" and thinking of it as "energy" or "frequency".

[Anonymous No.14523550]

>>14523526
>Something can't cause itself. It would have to exist before it's own beginning.

Why can't it be eternal?

[Anonymous No.14523552]

>>14523522
>It makes sense.
Then how much time passed while creator existed before time?
>What doesn't make sense is existence before time within THIS physical universe.
Why not?
>Where did it exist?
>There was no space.
If there was no space, what your question is supposed to mean? If there was no space, then there was no difference between locations.

[Anonymous No.14523554]

>>14523534
>Free will is independence from external influence.

So you will never have absolutely free will, but if you are at the grocery store, you can exercise free will to choose an ice cream? But that will be a function of what advertisement you saw on TRV the night before.

So you can just avoid watching TV. But then there is something that cause you to avoid watching TV, that was free will? Why would you avoid watching TV if you were not concerned about what it did to you?

[Anonymous No.14523556]

>>14523546
>no, it's a photon with an energy level in a range that we consider to be "red". Nothing need be emitted and you're better off forgetting that it is "wavelength" and thinking of it as "energy" or "frequency".

Well, if you make it a frequency, then it is even less likely to be red, how many Hz are red?

Right or wrong, I was taught in highschool physics 'energy does not exist, we just use it in calculations, it's not something you can hold in your hand.'

You can hold a hot poker in your hand, but it is not "energy" you are holding in your hand.

[Anonymous No.14523572]

>>14523556
Mass is Energy, can you not hold a mass in your hand?
Making it a frequency is the perfect thing to do, how many Hz is A?
If you give me an answer I can contradict in octave, temperament, or reference pitch definition and be right according to some non-trivial tradition somewhere.
However the hz of the soundwave will still capture any information they may attempt to be capturing by "A", because the Hz is what is being measured by that

[Anonymous No.14523573]

>>14523544
It is independence in a meaningful sense. Or you believe homeostasis isn't qualitatively different from inert matter?
You can maintain homeostasis underwater by holding your breath. Conversely an inert system would become full of water as fast as water flows.

[Anonymous No.14523582]

>>14523554
>So you will never have absolutely free will
That is fine, free will was never supposed to promise omnipotence.

[Anonymous No.14523591]

>>14523554
>But that will be a function of what advertisement you saw on TRV the night before.
For a normie yes, for me no. Normies are borderline inert, sure, but it was always fairly obvious.

[Anonymous No.14523598]

>>14523572
>Mass is Energy, can you not hold a mass in your hand?

I disagree, there is a theoretical equivalence so that you can do calculations that solve problems or explain phenomena, but all those phenomena are realized as interactions of matter, not "pure energy" (which I dont think makes sense)

>Making it a frequency is the perfect thing to do, how many Hz is A?

This is just changing hte problem from color to tone. I don't believe that vibrations in the air ("sound waves") have a sound, that is a way that the body interpretes the frequency striking the inner ear parts.

[Anonymous No.14523602]

>>14523582
>That is fine, free will was never supposed to promise omnipotence.

No, I'm just struggling to see how ANY "potence" is not a delusion, but that is OK, if we have no free will, it's not like you could will yourself to disabuse yourself of these silly religious ideas. Just be kind to people =]

[Anonymous No.14523607]

>>14523591
>For a normie yes, for me no. Normies are borderline inert, sure, but it was always fairly obvious.

Well, this just says you are less suggestible to the physiological process of hypnosis, which is admirable, but it still doesn't mean that autohypnosis, or autosuggestion, (I see a problem of self-reference here) is free will.

It's still a physiolgical process.

But if i am understanding you, free will is resistance to hypnosis by others, and possibly a greater capacity to autosuggest,t hat is, to hypnotize yourself?

[Anonymous No.14523610]

>>14523607
>But if i am understanding you, free will is resistance to hypnosis by others, and possibly a greater capacity to autosuggest,t hat is, to hypnotize yourself?

EVen if I admit this, tho, it still doesnt mean that the capacity for resistance to hypnosis is not physiological and either deterministic, or undeterministic, but no more "free" than the ocean.

It's a lot easier to dam a river than the ocean, but fundamentally they are both lacking free will.

[Anonymous No.14523611]

>>14523598
>theoretical equivalence ... calculations ... I dont think makes sense
we'll just have to disagree here

>this is changing the problem
no it's not, the problem with defining the chroma of color in terms of frequencies is the chroma of sound in terms of frequencies, Which frequencies represent which "color"? With what tolerance? Are the colors uniformly distributed? How many are there? These are all questions you can ask about different musical systems AND different perceptions of color (18 color shrimp eyes to computer vision to colorblind humans), and ALL of them have meaningful answers in terms of frequency

[Anonymous No.14523623]

>>14523602
False dichotomy. Lack of omnipotence doesn't mean zero potence.

[Anonymous No.14523628]

>>14523611
>How many are there?

Yeah, that's the question that I don't think makes sense, for the aforesaid reasons...the colors that an entity perceives will be an evolutionary response to its environment, e.g. being able to distinguish so many leaf colours is beneficial, because it helps me avoid the leafs oif a certain colour that are toxic, which are the same shape as another leafe that is nontoxic.

[Anonymous No.14523632]

>>14523607
Autosuggestion is just will power, and yes, it's very important for free will, but it's important in any ontology. Free choice is determined by the person, so independence from the person itself is an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.14523633]

>>14523623
>False dichotomy. Lack of omnipotence doesn't mean zero potence.

No, not inherently, I just don't understand where this potence comes from, but I am not sure you can convince me.

IF you believe you have free will, it is sort of like belief in God, I think, you know, as long as you are kind to people, as I say, that's the main thing.

[Anonymous No.14523639]

>>14523610
That just means you don't believe in homeostasis.

[Anonymous No.14523655]

>>14523632
>Free choice is determined by the person

And this is not "person" in the physiological sense? Sorry, diff people responding, so is free will something like a muscle you can train, or a skill you can learn?

[Anonymous No.14523659]

>>14523633
If you mean specific mechanism of resistance to suggestion, that's filtering and critical thought. Autists don't let all information into administrative center unchecked, it first undergoes sanitization and classification. And sanitized information is sort of digested or inactivated if it was unfavorably categorized.

[Anonymous No.14523662]

>>14523639
>That just means you don't believe in homeostasis.

Homeostasis is in the context of some external system, which has influence over the homeostatic process, and the homeostasis is a function of the processes that the external system shares with the homeostatic system, no?

Hemoglobin binds oxygen both in vivo and in vitro, but in vivo hemoglobin is part of some process that leads to free will? And so, if the exercise of free will is dependent on physiology, then the pulse oxygen, etc. determines how much free will you can exercise.

It just seems to me like you will explain every possible action with physiology and the other sciences and "free will" is just something that people will assert, almost like a shibboleth. It is meaningless in terms of predictive capacity, it serves no role, but ppl assert it as a sort of social game into which they have been indoctrinated.

[Anonymous No.14523664]

>>14523628
exactly, but no matter how many colors you choose to include (or exclude or generalize), they have a representation in the continuum of possible frequencies. Add on the notions of distributions of these (required to get white or purple in human colors, or tamber and harmony in soundwaves and music) and you have an invariant construct that can be reinterpreted in any way you could need, because it captures the information that all of the others work off of to build their more nebulous perceptions on.

put another way, if you give me the distributions of light frequencies and intensities in a color, I can reproduce that color from any perspective or system, and all will agree I have done so. However if you tell me to grab the "red" crayon then I may or may not get the one matching the strawberry you imagined.
Thus color is real, and the distributions of photons among their different energy levels in a given space define color. For objects you can generally consider it to be a proxy for the properties characterizing the ways they interact with different wavelengths of light, but different ways of interacting can look the same, so it's still different from that.

[Anonymous No.14523674]

>>14523368
I wish someone had replied to this, it's really fun.

[Anonymous No.14523676]

>>14523655
If you want to apply critical thought systematically, it's best if you are predisposed to it. Otherwise you will be bored, which is a handicap.

[Anonymous No.14523680]

>>14523664
>However if you tell me to grab the "red" crayon then I may or may not get the one matching the strawberry you imagined.

Presume red is X nM.

Can't I always just say "hand me the x nM reflecting crayon" instead of the "red crayon" and there is nothing that I lose the capacity to do?

I just don't see what work colors do.

Whether I say "the colors in this Picasso are very striking" or "the combination of wavelengths reflected by this Picasso are very striking" it seems to me I am saying the same thing, but it seems you want to maintain both colors AND wavelengths as commensurate entities, instead of just eliminating colors, which is the position some take, but this has obvious consequences for ethics.

Most people I've met who believe in colors like you do ALSO have strong ethical beliefs, they think they are REALLY RIGHT that racism/sexism IS WRONG, rather than that it is merely their subjective perception based on physiology.

Do you hold strong ethical views of any sort?

Like, you might have a very strong view that you do not want to be discriminated against on a racial basis (or whatever), but do you then go "and this i sbecause I know that such conduct is racist!" just like you seemt o be saying "I know such crayon is red!"

[Anonymous No.14523682]

>>14523676
>If you want to apply critical thought systematically, it's best if you are predisposed to it. Otherwise you will be bored, which is a handicap.

I don't get what you mean.

[Anonymous No.14523689]

>>14523680
>Like, you might have a very strong view that you do not want to be discriminated against on a racial basis (or whatever), but do you then go "and this i sbecause I know that such conduct is racist!" just like you seemt o be saying "I know such crayon is red!"

That is, you are measuring the 'wrongness' in an action and you perceive it to be wrong, just like red is an index for the wavelength of an action.

So the object is red, red isn't just your judgment. The act is wrong, it isn't just your judgment.

And we can therefore be wrong about the colors of objects, or the judgment of actions, we can say "it is wrong to X" and that means something, ratehr than it being shorthand for "when I see someone do X, I judge it to be wrong."

It's an externalization, IMO, and it is something people do if they want to avoid responsibility for the contingency of their perceptions.

You can still act on contingent perceptions, but you lose the capacity to go, like some imperious red-faced Judge "and if you had been in your right mind, Son, you would have KNOWN it was WRONG to park in the handicapped spot without a permit!"

[Anonymous No.14523702]

Schizos left? Kek.

[Anonymous No.14523706]

>>14523682
If you want it as a skill, you can be handicapped from using it.

[Anonymous No.14523712]

>>14523680
>However if you tell me to grab the "red" crayon then I may or may not get the one matching the strawberry you imagined.
>
>Presume red is X nM.
>
>Can't I always just say "hand me the x nM reflecting crayon"
yes, Id say.
>I just don't see what work colors do.
give us a "good enough" approximation
>Whether I say "the colors in this Picasso are very striking" or "the combination of wavelengths reflected by this Picasso are very striking" it seems to me I am saying the same thing,
I agree, generally
>but it seems you want to maintain both colors AND wavelengths as commensurate entities, instead of just eliminating colors, which is the position some take, but this has obvious consequences for ethics.
What consequences?

>Most people I've met who believe in colors like you do ALSO have strong ethical beliefs, they think they are REALLY RIGHT that racism/sexism IS WRONG, rather than that it is merely their subjective perception based on physiology ...
I have strong convictions regarding personal liberty, and I have some strong ethical views; but I dont fancy myself a moral or ethical objectivist if thats what you mean.

>>14523689
I think color is objective and real, of course we can argue over what constitutes red, but that light has (sometimes drastically) different properties at different energies, and that these can often be stratified is (I'd hope) objective fact, and I'd say it's the most basic notion of what color is "about".
Morality of actions is not so simple, and I believe in personal responsibility and trying to understand how easily you couldve been on the other side, I think that's the most important thing you can do.

[Anonymous No.14523717]

>>14523674
Distinction between an empty set and a non-existent set is important for mathematics, but trivial for physics. So it likely uses inadequate formalism.

[Anonymous No.14523724]

>>14523706
>If you want it as a skill, you can be handicapped from using it.

Well, again, if there are some who are better than others, and this isnt some "spirit" or "soul" and you are not avoiding the issue by being an idealist (I recongize idealists might not think of it that way), then if it is a skill, then it is like, say, skill with shooting a bow is based on hand-eye coordination, sufficient upper body strength, etc.

So what can you do to train this "free will."

I ask, of course, because as someone else point out derisively, I think you will say, if it is a skill that is trainable, you do it by training your brain.

For example, you are at the grocery store and you see the ice cream freezer but you go "that shit is bad for me, I am trying to be healthy!" So you refuse to buy any. And then the next time it is a bit easier, and a bit easier and a bit easier.

[Anonymous No.14523727]

>>14523712
>I have strong convictions regarding personal liberty, and I have some strong ethical views; but I dont fancy myself a moral or ethical objectivist if thats what you mean.

But these are just personal opinions? Like, you don't go from "well, MOST PEOPLE think it's RED, so it IS RED and we have a forensic account of why they are color-blind."

Similarly, let's say you think X is an absolute inalienable, uninfringable right, and someone disagrees, you don't think this is because they are wrong about the right, that they're not perceiving it correctly, it is just that they don't see that color?

> Morality of actions is not so simple, and I believe in personal responsibility and trying to understand how easily you couldve been on the other side, I think that's the most important thing you can do.

Yeah, this to me seems like it is simply a dogma---you would, like, argue for this in the sense of "If someone doesn't believe this, he is wrong?"

Whether that is a product of deontology, utilitarianism, etc. etc. isnt a factor, it's just that you think people can be mistaken about colors, just like moral facts, because colors are indexes for wavelengths, and moral facts are indexes for something like a wavelength, where the wavelength itself is the same thing as the moral fact, just as the wavelength is the same thing as the color.

I have trouble believing that.

[Anonymous No.14523730]

>>14523717
>Distinction between an empty set and a non-existent set is important for mathematics, but trivial for physics. So it likely uses inadequate formalism.

Well, is language use more like physics or mathematics?

[Anonymous No.14523748]

>>14523727
I would certainly argue for it, because arguing is the belief I hold and express whenever I say that. Would I actually be enraged (no) or think less of them (maybe if they have other strikes).
I'd probably think they're wrong in the end, but I'm a liar if I don't at least try to understand them. And I have to argue to understand.

[Anonymous No.14523757]

>>14523748
>I would certainly argue for it

But are you arguing on the basis that they are mistaken or that you just wish they were more like you, if you see the difference?

Like, if someone says to me 'that square is really a circle,' he is mistaken, and I can demonstrate to him it is not a circle.

If someone says "Bach is the best composer ever" and I think Mozart is, I can argue with him, but unless I am a REAL Aesthetics wonk, I can't really argue that he is 'wrong.'

That is something we have not touched on here, aesthetics, which is one of the most hilarious parts of analytic philosophy.

If epistemology and determinism vs. free will make some of these guys seethe, imagine what aesthetics would do.

[Anonymous No.14523766]

>>14523757
I'd argue for it because they aren't like me, and so I'd like to understand why we differ. I would try to convince them of my thinking because in my experience people are better at telling you what they really think when you make them defend it in that way versus just asking them to define it. And for myself too.
I don't think they need to be like me, but I believe everyone can be understood.

on the square and circle example, apparently thats a matter of debate and metric space

[Anonymous No.14523773]

>>14523757
>>14523766
>on the square and circle example, apparently thats a matter of debate and metric space

I was just using that as something where there is a mistake in fact, not possibly just perception---I suppose 20 years ago we might have said "someone thinks a man is a woman" but thats' no longer PC, comrade.

[Anonymous No.14523930]

>>14522594
ok dude I personally know God. The way that you communicate with God is by admitting you are a sinner, and believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins, and then asking Jesus Christ into your heart. The trick is you have to BELIEVE IT. Then it's real.
Sounds fucking stupid as shit, but in all honesty it's literally how you do it. I just gave you the instructions. It's like an 'easter egg' hidden inside life itself. If ten years from now you still think creationism is stupid, you're an idiot who didn't follow the instructions. You don't know anything. And you're 100% wrong. You can take your ego and shove it up your ass. It literally all comes down to did you follow the instructions or did you just dismiss it as stupid. Every other religion is a fucking lie. Jesus Christ owns all of reality now.

[Anonymous No.14523986]

>>14522979
Verbal abuse is not an ad hominem. He also had no choice but to call you a faggot, since free will doesn't exist, just like you had no choice but to falsely cry "ad hominem," and I had no choice but to point out how stupid you are. Free will exists because laughing at NPCs is less fun if I had no choice but to do it.

>>14522994
Capitalism doesn't exist. That's literally the Marxist religion, but they blame it on the boogeyman of Capitalism as a cope. So-called Capitalists aren't the ones talking about lived experience as an alternative to fucking rationalism and empiricism. Go suck Lysenko's cock in Hell.

[Anonymous No.14523999]

>>14522801
Why are you trying to convince someone to not believe in free will when...

...you can't "try" anything? You merely do as you were destined to do.

...you can't change someone's mind? There is no mind to change.

I mean, obviously the answer is that the cogs allowed no other possibility. But isn't that just very strange? Even if you're just a machine, you still live and act as if you weren't. You even act like you have a will when you try to convince people that you don't have one. Why should the mechanical universe create an illusion of free will? Who is being fooled by this illusion?

[Anonymous No.14524008]

>>14522875
>You cannot make choices
>Make the choice to read Richard Rorty
Determinists at it again.

[Anonymous No.14524010]

>>14522877
>it's a waste of time and energy.
Irrelevant if we have no will. Extremely relevant if we do.

>>14522896
Calling things illusions is the peak of all retarded, self-contradictory materialism.

[Anonymous No.14524029]

>>14522927
According to Newtonian physics (or rather some hypothetical version of it, or a hypothetical version of it where it actually does describe all reality), you could in principle determine the entirety of all history, including all actions performed by humans, if you had perfect knowledge of the initial conditions.

According to quantum mechanics, you cannot even in principle have perfect knowledge of the initial conditions, nor make anything other than probabilistic predictions even if you could.

If you don't see how this relates to the debate over free will, you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.14524456]

>>14523730
Nevermind, I figured it out.
>B is a superset only of sets, that are not supersets of themselves.
It's a barber paradox. Therefore B doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14524464]

>>14524029
In QM initial conditions can be known perfectly, it's required for the Schrodinger equation to work. And future states are predictable deterministically and unambiguously, the Schrodinger equation does just that.

[Anonymous No.14524485]

>>14523724
Train sanitization and critical thought.

[Anonymous No.14524710]

>>14523527
I find it hilarious that throughout this whole thread you haven't once defended your argument or present an argument at all. All you did was avoid questions and nitpick others legit arguments. You're a brainlet and a troll who can't come up with his own model on the subject.
All you do is talk how stupid everyone is and how you're so smart yet for once you didn't lay out an argument.
It's very easy to pick apart others arguments by endlessly asking questions, but why are you such a coward yourself and not make a statement on the subject?

[Anonymous No.14525010]

>>14522626
No, he's right. You're a retard. You didn't even notice that you had already heard the argument many, many times and now you're claiming it as your own. You've even chosen to use the word "incompatible." You are either actually mentally retarded or a troll.