Proof against Free Will without materialism

[Anonymous No.15418507]

Most people against free will view it as materialism vs nonmaterialism (is it all just chemicals or is there an intangible will) but here is a proof against free will that doesn't rely on what consciousness actually is
>P1: People's choices between a range of possible options are determined by which of those choices they most desire to pick
>P2: What people most desire to do is determined by that which they *ULTIMATELY* cannot control
>C1: People's choices between multiple possible options are determined by that which they ultimately cannot control
Let us justify the premises to show the argument is sound
>P1
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Most counter examples would involve someone sacrificing what they personally want for some greater good, but this still falls under the argument as "the want to contribute to some greater good". It does not make sense to speak of
>P2
The word "ultimately" is the operative word here, as we want the first cause of any given desire, not any proximal cause. To show that the first cause must be outside the control of the agent, let us consider the proximal cause of any one desire. The proxinal cause of any one desire could either be determined by something within control of the agent which feels the desire or determined by something outside the agent's control. However, controlling a desire would be an action which itself needs a proximal cause of something either in the agent's control or not in the agent's control. So to find the first cause of our original desire, we must consider the proximal cause of this action to control the desire. Since this could continue ad infinitum, to prevent infinite regress at some point the "ultimate" or first cause of any desire must be outside the agent's control.

[Anonymous No.15418545]

*punches u*
whoops sorry that was destined to happen
*punches u again*
ahahha sorry, I don't want to be doing this but I lack the free will to stop it from happening

[Anonymous No.15418600]

>>15418507
the problem is your definition of free will devolves into some sort of absolutely divine freedom. I.e.: The only being that could even possible have free will is the being that has ultimate control, choice and desire. So God.

In other words, for you, its not even possible humans have free will, and if your argument is not even possibly wrong, it is very epistemologically weak or even meaningless.

A better definition of free will is the modal possibility of doing otherwise. Under this definition, Free will can exist or not, but we aren't begging the question. I personally believe it because of >>15418545, frankly

[Anonymous No.15418644]

>>15418545
>I don't want to be doing this but I lack the free will to stop it from happening
You can't really do something you truly don't want to do. Try killing yourself, or biting your finger off, or withdrawing your life's savings and burning it all.

[Anonymous No.15418663]

>>15418507
What if what I want is to have free will?

[Anonymous No.15418673]

>>15418507
P2 is false. Desire doesn't need to have a cause.

[Anonymous No.15418725]

>>15418545
Not an argument
>>15418600
I would say my argument shows you don't have the option of doing otherwise because you always do what you most want
>>15418673
What desire doesn't have a cause? Most desires can be boiled down to something that relates to survival or reproduction. Hunger comes from lack of food which can lead to death, curiosity comes from a lack of knowledge which can jeoprodize survival, etc.

[Anonymous No.15418730]

>>15418507
Any human who suffers from an aphasia shows your free will is really your brain structure, and any human who has a damaged frontal lobe basically no longer has a "free will" anymore.

[Anonymous No.15418814]

>>15418644
To be more accurate, this lack of self-control only means that you're a literal NPC.

[Anonymous No.15418850]

>>15418814
Well if you do something because you strongly wish to avoid being an NPC that's still just you following your desire. There is no escape

[Anonymous No.15418865]

The two main options for nature at it's most fundamental point are:
>Everything is deterministic, thus it would be possible to know exactly what someone's thoughts are going to be, thus there is no free will.
>There is a degree of randomness, thus you can at most know all the possibilities of someone's thought. There still isn't free will because your thoughts are ultimately uncontrollable.

Now, both of these would require a Laplace demon in order to verify your thoughts, and this is far beyond what we can expect of human abilities. So for the common human existence, we should assume that there is free will due to how absurdly complex the mind is, in a similar way we can use an approximation of pi in an engineering project and everything will be alright.

Now, there is a possibility that the mind comes from something completely alien from our nature, and such thing would allow for free will somehow, but that would break everything we understand about nature right now and we don't have any good reason to believe such thing exists at all.

[Anonymous No.15418907]

>>15418865
>in a manner similar to how we can approximate pi in engineering
I don't see how it's similar at all. Approximating pi is useful because it is a workable heuristic that can make predictions. A more apt analogy between the approximating pi and use with people is game theory's "rational agent" and economics "rational consumer" which approximates people as those who employ strategies to optimize some value (utility, points, etc)

[Anonymous No.15418912]

not science or math

[Anonymous No.15419231]

>>15418725
>Hunger comes from lack of food
That doesn't determine which food to choose though. That decision is made by free will.

[VIRUSES DON'T EXIST No.15419236]

>>15418507
shill, you still haven't defined free

[Anonymous No.15419242]

>>15419231
No it’s chosen by what gives you pleasure. Or whatever other sensation you crave. Or the thought that fights this point and decides you will instead choose based on health, or no reason at all, etc.

[Anonymous No.15419244]

>>15419242
>or no reason at all
That's free will. Choice without external cause.

[Anonymous No.15419246]

>>15419244
No it’s making an action based on a thought of “I will make a “”random”” choice to prove I have free will”

[Anonymous No.15419249]

>>15419246
This thought is another expression of free will.

[Anonymous No.15419252]

>>15419249
No the thought is a response to the offense that you might not have free will. Do you choose your thoughts?
I thought by your own definition, free will involved choice?

[Anonymous No.15419254]

>>15419252
No "offense" is involved in my daily decision what food to ear. Yes, I do choose my thoughts most of the time. I'm sorry to hear that you apparently don't have this freedom.

[Anonymous No.15419259]

>>15419254
>most of the time
But sometimes you don’t choose it. Or maybe all the time you don’t choose it. Thoughts in my experience, just happen. Often times like echoes of what I’ve previously heard

[Anonymous No.15419261]

>>15419259
Sounds like you're operating on a lower level of consciousness, closer to an animal. I don't mean to offend you but that's what your description of having no control over your own thoughts sounds like.

[Anonymous No.15419263]

>>15419261
Your belief that you do have control is just another thought out there to reassure yourself

[bodhi No.15419265]

>>15418507
All the world's a stage and we are merely players. We are not here to fulfill our will, but the creator's. Moan all you want about but this is the facts jack. The best way to spend your time is not to moan about it or even ponder it but to figure out what your purpose is here so maybe you can get promoted when you leave this plane

[bodhi No.15419271]

btw I have been where you are. I know when you find the truth you have to find all the answers )you think so anyway_ but you can't find them all and you need to come terms with that. It will always come down to a binary, there is never a definitive, the reality is designed that way, in binary. It is maddening I know, but you will have to face it sooner or later lest you descend into madness like so countless geniuses long before your time. Read the Tao, read the gita, read the dhammapda your dharma will lead you without having to be aware of it. Always be brave, that is the number one thing you need to do please the creator. Never be bullied into doing what you know is wrong even if it cost you your life on this plane. Take as many cocksucking demons with you as you can because this is a spiritual and you are always being tested. If it comes time, act without fear or hesitation or compassion just as krishna told Arjuna.

[bodhi No.15419272]

>>15419271
>because this is a spiritual
*war

[Anonymous No.15419273]

>>15419271
>the reality is designed that way, in binary
Chud logic and factually wrong.

[bodhi No.15419275]

>>15419273
silence half wit, adults are talking

[Anonymous No.15419278]

>>15419275
Reddit dogwhistle

[bodhi No.15419291]

>>15419278
redit sounds about your spead

Only the fortunate warriors, O Arjuna, get such an opportunity for an unsought war that is like an open door to heaven. If you will not fight this righteous war, then you will fail in your duty, lose your reputation, and incur sin.

[Anonymous No.15419299]

>>15419291
Indian mythology was the funko pop soiboiism of the late 19th century.

[Anonymous No.15419446]

You have a vehicle for free will if you posit an agent is absolutely a black box, and cannot be predicted with information outside the information (matter, energy) that actually makes up the agent.
Thus, the agent would still be "deterministic" in the sense that his internal state predictably informs his next state -- but such a statement is completely equivalent to the statement "time passes" or "if regarded from a point in the future, the actions of the agent will have been predetermined.
The complement is the statement that no outside observer will ever be able to predict the actions of the agent, because being able to do so would mean merging with the agent (which, for the desired epistemic gain, is an incoherent suggestion for various reasons).

You may say this does not actually show free will. But I say it may very well be the case that the free will vs predetermination issue is inherently, in its nature, not definable -- it's an ontologically slippery concept.

[Anonymous No.15419459]

>>15418644
>if you truly had free will, you could kill yourself
>no reply
it looks like he proved you wrong :^)