[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 74 KB, 498x497, 1654209139510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15690781 No.15690781 [Reply] [Original]

Even if free will was true, it would still be better to believe in determinism. This is because free will does not explain anything about human behaviour.
>why did she shout at him?
>because she had free will
>how do you know?
>because she chose to shout at him
There is nothing useful or insightful about this series of questions and answers. Meanwhile, a deterministic approach provides statements which do explain behaviour and can be acted upon.
>why did she shout at him?
>chemical imbalance/childhood trauma/conditioning etc.
>how do you know?
>The studies suggest that...
This is besides the fact that there is strong evidence to suggest that factors such as genetics and the environment do play a determining role in human behaviour, and also that most, if not all, social sciences, like economics and psychology, assume determinism is true for the same reasons described above.

>> No.15690789

>>15690781
>free will does not explain anything about human behaviour.
It's not supposed to. Determinism doesn't explain anything about human behavior and you pretend it does, so that's a huge failure on your ideology's part.

>> No.15690829

>>15690781
>strong evidence to suggest that factors
That doesn't support determinism.

>most, if not all, social sciences, like economics and psychology, assume determinism is true
They don't touch it explicitly and reject it implicitly.

>> No.15690840

>>15690829
>That doesn't support determinism.
Yes it does.
Economics operate under the assumption that everyone is a rational consumer seeking to maximise profit, while psychology operates under the assumption that pre-existing causes, such as the environment or genetics, influence behaviour. These are both inherently deterministic assumptions.

>> No.15690847

>>15690840
>Yes it does.
In what conceivable way? Let's watch you tie yourself into knots as you fail to explain. Do you understand what the word "factor" means? Do you determine something based on solely on a "factor"?

>Economics operate under the assumption that everyone is a rational consumer seeking to maximise profit,
That's the retard take on economics, and even people who still buy into it understand that their determinitard assumptions get them nowhere and render the problem intractable, so they still end up relying on statistical analysis to get any kind of real-world results.

>psychology operates under the assumption that pre-existing causes, such as the environment or genetics, influence behaviour.
"Influece" doesn't support determinism. Psychology implicitly rejects determinism when it resorts to a dynamic process that relies on feedback and cooperation from the patient.

>> No.15690854

>>15690781
>>15690847
Speaking of psychology and whether or not it's "better" to believe in determinism, it's well-known in psychology that determinism believers are prone to mental illness and the more strongly they believe in it, the harder it is to help them. lol. Your ideology is a mental disease for all intents and purposes.

>> No.15690855

>>15690789
You need a snicker, you sound hangry, get your blood sugar balanced, then come back and explain yourself again in a better state of mind.

>> No.15690862

>>15690855
It's clear that you got triggered by my simple observation. Too bad you're too mentally retarded to grasp simple English.

>> No.15690867

>>15690862
Says the retard who clearly didn't understand the joke.

>> No.15690870

>>15690867
You're a literal subhuman incapable of humor.

>> No.15690872

>>15690847
That's the classical take on economics, and even modern behavioural economics provides deterministic explanations for otherwise 'irrational' decisions, and these explanations have to be deterministic because free will as an explanation isn't useful or even explicative.
>a dynamic process that relies on feedback and cooperation from the patient.
This has nothing to do with free will or determinism. Every approach to psychology assumes determinism. The scientific method itself is based on cause and effect.

>> No.15690874

>>15690872
Thanks for demonstrating my point about determinism being a serious mental illness.

>> No.15690875

>>15690870
No, you are the retard without any humor who is getting mad because you don't understand the deterministic explanatory implications of hanger.

>> No.15690878

>>15690854
>>15690874
Yes, there is a correlation between having a higher IQ and mental illness. You got me there.

>> No.15690879

>>15690875
You're a literal subhuman getting mad about his subhuman attempt at humor being simply ignored.

>> No.15690880

>>15690878
>i'm mentally ill because I'm smart
It was so fucking easy to goat you into admitting you're yet another /r9k/ tourist. Almost like you are projecting your own automatonism onto the world. Good job discrediting your own thread. :^)

>> No.15690881

>>15690789
>Determinism doesn't explain anything about human behavior.
Maybe try reading the OP.

>> No.15690882

>>15690781
determinism is real but we should pretend that we have free will, because people being given the knowledge that the world will change their actions based upon that environmental information to ones less suited for continued civilization.

>> No.15690886

>>15690880
I accept your concession

>> No.15690887

>>15690881
OP is mentally ill (as he admits ITT) and nothing in his post even approaches explaining how determinism explains human behavior, or how determinsim is useful for understanding any nontrivial system in general, when every time humanity runs into one, it resorts to modeling using random variables.

>> No.15690888

>>15690879
No, you are the one who is clearly hangry and contradicting yourself going from I can't into humor to saying you just ignored the humor after it had to be explained to you because you didn't get it at first.

>> No.15690890

>>15690888
Your humor is shit. I understood your "joke". It wasn't remotely funny or clever. I ignored it. You're such a subhuman monkey you think this is a contradiction, but that's to be expected from your kind.

>> No.15690894

>>15690887
OP does explain it though. You really need to try reading the OP.

>> No.15690895

>>15690890
ok hangryanon, don't pop a blood vessle

>> No.15690896

Determinism is a delusional mental illness, exhibit #2: >>15690894

>> No.15690897

>>15690887
>My beliefs are correlated with low IQ...and that's a good thing!

>> No.15690898

>>15690896
So determinism causes mental illness even though things aren't caused by other things?

>> No.15690899

>>15690890
>I understood your "joke"
Then explain it in your own words.

>> No.15690906

>>15690898
>the mental patient continues to hallucinate statements that no one made

>> No.15690912

>>15690906
>Not believing that your choices are magically suspended from the law of cause and effect is a mental illness

>> No.15690914

>>15690899
>hurrrrrrrr maybe if you eat le goyslop it will reduce your irritability and then you won't shit on me so hard
>therefore your behavior is determined by mundane and "deterministic" chemistry
>me so clever
Just end yourself. All I see is you getting assblasted because you didn't receive the updoot-based dopamine boost promised by your usual operand conditioning.

>> No.15690917

>>15690906
>when I repeatedly said that believing in determinism is mental illness, I actually means something entirely different.

>> No.15690921

>>15690914
Nope, you clearly didn't get it and still don't understand how hanger is relevant to the thread.

>> No.15690922

>>15690912
>mentally ill patient continues to hallucinate statemnts no one made

>> No.15690923
File: 39 KB, 498x280, E_rbOzkVcAM6YGy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15690923

>>15690921
You're so profoundly retarded you can't understand your own joke explained to you in slightly different words. This is really something else.

>> No.15690924

>>15690887
>Conflates complexity with free will
Yikes

>> No.15690925

>>15690924
>mentally ill patient continues to hallucinate statements no one made
Time after time. lol

>> No.15690936

>>15690925
Where did the mentally ill patient touch you, anon?

>> No.15690938

>>15690923
Sure me not understanding my own joke makes way more sense than you clearly not understanding it because of your hanger.

>> No.15690940

>>15690936
Call me back when you can write a single reply that isn't trying to refute statements that you literally hallucinated.

>> No.15690942

>>15690940
OK, but who hurt you?

>> No.15690943

>>15690938
Just for laughs, how about you try to explain your own reddit joke in your own reddit words and then we compare it to what I said.

>> No.15690944

>>15690942
Coming up empty, huh? You're really scraping the bottom of that meme container you call a mind now with generic bot retorts.

>> No.15690945

>>15690925
Is it possible that you just explained yourself poorly, and that's why everyone is misunderstanding you?

>> No.15690947

>>15690944
Trauma is not a meme. Who hurt you, anon?

>> No.15690949

>>15690945
>Is it possible that you just explained yourself poorly
No, that doesn't explain your hallucinations, because nothing in the post you replied to actually pertains to "free will" or goes beyond pointing out the idiocy of your dogma.

>> No.15690951

>>15690949
So you don't believe in free will?

>> No.15690952

>>15690951
I'm not talking to a person. I'm talking to a fucking Pavlovian reflex. lol

>> No.15690953

>>15690952
Do you normally go around calling people pavlovian reflexes? Do you think mentally well people in general go around calling others pavlovian reflexes?

>> No.15690956

>>15690953
You'd be surprised to find out how many of the people forced to interact with you don't consider you to be a real person.

>> No.15690958

>>15690953
>>15690956
And trust me, I know from experience.

>> No.15690959

>>15690958
>>15690956
There's a lot to unpack here. Have you considered therapy?

>> No.15690963 [DELETED] 
File: 23 KB, 608x456, 42132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15690963

Here's the bottom line of this braindamaged thread: if you end up with models that rely on so many levels of abstraction that you can't predict a single thing about the subject you're studying except in the form of probabilities, and your whole framework relies on picking out statistical patterns that emerge on scales vastly larger than the individual constituents, your model is agnostic to the "determinist" or lack therefore in the individual themselves. You can dedicate your model to any metaphysical god you want and justify it using whatever creation story suits you, but the model itself is probabilistic, the cause and effect you perceive are simplified approximations contingent upon abstraction, and the whole mathematics of it doesn't actually care about your determinist fantasies. It works just the same if you assume all your random variables are actually random.

>> No.15690965

>>15690781
if it was true they should be able to predict every mechanical behavior every thinking procedure on any given scenario for all people

>> No.15690967
File: 23 KB, 608x456, 42132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15690967

Here's the bottom line of this braindamaged thread: if you end up with models that rely on so many levels of abstraction that you can't predict a single thing about the subject you're studying except in the form of probabilities, and your whole framework relies on picking out statistical patterns that emerge on scales vastly larger than the individual constituents, your model is agnostic to the "determinism" (or lack therefore) in the individual elements themselves. You can dedicate your model to any metaphysical god you want and justify it using whatever creation story suits you, but the model itself is probabilistic, the cause and effect you perceive are simplified approximations contingent upon abstraction, and the whole mathematics of it doesn't actually care about your determinist fantasies. It works just the same if you assume all your random variables are actually random.

>> No.15690981

>>15690967
>It doesn't count as determinism if the presence of a certain factor makes the probability of a certain outcome more likely
>either that factor directly causes the outcome, or it is completely random, no inbetween
Oh no, it's smoothbrained.

>> No.15690989

>>15690965
Um, chuddie? They can. I mean, they COULD, in my theoretical alternate reality where there's an omniscient, omnipotent science god that exists outside the universe and measures everything with perfect accuracy without interacting with it and changing its course in any way. It's a thought experiment, you see, and it proves things about what real reality works. :^)

>> No.15690991

@15690981
>mentally ill patient hallucinates statements no one made
Every time without fail. These "people" are like machines. No wonder they view the world the way they do.

>> No.15690993

>>15690781
How far will humanity have colonized the universe in 3686789468774569 years?
You should be able to answer this if everything was predetermined.

>> No.15690997

Imagine going from the observation that a certain outcome is more likely if a certain factor is present to the conclusion that that factor has zero causal relation to that outcome. Couldn't be me.

>> No.15691000

Imagine being a mental patient and hallucinating statements no one made in literally every post.

>> No.15691004

Imagine being so insecure that you don't even attempt to clarify your position and instead default to calling everyone else mentally ill. I mean, who even does that?

>> No.15691005

Imagine being so mentally ill that you shit out post after post hallucinating statements no one made, and them delcare yourself to be "everyone else".

>> No.15691006

Imagine thinking that everyone that contradicts you is one person. It's like "hello? Is there somebody home?", lmao.

>> No.15691007
File: 418 KB, 1024x1024, 1649798777102.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15691007

>umm sweaty?
>who hurt you?
>it's like... uhh
>hello?
>yikes
>lmao
>reddit, why didn't he get my joke?

>> No.15691013

>>15690993
>Predetermined
>Implying 'nowness'
>Another retard fake IQ

PRE retard

>> No.15691027

>>15691013
So you can't predict the already determined results? Then determinism isn't real.

>> No.15691029

Imagine the type of person that brings up reddit completely unprompted? Suffice to say, that type of person needs to go back.

>> No.15691033
File: 150 KB, 800x750, 1649798919312.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15691033

>predditerminists seethe

>> No.15691034

>>15691027
>So you can't predict the already determined results?
> Then determinism isn't real
Does not follow.

>> No.15691054
File: 836 KB, 494x278, soience.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15691054

>use causal reasoning to predict a person will do X
>person does Y instead
>rinse
>repeat
>finally, person does X
>see? it works, just the hidden variables throwing us off
Reminder: if it's not falsifiable it's not science.

>> No.15691058

>>15691034
If everything was predetermined it should be possible to predict everything at any point in time, but you can't even tell what state things will be in 30 minutes from now, determinism is not real.

>> No.15691059

>>15690781
I agree it is better to treat causes rather than divert blame. It’s an irresponsible scape goat to blame free will. Notice how the reply of those who unquestionably believe in free will is to label any criticism as mentally ill. Simply a categorical framing to divert responsibility, an additional scape goat, and a dangerous one at that.

>> No.15691065

@15691059
>mentally ill patient once again hallucinates statements no one made
At least you posted from your phone this time.

>> No.15691066

>>15691065
Case in point. You aren’t even trying to reason.

>> No.15691071

>>15691066
What is there to reason about? You're legitimately mental. What criticism of "free will?" The only statement I even made about "free will" was that it wasn't conceived as an explanation of human behavior and isn't supposed to be one. Everything else is just you sperging out incoherently every time I point out the obvious flaws in your belief system, trying to attribute statements to me that I never made. lol

>> No.15691072

>>15691071
Just to be clear I’m not OP or whoever else you imagine you’ve previously interacted with

>> No.15691078

>>15691072
I'm sure someone like you has multiple phones. Maybe you can post from another one to simulate the reddit backup you so desperate lack. lol

>> No.15691079

>>15691058
In order to know the position of a certain object ten seconds from now, you first need to know the velocity of that object. Likewise, in order to calculate with absolute certainty what state the universe will be in, we need to know everything about what state the universe is in at this moment. As such, determinism not being real does not follow from an inability to calculate what the universe will be like a gazillion years from now.

>> No.15691084

>>15691079
>we need to know everything about what state the universe is in at this moment
Your problem, not his. How do we test your "scientific" hypothesis?

>> No.15691094

>>15691071
>it wasn't conceived as an explanation of human behavior and isn't supposed to be one.
Nope. As an abrahamic invention, free will was conceived precisely to explain why, in a perfect world, adam and eve would sin.

>> No.15691096

>>15691094
I see. It's your religion-flavored daddy issues coming to surface, as usual. Nothing whatsoever to do with science.

>> No.15691100

>>15691096
>conflates historical literacy with daddy issues
The term "free will" (liberum arbitrium) was introduced by Christian philosophy (4th century CE). It has traditionally meant (until the Enlightenment proposed its own meanings) lack of necessity in human will, so that "the will is free" meant "the will does not have to be such as it is".

>> No.15691107

>>15691100
Yep, definitely your religion-flavored daddy issues causing all this inflammation. They inform (dare I say, predetermine) your position on any issue. The core idea of "free will" can be traced as far back as Plato, but even if you didn't know this, you still have to be quite severely mental to assume this is some "new" concept that no one considered before Christianity.

>> No.15691121

>>15691079
If determinism was real you should already know everything since it's all predetermined and not subject to the chaotic laws of the universe

>> No.15691128

>>15691107
>The core idea of "free will" can be traced as far back as Plato
Nope. Plato's own Socrates asserted that nobody did evil voluntarily, and it is assumed across all the platonic dialogues that all human actions are driven by self-interest, or a desire for the "Good". Contrast this with christian free will, which was invented by christians chiefly to explain why adam and eve would voluntarily choose to commit sin in a perfect world.

>> No.15691148
File: 21 KB, 600x315, 3524453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15691148

>>15691128
>Plato's own Socrates asserted that nobody did evil voluntarily
Which is why nobody is responsible for their actions, virtues and vices don't exist, self-mastery is impossible and people have no choice but to continue in their flawed ways. Oh, wait, no... that's your incel ideology, quite the opposite of Plato's. Either way, it's funny how desperate you are to circle back to your psychiatric ramblings about Christianity, as if it's even relevant. Everyone implicitly assumed that they choose their own actions. Everyone implicitly assumes that others are responsible for theirs. The sense of agency is a basic element of the human condition -- an element you lack, because you are something less than human. Someone pushes a rock, the rock rolls downhill. Someone pushes you towards something? You can weigh your options. This is an idea as old as time itself, and yet one that you, the victim, the cripple, can't fully comprehend. Having weighed my options dealing with a cretin like you, I think I'll just leave you to your miserable existence. You can't help being what you are. You will churn out another braindamaged reply, like an automaton, knowing no one cares and no one will read it. That is the only option for you. You are a rock and I kicked you even further down the hill this world has been kicking you around. Maybe you'll even updoot your own post from your phone to save face.

>> No.15691152

>>15691148
You're not equipped to have this discussion if you're getting filtered by Plato of all people. Have a nice day.

>> No.15691154

>>15691148
Cringe.

>>15691152
Based. Keep owning the Christards.

>> No.15691168

>>15690781
OP is lying to himself to avoid facing he is a bad person and not a productive scientist either heh. I know free will exists because I'm not retarded but I wouldn't make a thread about it to bother people.

>> No.15691176

>>15691152
>>15691154
Don't respond to him. He might call you a mental patient again.

>> No.15691223

>>15690781
pseud ramblings

>> No.15691227

>>15690781
Social scientists despise determinism and outright say things like deterministic reductionist models are bad.

>> No.15691228

>>15691227
>outright say things like deterministic reductionist models are bad
What "determinstic reductionist" models do they say this about? Give a concrete example of a "deterministic model" in social """science""".

>> No.15691232

>>15691223
There's no such thing as pseudoscience, pseud, it's a clear ad hom, there is no sensible conclusion to the word. Pseudo doesn't quite fit my vocabulary, sounds a bit like mental mysticism, but that's not what it's defined as - what it's defined as is some list of characteristics that modern often delusional scientists despise such as self workings and not following strict rules; which is stupid as science comes naturally, a protocol that is followed with, we're guided into it. It's such a huge error in our ways giving something so simple rules and separating science from nature and leaving it in the hands of a broken social hierarchy.

Tldr; You smell of poo GET OUT

>> No.15691236

>>15691232
Science is home building; self empowerment.

>> No.15691252

>>15690781
based and true. but you won't convince the zealots, unfortunately.

>> No.15691258

I want people in this thread to define “free will” and how it contrasts with determinism.

>> No.15691263

>>15691258
>I want people in this thread to define “free will” and how it contrasts with determinism.
... but all you get instead is people shitting on your own unfalsifiable metaphysics.

>> No.15691279

>>15691258
free will - the ability to have done otherwise (for any given action)

determinism - the complete lack of the above ability

>> No.15691286

>>15691279
>free will - the ability to have done otherwise (for any given action)
This definition makes no sense.

>> No.15691290

>>15691286
Free will makes no sense, by definition. It is simply assumed as fact, a kind of firmware into one’s psyche

>> No.15691292

>>15691286
where's the contradiction? there has to be a contradiction for you to reject the definition.

for the record, i don't believe we have free will.

>> No.15691295

>>15691290
>Free will makes no sense, by definition.
Why did you choose a retarded definition?

>>15691292
>for the record, i don't believe we have free will.
I know. You are this religious zealot: >>15691252

>> No.15691302

free will zealots will reject the definition in debate, but then go on to use it irl. e.g. in a court room 'you chose to kill that man, you *could have* just walked away'. the duplicitousness is pathetic.

>> No.15691303

What is the definition of free will?

>> No.15691305

>>15691302
>you chose to kill that man
Yeah.

>you *could have* just walked away
That's a figure of speech, not a definition. By the way, how did I know you were that retard?

>> No.15691308

>>15691305
>i-it's just a metaphor!
lel

>> No.15691311

>>15691308
>a new mental patient hallucinates statements that weren't made by anyone
Did all of you braindamaged drones come from the same factory?

>> No.15691315

>>15691302
people need to be able to punish for simpler reasons. it would get complicated to justify harming someone else, through the deterministic view.
this is midwit society and must function that way. any high IQ understands that you cannot expect someone else to make your choices WITHOUT YOUR FUCKING PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS!
moreso, you in turn have no idea what's the perspective of the poor fucker who made the wrong choice, which you wouldn't have made, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THINGS!
where does that different perspective you have come from? well clearly from your genetics + your experience, those two together condensed "your better perspective".
yes, it kinda is a nightmare, because we live in midwitland. they don't really care about science, they only care about it up to some point, they'll just refuse it if it goes against their primitive shit.

>> No.15691318

>>15691315
>literal schizorambling

>> No.15691320

>>15691318
not an argument faggot

>> No.15691325

>>15691315
i'm not saying abolish the penal system, i'm just saying that the assumption that he or she could have done differently is really not justified, and it's very annoying to hear lawyers and judges, and people in general saying it as if it's a fact.

>> No.15691331

>>15691320
No part of your schizoramble is an argument. All of it is you bemoaning the fact that no one in any human society would ever recognize your self-appointed intellectual superiority.

>> No.15691337

Define free will
Why will no free will defenders ever even define it?

>> No.15691338

free will vs determinism is a false dichotomy. its possible there are forces from the future influencing us

>> No.15691342

>>15691331
still made no fucking argument.

>> No.15691343

>>15691338
it is a true dichotomy when properly defined. when using this >>15691279 definition, it is a true dichotomy.

>> No.15691358

>>15691343
NTA but if variables of a system can be changed from outside it, then entities within the system may not have free will, and the system state may be changed although they will appear deterministic within the system

>> No.15691359

>>15691337
Spoiler: it's because you and your crew of nutjobs are the only ones ITT who care about "free will" per se.

>> No.15691368

>>15691359
Frankly it’s irresponsible to use free will as a scape goat. So yeah it is a problem, but only because retards assume its existence

>> No.15691373

>>15691368
>i am mentally unwell
Your uncontrollable seething is delicious.

>> No.15691375

>>15691373
>basketcase hallucinates statements no one ever made

>> No.15691381

>>15691375
>>15691368
Show us where the "retards who assume its existence" touched you, Timmy. I can see they are causing you some serious problems.

>> No.15691387

>>15691359
You very much care about it, otherwise you wouldn't be defending it in a philosophical discussion.
What is free will? Define it please

>> No.15691391

Meterologists still can't predict the weather with total accuracy. Does that mean clouds have free will?

>> No.15691396

>>15691387
>otherwise you wouldn't be defending it
I see your psychotic episode only keeps intensifying, because you won't be able to point to a single post where I defend "free will".

>> No.15691399

>>15691391
No. What do you think follows from this?

>> No.15691401

>>15691391
>free will
religious bullshit. propaganda wouldn't work morons.
>here's this information, now you are completely free to not consider it.

>> No.15691403

>>15691396
Yet you can’t define it an ironically project “seething mental illness” on those who say it doesn’t exist

>> No.15691407

>>15691403
>the psychiatric patient lost all semblance of basic coherence

>> No.15691411

>>15691407
By attacking people who say free will doesn't exist, you are defending the concept of free will.
Define free will, or stop defending it via attacking those who say it doesn't exist.

>> No.15691412

>>15691358
i don't understand what you're saying.

>> No.15691438

>>15691411
>By attacking people who say free will doesn't exist, you are defending the concept of free will.
Is that what simplistic left/right, red/blue, X/Y dichotomous automatons believe?

>> No.15691442

>>15691438
Define free will

>> No.15691446

>>15691442
Why? I didn't argue anything with regard to it.

>> No.15691449

>>15691412
It assumes some sort of higher dimension and super system (god-like) which could control our system. Yea idk what I’m saying really. Basically you can never truly know

>> No.15691460

>>15691449
yes we can never prove whether we could have done otherwise or not. but there is still a fact of the matter. one side is wrong.

>> No.15691481

>>15691460
I think we have to go with empirical evidence… free will is nowhere to be found

>> No.15691487

>>15691481
i mean, i agree. my belief in determinism is the strongest of all my beliefs, by far. still, it's only a belief and i have to register the many who disagree. i just wish we could experimentally PROVE it so we could settle it once and for all, no more stupid debates.

>> No.15691490

>my belief in determinism is the strongest of all my beliefs, by far.
What kind of religion is this?

>> No.15691495

>>15691490
you believe in le free will, so you are part of a religion too, just a different one.

>> No.15691503

>>15691495
>you believe in le free will
Is that part of your belief system? Like "if you don't worship my God, you are a servant of Satan"?

>so you are part of a religion too
I don't subscribe to compatibilism, but is compatibilism "a religion"? Like your belief in unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality?

>> No.15691509

>>15691503
>Is that part of your belief system?
no, it's yours.

>I don't subscribe to compatibilism, but is compatibilism "a religion"?
yes.

>> No.15691513

>>15691509
>yes.
Like your belief in unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality? What unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality does it make?

>> No.15691516

>>15691513
your belief that we could have done otherwise is just as unfalsifiable as my belief that we couldn't have :)

>> No.15691526

>>15691516
My what? Take another dosage of your meds. What unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality do compatibilists make, for instance?

>> No.15691527

>>15691399
Psychologists inability to predict behaviour with total precision doesn't mean we have free will.

>> No.15691529

>>15691527
>Psychologists inability to predict behaviour with total precision doesn't mean we have free will.
They can't predict behavior with any precision, let alone "total precision", but what do you think follows from this?

>> No.15691537

>>15691529
if they couldn't they wouldn't allow voting kek

>> No.15691543

>>15691526
compatibilists just water down 'freedom' to something so mundane that it's really not interesting. they do that just so they can give themselves licence to declare themselves as being free. their religion is making 'free will' real at any cost, even if everyone else is laughing at them.

>> No.15691558

>>15691543
>i just don't heckin' like THAT definition
Because it doesn't give you the opportunity to have your little golem holy war and defend the honor of your false god? Too bad.

>> No.15691566

>>15691558
>i just don't heckin' like THAT definition
that's been your argument against me from the start. too bad

>> No.15691570

>>15691543
their definition of free is what free means in a normal conversation though. when people say somebody choose freely to do something they aren't making some grandiose metaphysical claim. meanwhile the "free will" as in the incompatibilist definition is completely impractical, irrelevant and would have no bearing on anyone's life whether it existed or not. or more like, it's just basically just completely meaningless/incoherent

>> No.15691574

>>15691566
>that's been your argument against me
Because your "definition" is incoherent. Theirs is coherent. It just upsets you deeply because it's fundamentally indifferent to your golem ideology.

>> No.15691578

>>15691570
>their definition is correct! the other definitions are incorrect!
that's not how definitions work

>> No.15691579

>>15691570
This take is somewhere in the vicinity of 'sane'. Well done.

>> No.15691581

>>15691529
Psychologists, by virtue of being knowledgable in psychology, are better able to predict behaviour than the common layman.

>> No.15691583

>>15691581
>Psychologists, by virtue of being knowledgable in psychology, are better able to predict behaviour than the common layman.
Dubious but let's suppose it were true. What do you think follows from this?

>> No.15691585

>>15691570
It seems free will allows for the belief in assigning evil to an individual. That very much impacts societal notions of justice and redemption

>> No.15691586

>>15691574
>Because your "definition" is incoherent
nope. there is no contradiction in it. and again, there is a fact of the matter. it is a valid question to ask.

>> No.15691592

>>15691586
What does """could have""" mean?

>> No.15691596

>>15691583
That there is logic behind, or laws which govern and direct, behaviour.

>> No.15691600

>>15691596
How do you get from "there are factors that influence behavior" is some probabilistic sense to "there are laws which dictate behavior"?

>> No.15691602

>>15691585
>evil
but what does that mean, scientifically speaking? evil has religious roots, doesn't it?

>> No.15691603

>>15691592
that there was any possibility of something else happening.

>> No.15691604
File: 23 KB, 480x479, 1692897635430056.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15691604

>>15690781
Even if there is no evidence for free will then how do you explain my feelings? Check mate atheists.

>> No.15691606

>>15691603
>there was any possibility
What does this mean?

>> No.15691612

>>15691600
That factors appear to influence behaviour implies that there is a causal relation between factors and behaviours. How would you account for the correlation otherwise?

>> No.15691614

>>15691602
Evil is a useful societal proxy at best. Probably religious roots. I consider evil to be interchangeable with ignorance

>> No.15691618

>>15691612
>That factors appear to influence behaviour implies that there is a causal relation between factors and behaviours
Sorry, I don't understand it means to talk about the "causal relationship" between a factor in a probabilistic model and an indeterminate outcome (in the context of a model of behavior, not the metaphysical claim you're so desperately trying to prove). I'd even say it sounds like schizobabble.

>> No.15691627

>>15691606
it was something that might have occurred.

>> No.15691628

>>15690781
Other way around. Even if determinism were true, you need to pretend that you're in control of your steering wheel and brakes.

>> No.15691629

>>15691627
>"""might have"""
What does this mean? You just keep repeating the same vague, undefined notion over and over using different figures of speech without ever approaching a definition.

>> No.15691630

>>15691618
Inferring a general law from particular instances is basic science. In the case of psychology, when the presence of a certain factor appears to make a certain outcome more probable, it may be inferred that that factor causes that outcome.

>> No.15691632

>>15691628
>you need to pretend that you're in control of your steering wheel and brakes.
You don't "need to pretend". You don't pretend. You live out that belief almost every second of your existence and you can't help it.

>> No.15691635

>>15691629
>What does this mean?
that's bedrock i'm afraid. that's the fundamental axiom of the free willer. it's more an issue you have to take up with them, than with me. it's not me who believes in it, after all.

>> No.15691636

>>15690781
Determinism isn't real. Quantum fluctuations are causing inherent randomness in our universe.

>> No.15691638

>>15691628
>pretend
At least this is touching the truth

>> No.15691641

>>15691630
>certain factor appears to make a certain outcome more probable
>it may be inferred that that factor causes that outcome
That's schizobabble. Seriously. You will never hear anyone talk about how the parameters of a probabilistic model "cause" outcomes that are random in the context of that model. You will never hear anyone talk about how the average of a gaussian "causes" a sample to have value such and such, for instance. This is as much as I can dumb it down for you.

>> No.15691644

>>15691635
> it's more an issue you have to take up with them
You provided this worthless "definition" and repeatedly failed to explain what its core premise means. I told you from the start you'll fail.

>> No.15691645

>>15691632
I am this. I am that. It is all pretend

>> No.15691646

>>15691645
If you can't stop pretending, you're not pretending. What you're pretending is to be some special enlightened snowflake. That you can actually stop. Maybe you should.

>> No.15691647

>>15691636
so human free will is determined by the randomness of quantum foam? how is that agency lol

>> No.15691649

>>15691644
sorry but the definition is still fine. you haven't proven any contradiction in it. and perhaps most importantly, you must realise that there are people in the world who really believe we have this ability. it isn't just my idea.

>> No.15691651

>>15691646
But you aren’t those things. Thus you are pretending to be those things

>> No.15691652

>>15691649
Sorry, but you're every bit as mentally ill and intellectually deficient as I thought you were. Everyone can see it except for (You).

>> No.15691653

>>15691641
Calling scientific inductive reasoning 'schizobabble' is a contentious opinion, to say the least, but you do you. Still haven't heard your account of why certain factors appear to precipitate certain outcomes, by the way.

>> No.15691654

>>15691632
>You live out that belief almost every second of your existence and you can't help it.
No, you don't. When you're not doing something that requires control, you don't need to pretend anything.

>> No.15691659

>>15691651
>you aren’t those things
Even if that's true, this just doesn't follow:
>Thus you are pretending to be those things
This is cope. You're not just playing. You are absolutely, indisputably stuck playing out all the things you intellectually disown. What a pathetic existence.

>> No.15691662

>>15691659
I’m not stuck doing anything. What are you talking about?

>> No.15691666

>>15691653
A probabilistic model is not "inductive reasoning". You can infer "laws" using inductive reasoning, but if you predict one outcome and get another, the "law" is invalidated, the causal relationship you assumed is null and void and you're back to the drawing table. The more I talk to people like you, the clearer it becomes that public education is a huge mistake. You shouldn't have the vocabulary to argue with me about anything. Your vocabulary should be strictly limited to matters concerning your daily efforts to eat and shit.

>> No.15691668

>>15691662
I'm talking about the fact that you're a middling-IQ pseud and probably a homosexual.

>> No.15691671

>>15691668
Nice one. All these angry people do is project

>> No.15691674

>>15691666
Except the law isn't being invalidated. Psychological studies are able to consistently replicate findings of certain factors influencing certain outcomes. Still haven't heard your account of why certain factors appear to precipitate certain outcomes, by the way

>> No.15691682

>>15691674
>Except the law isn't being invalidated.
>certain factors influencing certain outcomes
It's not invalidated because it's not a law and it doesn't postulate any specific, testable causal relationship. It happily subsumes all the cases in which the factor causes the opposite outcome to your general prediction, all the cases in which it doesn't affect anything, all the cases in which the effect is predicated upon a million other factors, etc. We can circle around this forever but it's clear that you are barely sentient.

>> No.15691685

>>15691674
Pyschology can't even replicate a straight line with a fucking ruler.

>> No.15691690

>>15691682
You might be surprised to hear that, in all natural sciences, there is a variance and even anomalies in the data. Nevertheless, we use this collection of particular instances to infer a general rule or law. What you're attempting to critique is not psychology but really basic 101 science.

>> No.15691701

>>15691690
>in all natural sciences, there is a variance and even anomalies in the data
These are attributed to measurement errors and random influences that can't be controlled. They are not consequences of using statistical modeling to feign knowledge of some assumed causal relationships with unknown causal mechanisms. You will never be sentient. Just stop posting.

>> No.15691711

>>15691701
You've held me in suspense for so long, but now I really want to hear your account for why there is a correlation between certain factors and outcomes.

>> No.15691716

>>15691701
Buddy, all the sciences feign knowledge of causal relations by observing constant conjunctions.

>> No.15691724

>>15691711
>I really want to hear your account for why there is a correlation between certain factors and outcomes.
Who fucking cares? If you say "A causes B", but in reality, A is associated with B only 90% of the time, "A causes B" is demonstrably false. I understand that you've spent your entire life inundated in normie culture that spews dumb shit like "smoking cause cancer" and have a very distorted idea of how cause and effect work, but hear me out: maybe A correlates with B because A causes B under conditions X, Y and Z, through mechanism such and such, that you can figure out and actually demonstrate. Maybe you'll be a scientist. Until then, you're just a reddit pseud of the low IQ variety with an internet degree in popular psychology.

>> No.15691727

>>15691716
>>>/r/teenagepseuds
Your existence is aesthetically revolting.

>> No.15691749

>>15691724
OK, now I see why you're confused. Imagine you are a real mathematician, you are given an object with a number of forces acting upon it, and you are asked to calculate the total displacement of that object. That the sum total of forces resulted in the object being displaced in one direction, this does not invalidate the fact that each individual force did act upon the object and push it in their own individual. I kept this as simple and basic as possible. Hope that cleared things up for you.

>> No.15691752

>>15691749
>OK, now I see why you're confused
Now I see why abortions aren't all that bad.

>> No.15691756

>>15691727
>t. seething causalitylet

>> No.15691760

The worst part about talking to these mentally ill determinitard cretins is that they're just boring. They stumble immediately and you spend 40 minutes "debating" 1+1 with people who can't count on their fingers.

>> No.15691762

>>15691752
Psychology already discovered that abortions are good. You have a lot to learn, young padawan.

>> No.15691764
File: 82 KB, 1000x767, 3464353.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15691764

>Psychology already discovered

>> No.15691769

>>15691756
KEK, they never learn. Conjunchads rise up!

>> No.15691777

@15691760
Simmer down.

>> No.15691802

>>15691760
prove that you could have done otherwise.

>> No.15692800

>>15690781
Believing in free will is better for your mental health

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>> No.15693228

>>15692800
That's because "free will" acts as a workaround for encouraging midwits to do at least some level of cognition. For some people it's easier to persuade them that they have a magical power than to persuade them that they exist inside the universe.

>> No.15693631

>>15690789
Determinism doesn't need to explain it. In a deterministic world there is nothing to explain.