No free will = You know understand psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.15989437]

Once you swallow the redpill that free will is an illusion, you start to see things for what they really are.

For example, since free will does not exist, the identity that you have right now is simply that way because your genetics and environment decided that what you are is the best expression of yourself for reproduction.

You didn't choose your identity consciously like this. Your identity was already chosen for you, and you just came up with a mental justification for it.

Understanding this reality is what will allow you to understand psychoanalysis, as you realize that everything humans do is a biological game for survival, and you can see the reality of humanity by realizing that we lack free will, and all of our opinions and convictions just so happen to be what grants us the greatest chance of reproduction and survival.

Analyzing yourself and your own subconscious mind is how you will understand everyone else's mind and subconscious. If you have the bravery to dive into your own insecurities, you will extract profound wisdom that applies to pretty much everything. It is a difficult journey, but the reward for it is amazing. Once you understand yourself truly, you can understand any human truly, and you will have a deep empathy for people when you see the sameness in all of us at our core, even if we have differing mental and spiritual faculties.

[Anonymous No.15989450]

if you don't have free will what made you make this shitpost?

[Anonymous No.15989457]

>>15989450
randomness is a thing that can account for the "just because"

[Anonymous No.15989465]

>>15989437
Say you just woke up and you're busting to do a pee and you decide to ignore it and stay in bed but it stings and you become determined to ignore it and you end up pissing the bed and there's piss everywhere all over and the mattress is all pissed up and you just lay there in your piss and go back to sleep.

Is that not free will ? To decide to ignore bodily urges. Ignore them beyond what is reasonable to the point you're totally soaked in piss. If we were purely reactionary then you'd go do a pee whenever you feel the need to do a pee

[Anonymous No.15989466]

>>15989450
My genetics thought that it would be reproductively beneficial to myself and other humans to share that thought, so I made the post.

[Anonymous No.15989468]

>>/g/98583265
kek

[Anonymous No.15989469]

>>15989466
so your genetic encoded the thought to make this shitpost?

[Anonymous No.15989470]

>>15989450
Chain of causality.

[Anonymous No.15989471]

>>>/g/98583265

[Anonymous No.15989472]

>>15989465
Every single battle of options is simply a battle of desires
Your desire to stay in bed outweighed your desire to go to the toilet and pee, thats all there is to it. Did you decide to have the desire to pee or the desire to rest in bed?

[Anonymous No.15989476]

You both do and do not have free will, it just depends on what you mean by "free will"
Time is symmetric and thus determinate, so within the context of this "time line" you don't have free will
But whatever "timeline" you're in is indeterminate from the superposition of all possible states, so from this context you do have free will
Thanks for playing

[Anonymous No.15989478]

>>15989472
isn't a desire a choice though ?

[Anonymous No.15989479]

>>15989437
i have free willy

[Anonymous No.15989482]

>>15989478
If it was, fatties would just stop desiring food to lose weight or lonely people would just stop desiring friends. You can try to convince yourself you dont want these things but copes are called copes for a reason

[Anonymous No.15989485]

>>15989437
Yep basically this. East Asians understand this. Westerners completely miss the mark for some reason

[Anonymous No.15989487]

>>15989476
this shit never ends isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15989492]

>>15989437
Psychoanalysis is a scam. Go away, shill.

[Anonymous No.15989500]

>>15989492
Its really not a scam though. Your fluoridated brain is simply severed from its subconcious and has never had a beautiful dream, so therefore you just deny the existence of the subconcious mind because you have never really seen it.

[Anonymous No.15989502]

>>15989482
Fatties are choosing to eat the food though.

If you're claiming nothing in the universe is random, then yeah you could say there's possibly no free will. But if there's randomness and people are just drones reacting to the randomness, then I feel like things like creativity or abstract ideas wouldn't really be possible and we must have some kind of free will

[Anonymous No.15989505]

>>15989469
The person I am, which is result of all things that are outside of my control such as my genetics, my environment, my parents, my schooling, my hormones, and many many other factors led me to make the post.
There is no free will in that. It was a chain of causality as >>15989470 puts it.

[Anonymous No.15989506]

>>15989502
Fatties are simply falling prey to their desires as we all do, if they "chose" not to eat, their desire for health/attractiveness outweighed their desire to eat
You know its strange you people tend to bring up randomness as if its something that can be controlled by a will

[Anonymous No.15989512]

>>15989502
>then I feel like things like creativity or abstract ideas wouldn't really be possible and we must have some kind of free will
that is exactly what randomness offers you, how can you get this so horribly wrong? like ... the exact opposite?
you don't really understand how randomness works in the case of your choices, is it? it doesn't make you make random choices, it just varies/alters a lot of small things which can literally give you new ideas and shit like that. doesn't make your behavior random in the crazy sense. without randomness you wouldn't have a very varied repertoire, you'd recycle the absolute most optimal shit like a robot or something. randomness is crucial to how we work.

[Anonymous No.15989514]

>>15989478
Desire is not a choice. Your desire is always going to be what is most beneficial biologically to you.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/evolutionaryTheories/whyIHaveNoFreeWill.html#mainSection

[Anonymous No.15989515]

>>15989505
so the circumstances of life and your genetic structure somehow collaborate in some form of symbiosis to make this retarded shitpost?

[Anonymous No.15989516]

>>15989437
>Your identity was already chosen for you, and you just came up with a mental justification for it.
ah but then i at least had choice/agency over coming up with the bs justification? or, i didn't have choice for that either because everything can be traced back to prior causes before me (or else are due to randomness beyond my control) blah blah? if the latter, i don't know why you bothered to draw a contrast here.

there's different kinds of arguments against free will - one is a fully general argument where some definition of free will is shown to be incoherent, so we conclude no matter how exactly the world turns out we don't have that. then there's other senses of the word that are more empirical. if we conflate these definitions we end up talking nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15989523]

>>15989502
Brain entropy and human intelligence: A resting-state fMRI study
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191582
bunch of info on entropy in the brain

[Anonymous No.15989525]

>>15989485
Im starting to think that a fusion of Western Greek philosophy mixed with East Asian Taoist/ Buddhist philosophy is a golden combination, similar to peanut butter and chocolate.
Western philosophy is superior for building strong men and civilizations, but is weak in that your life is somewhat unenjoyable.
Eastern philosophy is superior for living in reality, and letting you enjoy every moment of being alive, but its weakness is that it takes away ambition as you are pretty much content with much less.
I think a combination of the two schools of thought would create an unstoppable force of a civilization. The best elements of the West with the best elements of the East.

[Anonymous No.15989550]

>>15989485
We in the west(to be fair Hindus dug in deep here as well) got stuck on the "myth of the given", aka we see the subject-object duality as reality when it should properly be understood as a merely an apparent illusion. Not only do we understand that object as illusions that we experience, but it should also be understood such that subjectivity itself is an illusion from the same faculty.

[Anonymous No.15989552]

>>15989515
Yeah, pretty much.

[Anonymous No.15989555]

>free will
(((they))) will always put the burden on you. they're not stupid to accept we must control for experiences that form you. costs way too much, and we're cattle after all.
free will means "anon I don't care what bad shit you went through, you SHOULD fix yourself or else it's bad". it's blaming the victim, in a sense. it's the cheapest with least headaches. they won't let it go. not easily anyway. this is not really about philosophy, it's way way more than that.

[Anonymous No.15989558]

>>15989525
>but is weak in that your life is somewhat unenjoyable
stoic ontology is only concerned with this

[Anonymous No.15989562]

>>15989552
how can you determine something that you can't examine?

[Anonymous No.15989563]

>>15989555
Yeah,, this is what its always been about. When free will is pushed into a corner in an argument, "how will we punish criminals tho?" usually comes up. Free will is a justification for responsibility, responsibility is a justification for revenge and revenge is a justification for unleashing our deep unga bunga bloodlust

[Anonymous No.15989569]

>>15989562
>that you can't examine
what are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.15989570]

>>15989558
Western philosophy in general is ego-driven, or based on a desire to make something of yourself, and to leave a legacy behind you after your death.
There is something very admirable about this, but ego-driven philosophy can never make you truly happy, as the whole point of the ego is that it is a survival mechanism designed to find problems in everything.
No matter how accomplished you are, if you see the world through an egoic lens, you will never be truly at peace or happy.

[Anonymous No.15989571]

>>15989563
and that's just the beginning. wait until you get to them justifying why monsters are actually needed and good for society (and business).

[Anonymous No.15989573]

>>15989569
you can't even specify the procedure that lead you to do something, you just say genetics and sequence of events.
this is not enough to build an assessment

[Anonymous No.15989578]

>>15989573
You can specify the procedure for most of what leads you to do something, but whether it is understood or understood does not matter. There was a chain of events, and matter firing in the brain that has a pre-determined outcome before your conscious mind "chooses" to do.
Read the article >>15989514

[Anonymous No.15989585]

>>15989573
I have the feeling that if you'd see humans abused to the point of becoming animals you'd still disagree, and say they have free will and they should behave themselves.
experience forms certain brain structures. and determine a certain behavior from that point forward. free will is basically abusing you then telling you it's your imperative to choose to not get affected by that, and if you do you are in the wrong. reality doesn't work like that, that's schizo nightmare land. but usually the logical definition for it should have clued you into that from the beginning

[Anonymous No.15989610]

>>15989437
>and you will have a deep empathy for people when you see the sameness in all of us at our core
This is really important, the only difference between you and any person you may hate or despise is the ambient they were brought up in, at the core you are both exactly the same substance that was just subject to a different environment (this includes your genes), the world really becomes a different place when you start to think "I would be exactly like this guy if I grew up in the same conditions as him", one may think this removes any agency or accountability from people but its quite the opposite, it just allows you to at least sympathize

[Anonymous No.15989620]

>>15989610
>one may think this removes any agency or accountability from people but its quite the opposite, it just allows you to at least sympathize

[Anonymous No.15989626]

>>15989610
The only problem with sympathizing this way is if you hate them, it may lead you to hating yourself in a "i hate him, he is an asshole, its gross that im fundamentally no different" way instead of liking them more

[Anonymous No.15989636]

>>15989457
>randomness
True randomness has yet to be discovered yet, but what if I said there are scientific papers that prove you can alter the outcome of "randomness" with willpower alone?

[Anonymous No.15989637]

>>15989626
nta but you don't have to like them. you are basically hating what they turned up to be/do, you hate the path they took, their luck. yeah. if you don't want to run into that, what do you think you should do in the first place?
this doesn't mean you have to like people doing bad shit. clearly you will still try to stop them as before, wtf. this is not some gay ass love therapy bullshit. this means you understand, scientifically speaking, what the fuck is happening, and understanding it, you take measures to prevent it. free will is like putting a blindfold and saying "what I don't understand what's happening, this rise in criminality must be due to those pesky computer games"

[Anonymous No.15989645]

>>15989637
But how does one prevent this shit? Lets say you control the world and do everything right, you teach parents how to raise their kids without abuse, you fix the educational system to nurture curiosity, you fix the job market to give people control over their lives. Then psychopaths are born to fuck everything over again
And thats just humans, animals are going to continue eating eachother alive no matter what you do, its like a land of psychopaths and being human is suprisingly the safest refuge from that. Its like the universe itself is designed to be gay

[Anonymous No.15989661]

>>15989578
>here is an article that support my claim
>i will ignore all the articles that contradict it
it's a logical fallacy anon, you can't reduce your vector to one set of information you're comfortable with, i see too many people doing this especially nowadays.
>>15989585
i don't even know where to start.
you tilt the discussion to some kind of moral justification, as if our attitude towards any manifestation should depend on the fact that we have no ability to change ourselves there are problematic elements here.
you can predict what the mob will do but at the individual level things become more complex, and there is the necessary expectation that a person will choose the right thing to do.
its all about the extent, but this does not negate the ability of the person to decide

[Anonymous No.15989674]

>>15989661
>propaganda doesn't work

[Anonymous No.15989697]

>>15989674
i said you can predict what the crowd will do but the individual is a different matter.

[Anonymous No.15989707]

>>15989661
Is your argument that people have free will because we are unable to predict them? Cause its kinda hard to simulate another persons brain with your brain and thats assuming you have data on how all their neurons are structured. Its a pretty unreasonable expectation for us to be able to do that whether free will exists or not

[Anonymous No.15989712]

>>15989437
fake pic

[Anonymous No.15989718]

>>15989697
you keep moving the goalpost and you'd use that to justify all the horrible shit happening like accounting for experiences wouldn't massively reduce crime, at society scale. even if not perfect.
>no but if there's a single person which doesn't work out the whole system is bust so we default to free will and pain because it costs corrupt politicians less

[Anonymous No.15989720]

>>15989707
>Is your argument that people have free will because we are unable to predict them?
what other reason should freedom of thought be denied if you can map out every possible action that every person will do in every situation

[Anonymous No.15989726]

>>15989718
it doesn't belong to each other, i don't understand why you chose to internalize it like that

[Anonymous No.15989727]

>>15989720
You are right, if we can map out all the particles and their positions, we should be able to do predict what every person will do in every situation. But ask yourself this, how do we collect all that data and better yet, how do we compute it? Right now, our computers are so weak that we can barely simulate proteins

[Anonymous No.15989730]

>>15989720
>freedom of thought be denied
freedom of though is not denied. wtf are you on about?

[Anonymous No.15989743]

>>15989730
its a discussion about freedom of will/thought.
some of you and OP claim that every decision is the result of preceding events and genetics it consolidates the idea that the human being is not a human being only in his perception, and these concepts are meaningless

[Anonymous No.15989749]

>>15989727
>You are right, if we can map out all the particles and their positions, we should be able to do predict what every person will do in every situation
not sure that's possible just like you can't predict which atom will decay next. we need to prove one or the other. entropy seems important, if true random events affects the brain in any way then kinda hard making sure what someone will do, even with full brain info simulated. we have quantum effects affecting our structure, we don't know how much they affect our reasoning, but quantum cancer kinda determines some shit for you, randomly

[Anonymous No.15989756]

>>15989743
>consolidates the idea that the human being is not a human
not sure of your angle or intellectual honesty. you can't decide what a human is. you don't have that power. nobody does. you can at most get it right or get it wrong.

[Anonymous No.15989759]

>>15989749
Usually large objects are dominated by classical mechanics but okay, lets say the brain is greatly affected by quantum mechanics. Now instead of determinate physics controlling you, randomness is now controlling you. What does that change for you?

[Anonymous No.15989764]

>>15989756
but the human is characterized by the fact that, unlike animals, he is able to choose even if it is against his nature

[Anonymous No.15989779]

>>15989759
>randomness is now controlling you.
yeah but again, you're making it sound like people are just doing random shit, as in nonsensical. which isn't the case.
randomness means you cannot know shit. you cannot know what someone will come up with, as ideas, you cannot know what they'll ultimately do. but you can look at it statistically. if you're going to work, you will take one of all possible routes, you have to, if you want to arrive at work. the randomness might be in which road you take to work, but statistically you will be at work every working day. you won't be going randomly to some random place.
a different strategy for dealing with it doesn't mean people lose "freedom of though" and start doing random shit. I think even a child would understand that wouldn't be the case, why would you imply this? it's so dishonest it's bordering trolling or smth

[Anonymous No.15989784]

>>15989645
>animals are going to continue eating eachother alive no matter what you do
NTA, but not true. When you raise pets, they can live without eating each other. There are plenty of videos of cats/dogs/rats/tigers/monkeys/etc chilling out with one another simply because the threat-o-meter is non-existent in familiar environment, basic survival/foods are met, and whats left is comfort/socialization project. So obv animals can change. And such so can humans.

[Anonymous No.15989785]

>>15989779
Heres the thing, its not dishonesty, its just a little imagination. You can have quantum and classical mechanics working together, you dont have to have one or the other. Planes fly predictably to their despite being made up entirely of particles in a superposition
Brains work the same way, they can have random properties but are largely controlled by classical mechanics that make us behave somewhat predictably especially for big decisions like going to work

[Anonymous No.15989797]

The problem of free will is a supposition of the subject-object duality we take to be true in our minds and its not just a subject-object duality, but a special kind where we assume god-like subjective roles that interacts with the world, yet is not subject to causal conditions in which the entire world operates. Thats the "free will" that is free from causation deriving from the notion that there's a separate "us" that is completely independent of the world in which we live our lives. From nothing, this supposed free will is created, without any causes/conditions from the world to explain the supposed "free" actions that are generated. What actions did you take today that which cannot be explained by any causes-conditions? I bet there are no such thing that cannot be explained.

Its horse shit.

[Anonymous No.15989844]

>>15989797
Well said.

[Anonymous No.15989845]

>free will argument
Name the underlying control system and how it works to a T or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15989848]

>>15989437
i don't try to justify shit.
i am what i am, and i like it.
i ain't gotta explain shit!

[Anonymous No.15989920]

>>15989437
Here are some mechanisms for how free will might be scientifically possible:

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

[Anonymous No.15989926]

>>15989845
Why do you need to have to know everything about said system to believe in it?

[Anonymous No.15989932]

>>15989437
there's no need for choice for free will to exist, only unpredictability, and what do you know even 100% deterministic systems are unpredictable

[Anonymous No.15989948]

>>15989845
There's literally no room for it to operate. If quantum randomness dictated your actions they would be random and probably not even form actions.

[Anonymous No.15989958]

>>15989437
>You know understand
ESL's gambit
Did they mean, "no", "now", or something else?

[Anonymous No.15990017]

>>15989920
I wish people would say the main points instead of just linking to a 300 page book or a 40 minute video.
Imagine if everyone did that, 5 people making you to watch multiple 40 minute videos only to learn you wasted hours on nothing. Would be very unsustainable

[Anonymous No.15990026]

>>15990017
well thankfully this guy dismisses himself immediately by talking about humans as "quantum computers". btw if you watch videos at 1x speed, you're NGMI

[Anonymous No.15990042]

>>15990017
Midwits love to drag out the most simple points into 45 minute videos.
I swear, I am so glad my IQ is 97 so I cant pain to sit through these things, and I just end up asking chat GPT 4 for the basic rundown

[Anonymous No.15990043]

tranny thread

[Anonymous No.15990045]

>>15989932
But what you think is unpredictability is actually predictable and deterministic, its just that we dont fully understand the complex mechanism of action yet.

[Anonymous No.15990047]

>>15990045
this is literally not true. it's so not true that there's a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to the study of systems where you know 100% how the system works and yet it remains unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.15990048]

>>15990043
I feel like trannies would love the idea of free will, as they are narcissistic and love to exalt themselves and their life story.
Determinism is much more of a Chad ideology than le free will rainbows and gender ideology

[Anonymous No.15990052]

>>15989797
Althought this removes the nonsensical "free will" derived from entity that supposed lives outside of our universe, that doesn't mean we dont have control. The reason is not because of magic, but rather because we need to understand how we function as entities, wholistically and locally.
The notion of sentient being is being defined in the study of consciousness today as the autopoesis systems. Its any system that maintain a self-regulating internal system. Relevantly, our bodies are self-regulating internal systems that is protected by our skin and with small and controlled interactions with the world at large. And so, concurrently, when we say "I" or "my control", we're really talking about a sets of dynamics between our local self regulating system and the world at large through which we interact with. When we think clearly about what we understood to be as us/I/me, we're really talking about the collection of causal constraints that are bounded by our localized self-regulating system. Thats what's the real mechanism of our control. Anything that is bounded by causation in relation to our local autopoetic system.

But dont take this as a static self-regulating system, its absolutely not. Our bodies constantly interact with environment such that our growth from single cell to 200 lb lards happen because of our embeddedness within a larger autopoetic system called earth, in which we're all part of the system.

[Anonymous No.15990057]

>>15990047
>you know 100% how the system works
you don't, stop coping with your soience bible

[Anonymous No.15990061]

>>15990047
Its not unpredictable though, it would be predictable if we had the technology and computational means to understand what is going on, but because that technology is pretty much a long long ways away, we dont understand it and therefore we think that it must prove chaos theory.
The answer it gives was predetermined to happen, its just that we dont have the computational means yet to understand why.

[Anonymous No.15990066]

>>15990052
More so, the notion of attributing control to "free will" is fundamentally flawed. Control is maintained through causal connections. Without which, there is no control. Free will is a self-defeating idea on its own. What we really mean control is ofcourse the means to which the chain of causations are limited to local system (body). If properly redefined, "free will" = randomness (as some people here are arguing quantum randomness as proof of free will LMAO).

[Anonymous No.15990077]

>>15990061
>it would be predictable if we had the technology and computational means to understand what is going on
such technology will never exist. the unpredictable nature is PART of the system. it's as fundamental a property as any other fundamental property in the universe, in the same way that a euclidean triangle will never have more than 180 degrees worth of angles. there is no theoretical computer that will combat this.

[Anonymous No.15990080]

>>15989437
>free will does not exist
This is false. Your rant is invalidated by your faulty premise.

[Anonymous No.15990087]

>>15990077
The triangle example is not analogous though.
The properties of physical systems are still governed by deterministic laws.
Even if the outcome of the system is pracitcally unpredictable, it still doesnt negate the deterministic processes underlying it

[Anonymous No.15990100]

>>15989457
>randomness
That shit ain't real.

[Anonymous No.15990109]

>>15990087
tell me what the difference is, from the perspective of an agent, between a nondeterministic system that can't be predicted vs. a deterministic system that can't be predicted

[Anonymous No.15990112]

>>15990109
I dont think a nondeterministic system exists, but I could be wrong

[Anonymous No.15990118]

>>15990112
your bait is stale

[Anonymous No.15990146]

>>15989926
Yes. Either you know what is causing the actions or you're guessing. If the strings are invisible and untouchable it doesn't matter they exist. So name, figure out, prove the system controlling and manipulating our every action, or it's useful as saying "because I say so" when it comes to prediction.

[Anonymous No.15990150]

>>15990146
Thats not how science works

[Anonymous No.15990166]

>>15990150
And you making up a god isn't science either. Explain it or fuck off to /x/.

[Anonymous No.15990267]

>>15989450
If his will was entirely free and unbound by the external, why did he use pre-established letters, words, and phrases instead of coming up with it all on his own through his own freedom of will?

[Anonymous No.15990282]

>>15989512
>that is exactly what randomness offers you, how can you get this so horribly wrong? like ... the exact opposite?
I think you need to read what I wrote again
>But if there's randomness [...] we must have some kind of free will

[Anonymous No.15990283]

>>15989514
>Your desire is always going to be what is most beneficial biologically to you
what about people that take meth or krokodil or something and their legs are falling off and shit but they keep taking it

[Anonymous No.15990284]

>>15990080
prove that you could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15990287]

>>15989523
>higher brain randomness equals higher intelligence
I don't know how that relates to what I said. I was just saying I think randomness allows for free will. The reason is that a deterministic universe can basically be programmed into a certain starting state so that all future events are predictable, like a movie playing out. But if the universe is fundamentally random then you can't predict the future and so we are creating the future through the choices we make
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

[Anonymous No.15990288]

>>15989437
What about all the people who choose not to reproduce?

[Anonymous No.15990300]

>>15989465
Your atubborn belief in free will, and stubbornness in general, would be what made you do that, not making a "choice". Like this anon, who uses "free will" as an excuse to follow his uncontrollable urges. it's not free will.

[Anonymous No.15990305]

>>15990288
byproduct of too little scarcity and confusing hierarchical structures. there have been genetic mistakes in other species as well. Why won't Mr. Panda put penis in Mrs. Panda in the zoo?

[Anonymous No.15990312]

[Anonymous No.15990315]

>>15990305
You seem all over the place on that one.
Is it environmental scarcity, society's hierarchies, or genetics?

[Anonymous No.15990317]

>>15990315
it's all the same thing. Why didn't I just say "x"? Because we aren't on the same page.

[Anonymous No.15990326]

>>15990317
>it's all the same thing.
No, those are three different things.

>Why didn't I just say "x"?
Probably because you don't actually know so you just throw a whole bunch of shit out there and hope something will stick.

>we aren't on the same page.
That is what happens when you give incoherent answers, people stop following along.

[Anonymous No.15990350]

Nothing you stated in your post was original, insightful or even all that intelligent. Are you a teenager just now coming across these ideas or something?

[Anonymous No.15990356]

>>15990326
Because you're coping out of your mind even grasping onto free will. Yes, I know, 99% of westerners are copers but they'll have to learn sometime.

[Anonymous No.15990361]

>>15990356
Except you are clearly the one coping since your explanation is all over the place and includes a bunch of random large scale components that you can't actually justify and just have to resort to name calling when opposed.

[Anonymous No.15990409]

>>15989764
Animals can choose things that go against their nature too, though.

[Anonymous No.15990414]

>>15990057
Incompleteness proves you wrong, you can know the exact value of every integer, but the interactions still become unpredictable and for something as simple as sqrt(2), the last number in the calculation is entirely unpredictable and you will just have to cut it off at some arbitrary point of precision.

[Anonymous No.15990417]

>>15990087
>The properties of physical systems are still governed by deterministic laws.
Your "laws" are determined post hoc and prone to change, they are not decided in advance and have not stayed the same the entire time people have been making them.

[Anonymous No.15990419]

>>15990112
>but I did eat breakfast

[Anonymous No.15990447]

>>15989523
>Thus, we hypothesize that intelligence is positively related to brain entropy.
so I gotta get on a chaos stack

[Anonymous No.15990487]

>>15990109
The deterministic system can me modeled and predictions approximated, but prone to error.

[Anonymous No.15990547]

>>15990487
a system being inherently nondeterministic doesn't mean that you can't make predictions about it, or model some aspect of its behavior. a box that nondeterministically generates a random bit each time you press a button will only ever generate a 0 or a 1, for instance, so i don't think your response is very meaningful.

[Anonymous No.15990548]

[Anonymous No.15990552]

>>15989437
>No free will = You know understand psychoanalysis
>tl;dr
Title is accurate. Schizoanalysis assumes no free will, which is why it's useless for anyone except silicon-brained NPCs.

[Anonymous No.15990553]

>>15990547
If it only ever generates a 0 or a 1, it is deterministic, though.

[Anonymous No.15990556]

>>15990553
i'm beginning to think that "0" or "1" describes your highest possible IQ score, anon :/

[Anonymous No.15990560]

>>15990556
Sorry your stupid example getting proven stupid hurts your feelings, but but if you can easily determine that the output is always one of two states, you are working within a system that is more deterministic than not.

[Anonymous No.15990604]

>>15989476
It's pretty asinine. Free will by the way you contextualize it might as well be a measure. You can measure it by removing characteristics of our drives, which you see as robotic pulses of electricity. The less of these faculties we have, the less free will we have. So much that if even the wind was to cause us to react, then it's proof that everything is reactionary, down to the desire to fulfill a successful identity to rebel and create a neurosis. But Free Will by the measure can be looked at the other direction as well. There is no definition of free will until it starts to act and function on a material function distinct from a rock or a machine. It might seem to you that it winds up the same, but the expression of that ability is not. Free will can be as deterministic as you would like to frame it, but the illusion literally doesn't exist until it exists.

[Anonymous No.15990605]

>>15990604
>>15989476
My post was really meant for OP

>>15989437

[Anonymous No.15990875]

>>15990283
I guess you could say that the body believes the Meth or Krokodil to be the most biologically beneficial because of the sheer amount of dopamine those drugs provide.
The body recognizes the chemical that the drugs provide as either sex or food, so that is why people smoke that stuff till they die. Because it hacks the bodies biology into thinking that you have discovered something 100x more beneficial than sex or food.

[Anonymous No.15990879]

>>15989437
Being programmed to work on behalf of my own instinctual desires is not the same as being mind controlled by the government, retard. Your hard coded instincts are what give you free will, because free will is a state of war against the outside world.

[Anonymous No.15990887]

>>15990419
Thats not analogous.
Youre asking to imagine something which is just by definition not possible.
Its like me asking you to imagine a square circle

[Anonymous No.15990895]

>>15990409
>choose
it was a trap nigger.
so you admit that people can choose?

[Anonymous No.15990900]

>>15990887
easy, L1 or L∞
next

[Anonymous No.15990901]

>>15989437
Can someone explain what they even mean by free will
If there is determinism then any choice I make will be a cause of previous events in my life and in the world.
If determinism does not exist then I will still make decisions based on events in my life and in the world, events that may have had randomness in their cause at some point
So where does free will exist in this? It seems like it's some meta phenomena that can't exist in our world as we perceive it or something

[Anonymous No.15990913]

>>15990901
Free will is where you strategize for survival in competition with other organisms

[Anonymous No.15990916]

>>15990901
There are 2 kinds of free will that people usually argue about. One is them assumes determinism to be true, its about being able to follow your desires. If you dont want to do something but are being forced to by a person holding a gun to your head, then you are doing something against your free will. I think this is an incredibly useless definition because you can just replace "free will" with "desire" and nothing will change
The other kind of free will is one that assumes determinism to be false, this is the one thats a circus to define, no idea
So you are either left with something useless or schizophrenic gymnastics

[Anonymous No.15991730]

>>15990887
>Its like me asking you to imagine a square circle
A point is a square circle, being 0d, all its sides are equal in magnitude, thus square, and its outside is all equidistant from its center, thus also a circle.

[Anonymous No.15991813]

>>15990895
Yes, individuals, people and animals, have the limited capacity to make bounded choices that are dictated by their environmental circumstances and past experiences.

[Anonymous No.15991819]

I want to hear a determinist's definition of free will.
What is it that you belive doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.15991826]

>>15991819
Free is the ability to act without limit or boundary.
Will is the desire to act.
The desire to act is not without limit or boundary, it is dictated by individual and environmental factors including past experiences, therefore will is not free, it is limited by a series of bounding factors.

[Anonymous No.15991839]

>>15991826
I find the determinist view of free will is like saying there is no such thing as a wheel because it's just a leg, and cannot escape the evolutionary tract of animal limbs. It's as if it completely ignores the boundaries that are expanded by such changes, and never asks what comes after the wheel?

[Anonymous No.15991842]

>>15991839
If a wheel can't spin freely because the environment and its mechanics prevent such a thing, it is not a free spinning wheel.

[Anonymous No.15991852]

>>15991842
You're mixing free will and turning it into free wheel argument now. My point was the change itself. From simple drives or structures we eventually get more complex outcomes and processes. You can define free will or the wheel into this perfect ideal that gets negated when you deconstruct it. But Determinists forget how to construct or ask "so what comes after the wheel?" or "If what we we call free will is limited by environment and drives, what would free will with less of these limitations look like?" It will never be a good enough definition in a deterministic framing because its always breaking it down back to the simple, reducing it into a machine. But it's never the other way around, such as acknowledging that free will becomes something that excercises and increases within complex environments. And the more motives such as desire start to appear, the more free will can be something distinct from just a leave blowing in the wind. But desire might not be the only motive existing in nature for long, and the more motives that occur, the complexity of our measure of what free will is.

[Anonymous No.15991858]

>>15991852
You brought up the wheel, but wheels aren't always free spinning, often they are bound to gears in clocks and can only spin with the flow of time.

>what would free will with less of these limitations look like?
You will never be someone else, so you will never know since your will is always bound to yourself and your decaying flesh rather than floating freely through the universe without a real care to account for.

>free will becomes something that excercises and increases within complex environments.
No, often complex environments just yield complex limitations, the fact that you are bound by gravity and electromagnetism and nuclear forces doesn't actually make you more free, it imposes more limits on your physical ability to act.

>And the more motives such as desire start to appear, the more free will can be something distinct from just a leave blowing in the wind.
Nope, no matter how many motives and desires you have, you can only make the one choice that gets decided at the end of the day, your willpower is always hard bound by extenuating limitations.

[Anonymous No.15991868]

>>15991858
>You brought up the wheel, but wheels aren't always free spinning, often they are bound to gears in clocks and can only spin with the flow of time.

Not my point though. I'm stating that doubting an existence or form of free will is as if one was unable to make the distinction between a wheel and a leg because they are just a limb.

>You will never be someone else, so you will never know since your will is always bound to yourself and your decaying flesh rather than floating freely through the universe without a real care to account for.

I will die in this lifetime with my limitations set upon me. Once I've decayed into basic matter should we get philosophical about the varying degrees of choices I'm able to make in this state after death, or should we acknowledge that the set of choices I am able to make while in a living body is distinct.

>No, often complex environments just yield complex limitations, the fact that you are bound by gravity and electromagnetism and nuclear forces doesn't actually make you more free, it imposes more limits on your physical ability to act.

Complex limitations can become the rule if oppressive over other forms or motives, but this isn't always the given time there can come more efficient adaptations. The environment can become effected vice versa. A house can be the environment for termites, termites can effect the integrity oof the house.

>Nope, no matter how many motives and desires you have, you can only make the one choice that gets decided at the end of the day, your willpower is always hard bound by extenuating limitations.
Nope, no matter how many motives and desires you have, you can only make the one choice that gets decided at the end of the day, your willpower is always hard bound by extenuating limitations.

But why even use the word choice if such a word is an illusion in the first place to you. Is this all human existentialism and our limitations becoming the model for for the rest of the universe?

[Anonymous No.15991876]

>>15991868
Wheels aren't limbs and limbs aren't free to act neither are wheels, your "point" is nonsensical and unrelated to free will.

>I will die in this lifetime with my limitations set upon me.
So much for free will if you can't even will your way around that little inconvenience.

>should we acknowledge that the set of choices I am able to make while in a living body is distinct.
Distinct isn't free, the set of choices you think you make are entirely dependent on the form and function of your body.

>Complex limitations can become the rule if oppressive over other forms or motives
Which is why gravity and electromagnetism entirely dictate your ability to move and communicate.

>But why even use the word choice if such a word is an illusion in the first place to you.
The behavior conforms to the axiom of choice, but not to the doctrine of free will.

>Is this all human existentialism and our limitations becoming the model for for the rest of the universe?
The things that limit us limit all the other forms of life on earth too, parts of the universe that have those things in common with have common limitations.

[Anonymous No.15991878]

Any time someone tries to disprove free will it comes down to one of two things: Either purely faith-based beliefs with no ability to test or prove them or redefining free will away into being something that only God could have.
>>15990150
It quite literally is.
If your hypothesis is unfalsifiable (things like souls and determinism) then it is not scientific.

[Anonymous No.15991885]

>>15991858
>>15991868
>>15991876
Can't tell if the spacing is more annoying or the attempt to break down lines of argumentation, especially with the high school tier logic.
>Which is why gravity and electromagnetism entirely dictate your ability to move and communicate
go ahead and write down Maxwell's equation for when someone is shitting.

[Anonymous No.15991888]

>>15991878
Then what is your fully tested definition of free will that has been objectively proven to exist beyond your own faith in your magical power to have a will that is unbounded by your circumstances?
Why invoke mythological beings are you saying whatever your concept of god is, it has less or equal freedom to humans?

[Anonymous No.15991891]

>>15991885
BMs are related to movement, thus simple gravitational parabolic equations describe them, it is the communication via light and electricity that is dictated by Maxwell's equations.

[Anonymous No.15991898]

>>15991891
I am not seeing an equation, but it sounds like you have the high level down. Go ahead and get into the details brother.

[Anonymous No.15991899]

>>15991876
>Distinct isn't free
>gravity and electromagnetism entirely dictate your ability to move and communicate.
>The behavior conforms to the axiom of choice, but not to the doctrine of free will.

I know at one time these discoveries shattered our notion of free will and forced us to reconsider if the word "free" even exists. But I am saying that when you use your deterministic framing, you're not looking at "freedom" as measure but more as an absolute. You are working backwards from something that is distinct enough to merit a definition or replicable distinction in nature, and reducing it down to something that is faceless, pointless, and calling it non-existent instead of acknowledging it as a complex emergence. This scale or measure I'm talking about can work both ways, it can be broken down accurately as you do, or be built up and expounded upon, to the point that humans can fathom how to reduce it, thus falling into its trick and illusion once more. I'm not talking about human free will except that animal free will is distinct from a rock. Axioms vs doctrines seems to get semantical, more concerned with honoring an outdated mode of understanding the world and using human limitations as a straw man, so that science can focus attacking on something like "theology", instead of focusing these thoughts and questions on nature.

[Anonymous No.15991900]

>>15991826
>Free is the ability to act without limit or boundary.
That's one definition. "Uncontrolled" is another. Are we controlled by our past experience and our genetics, or do they merely influence us?

[Anonymous No.15991907]

>>15991899
>to the point that humans can fathom how to reduce it, thus falling into its trick and illusion once more.
*can't

[Anonymous No.15991909]

>>15991898
>I am not seeing an equation
You must be too dumb to look up what parabolic equation means, stick to obsessing over your poopies, its clearly the highest level thought you are capable of.

[Anonymous No.15991913]

>>15991900
Your genetics controls your form and your form dictates the actions you can take, so it is pretty well controlled because if your genetics or past experience dictated that you had no arms or legs, then that circumstance would certain control if you could choose to clap or bend the knee.

[Anonymous No.15991915]

>>15991909
Looks like you don't have an equation for describing something as simple as a bowel movement. Hmm so why claim
>Which is why gravity and electromagnetism entirely dictate your ability to move and communicate
Looks like you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.15991916]

>>15991915
I do, and I told you the exact name of it, the parabolic equation, numerous times, now you obviously are just acting retarded for attention and are going to be ignored if proceed down this retarded path.

[Anonymous No.15991924]

>>15991888
All I'm doing is pointing out that people who believe free will doesn't exist are not holding a scientific or objective position even though they claim to.
>Why invoke mythological beings
Because by defining free will as something that is invalidated by causality, context, limitations, or any outside consideration that could influence the being, you are creating a situation where free will can only exist if a being exists prior to anything else existing, without having any physical form, and having complete omnipotence, i.e. God.
This argument is "I define free will as magic and magic doesn't exist therefore free will doesn't exist."

[Anonymous No.15991926]

>>15991916
You are special aren't you. So you think because the equation for gravity is parabolic that the magic of the parabola is just pulling shit out of your ass?
You have only complicated the situation because now you have to explain why shit isn't always falling out of your ass the way it falls out of your mouth.

[Anonymous No.15991930]

>>15989437
>all our opinions are just what happens to give us best chance of survival
Wow that’s some teleologically loaded, huge , assumption . I am not arguing for free will per se but this is not an argument. Only thing you can say is that it’s a function of preceding causes. In your true interpretation there is no grand aim that human body strives for. Some of the beliefs are linked to the need of survival, sure like „death is bad”. But it’s entirely possible we also have dozens of beliefs that are just there and are not necessarily causes of me surviving further next several years of so.

[Anonymous No.15991933]

>>15991924
No, you are also clearly avoiding defining it yourself because you know there are no definitions of free will that are objective or scientifically measurable.

> a situation where free will can only exist if a being exists prior to anything else existing
No, free will can only exist if your will is entirely free, which it is not, whether you are limited by a pre-existing being or a pre-existing universe that dictates the rules that define your choices.

>This argument is "I define free will as magic and magic doesn't exist therefore free will doesn't exist."
No, its not, I clearly defined free will >>15991826 without invoking magic or magical beings and only referring to the very clear fact that you will is bound by a multitude of factors rather than freely being.

[Anonymous No.15991937]

>>15991926
No wonder you are so confused, you are one of those who shoves things up your ass and poops from your mouth, sorry I can't help, especially someone who was this confused by parabolic equations.

[Anonymous No.15991949]

>>15991913
>Your genetics controls your form
Not to the extent that you seem to think. Our bodies are the result of emergent interactions between our genes and our environment. Many aspects of our biology are not directly programmed, they crystallise out of interacting with the environment. The exact layout of your blood vessels, the exact wiring of your brain and the proportion of various aspects of it etc.
>free will is fake because double-leg amputees can't choose to walk
IDK bro, I don't think most people imagine "Godlike omnipotence" when they talk about free will.
Of course if you want to keep defining "free will" so that it is a priori impossible for any living being to have it then be my guest, but it seems full of moral hazard, an excuse that evil people can tell themselves
>it's not immoral for me to indulge in this heinous activity that brutalises innocent people, I'm just a slave to my circumstances, I have no choice

[Anonymous No.15991951]

>>15991933
>No, you are also clearly avoiding defining it yourself because you know there are no definitions of free will that are objective or scientifically measurable
NTA but free will can be defined as "the ability to make a moral choice even when it harms our own self-interest".
And you'll come back with some just-so story about how in any particular example I give that the person wasn't actually exercising a choice to act in a moral and forthright manner, they were predestined to be selfless and altruistic by past experiences and genes and so on.
The determinist position is at least as unscientific, untestable and unfalsfiable as the opposite one.

[Anonymous No.15991952]

>>15991933
>you know there are no definitions of free will that are objective or scientifically measurable.
Not scientifically measurable, yes. But again, this isn't relevant. The position that free will does not exist is not objective or scientific by any measure. That is the primary thing I am pointing out, and you agree with me.
However saying that free will exists can be objective. Free will is the ability of a being to choose between different actions it could take. This is something which can be observed all the time in everyday life. It is objective. To contest this and say that these beings are not actually choosing requires proof that the fact of reality is contrary to what we observe.
>No, free will can only exist if your will is entirely free, which it is not, whether you are limited by a pre-existing being or a pre-existing universe that dictates the rules that define your choices.
>No, its not, I clearly defined free will >>15991826 without invoking magic or magical beings and only referring to the very clear fact that you will is bound by a multitude of factors rather than freely being.
You have not refuted me, you have only reiterated your original point. You say that because a person cannot snap a billion tons of gold into existence that it means free will doesn't exist. You are very explicitly defining free will in supernatural terms.
All I am doing is pointing out natural consequences and implications of your argument.
Where is the disconnect?

[Anonymous No.15991953]

>>15991937
If it is a parabolic equation why isn't shit flying out of your ass all of the time? What is the equation controlling the parabola?
Once again, you seem to think because you took a middle school algebra course that you have can magic away free will. This type of haphazard reasoning is exactly why nobody should assume you retards are acting in good faith. You declare a bunch of bullshit without the slightest grounding.
Take a car whose motion can be described by general motions of equations and explain how that correlates to the driver steering, braking, and accelerating. How exactly far down is someone pushing the brake pedal? How far does your asshole actually open when you are shitting and watch equations are governing that? You don't seem to think, but rather just vomit retarded nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15991957]

>>15991949
>Not to the extent that you seem to think.
Enough to dictate your will.
>Our bodies are the result of emergent interactions between our genes and our environment.
I see you left out free will in that equation.
>free will is fake because double-leg amputees can't choose to walk
Will is certainly not free if something like a couple missing appendages can entirely control your ability to choose whether to walk or not.

>"Godlike omnipotence"
It doesn't require godlike omnipotence to choose whether to walk, only legs.

>if you want to keep defining "free will"
I didn't define the words, but feel free to keep referring to your limited choices as free will even though you aren't even free enough to decide what you like or dislike or what is poisonous to you and what is not and you are the one stupid enough to continue to use phrases in ways that aren't compatible with the words that make the phrase.

[Anonymous No.15991960]

>>15991951
You just sound like a malevolent victim blaming retard who only allows enough freedom to hurt oneself in your shitty redefinition where the words don't even add up to the phrase composed of the words and just invokes even more vague subjective words like moral to make your point.
Good luck scientifically testing a moral statement.

[Anonymous No.15991962]

>>15991957
>free will is fake because double-leg amputees can't choose to walk
Will is certainly not free if something like a couple missing appendages can entirely control your ability to choose whether to walk or not.

Say it to this niggas face. You mistake ability with free will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEItmb_a20M

[Anonymous No.15991963]

>>15991957
>Will is certainly not free if something like a couple missing appendages can entirely control your ability to choose whether to walk or not.
Haha oh wow he's actually doubling down on the "free will isn't real if you can't will yourself a new pair of legs" angle.
Should it really have to be stated that any definition of free will must have the caveat of "physically possible"?

[Anonymous No.15991966]

>>15991952
>The position that free will does not exist is not objective or scientific by any measure.
All you have to do is measure anything that limits your will and I have already said how something as basic as your number of limbs entirely dictates if and how you walk.

>That is the primary thing I am pointing out, and you agree with me.
No. Science specifically defines limits, the fact that you are reduced to crying about measurement proves that your will is limited by your ability to observe rather than acting freely in a vacuum.

> Free will is the ability of a being to choose between different actions it could take
No, that is the axiom of choice, free will is the ability to choose without restriction.

>To contest this and say that these beings are not actually choosing requires proof that the fact of reality is contrary to what we observe.
Which has basically been done since neuroscience has measured brain activity of people and observed that people have already "chosen" well before they are aware any choice has been made.

>You are very explicitly defining free will in supernatural terms.
No I explicitly defining free in terms of lack of limits, its not my faults you chose a shitty hill to die on and can't actually justify how you can be both entirely free of will and bound by a form of self you can't choose much about.

>All I am doing is pointing out natural consequences and implications of your argument.
No, you haven't, there is nothing natural about your argument, you have to ignore nature to pretend like your magical concept doesn't have endless natural limitations and boundaries in reality.

[Anonymous No.15991967]

>>15991960
You don't have to agree with or believe in someone's morals to test whether or not their behaviour is consistent with them.
I don't share the racial politics of Nazi Germany, but I can see that their policies were consistent with their own beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15991968]

>>15991966
>free will is the ability to choose without restriction
Stop using supernatural definitions. Everything in the universe is restricted in some sense.

[Anonymous No.15991969]

>>15991963
If you have to put all those caveats on being free, you aren't actually free, you are the one fallaciously redefining terms for the convenience of your argument.

[Anonymous No.15991970]

>>15991962
That is crawling, he will never be free to walk, no matter if he becomes the greatest crawler to ever live due to the limitations of his condition.

[Anonymous No.15991971]

>>15991967
That isn't morals, that is semantics.

[Anonymous No.15991973]

>>15991968
Agreed, this is why free will is supernatural rather scientific and belongs on >>>/x/ rather that >>>/sci because a will that is actually free requires unlimited potential that is not available in reality.

[Anonymous No.15991975]

>>15991973
>I define free will as magic and magic doesn't exist therefore free will doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15991976]

>>15991966
You sound like your redefining free will, morphing it based off another anon you were arguing with. How is free will a measure of limits of will if it doesn't exist at all. Like, if your measure of limits is less than anothers measure, does that mean you have more free will?

[Anonymous No.15991979]

go back to /pol/ for free will talk, it is a political concept, has nothing to do with reality and how humans operate. free will-ers can't even define it, does make no fucking sense logically speaking, yet you are still engaging with them, it's incredible.
no free will enjoyer would ever change his mind based on any evidence. it's faith based, and based on shit philosophy. they come here to try and convert as many scientists as possible, not to understand anything from scientists.

[Anonymous No.15991980]

>>15991975
>I think actual physical limitation is supernatural because I really really want to be a demigod gifted magical qualities of freedom by an omnipotent deity.

[Anonymous No.15991983]

>>15991979
you make a shit statement with nothing to back up your arguments and sound a /pol/ poster, go back

[Anonymous No.15991984]

>>15991976
>How is free will a measure of limits of will if it doesn't exist at all
That is how ideals work, they are words to describe desirable things that don't actually exist.

>if your measure of limits is less than anothers measure, does that mean you have more free will?
No, free will isn't real, what you described means your choices are more limited because you have more limited factors imposed on your will, but nobody's will is free, everyone is limited in their choices because free will is just an imaginary ideal rather than a real physical force.

[Anonymous No.15991986]

>>15991966
>Which has basically been done since neuroscience has measured brain activity of people and observed that people have already "chosen" well before they are aware any choice has been made
That's a very loaded statement. You're assuming that brain imaging in its current state is sufficiently advanced and it's results sufficiently well understood to inform us of very precise mechanistic processes happening within the brain.
Then you sneak in the claim that if we choose something in the wrong way (ie on some unconscious level) that we didn't really choose it at all.
If I decide to go out for a steak dinner, and I arrive at the restaurant and place my order without even looking at the menu, to the server it appears that I didn't make a choice at all, I had already decided I was having steak before I sat down, I had predetermined to eat steak, you could say. But on some level of my mind, I considered the possible options for dining out. Consciously or unconsciously, I chose between steak, pasta, Chinese food, burgers, etc. No matter which restaurant I chose, it would appear to the staff in that restaurant that I had "predetermined" what kind of food I was eating, but the question of how the decision was made hasn't been answered, it's just occurred at a level beyond their conception.

[Anonymous No.15991988]

>>15991984
So your definition of free will is an "ideal" impossibility so therefore any measure of freedom over will doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.15991989]

>>15991979
>free will-ers can't even define it,
Neither can you.

[Anonymous No.15991990]

>>15991983
that's the trick you always pull "I don't get it bro" so you can continue talking about it. it's about exposure to propaganda, not about figuring it out. you press and press because that's what zealots do, forcefully insert themselves and insist until they literally die, at which point another idiot like you takes your place. that's how zealots colonize shit. they are not reasonable. they talk nicely to get a foot in the door. the best move is to completely ignore your zealoted asses

[Anonymous No.15992004]

>>15991990
Maybe go back to /pol/ then since you don't even want to be in this thread and can't even string together a point related to the topic

[Anonymous No.15992009]

If free will doesn't real, then isn't it immoral to punish people for pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, etc? They're just slaves to their will after all. They were predetermined to.have those desires. How about murderers? No-one chooses to kill someone, they are unwilling automatons that can't be held responsible for their actions.
Or is there a conflict within humans of desire to act vs comprehension of the consequences of those actions? Do we recognise that the choice we ought to make isn't always the choice we want to make, but we try to make the "right" choice anyway?

[Anonymous No.15992015]

>>15992004
I made a lot of good points, that's why I'm sure it's not about debate and discussion, it's about your non-stop attack on science, because it irks you and fucks with your philosophy. you don't want to learn.
>>15992009
see? the same old twisting of perspectives, strong-arming and appeal to primitive instincts, fear and all that bullshit. your intentions are fake, none of you free willers are intellectually honest.

[Anonymous No.15992018]

>>15991988
The words used to form the phrase are entirely idealistic, yes, so the term will never be actual reality since in reality the will of any individual is always limited by reality first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.15992019]

>>15992015
>see? the same old twisting of perspectives, strong-arming and appeal to primitive instincts, fear and all that bullshit. your intentions are fake, none of you free willers are intellectually honest.
I'm just exploring the consequences of the deterministic worldview. If you truly believed that humans don't control their own behaviour, that there is no choice, then how do you justify punishment of criminal behaviour?
If you don't believe in free will, why do you believe in punishing crime?

[Anonymous No.15992022]

>>15992015
You made a lot of circular arguements that allowed you to restate your points even though multiple posters were able to point out the holes in your repeated arguments without using magical thinking yet pointing out the theological straw men in your definitions of free will. "I Am The Science" is what you've resorted to.

[Anonymous No.15992024]

>>15992009
>If free will doesn't real, then isn't it immoral to punish people for pedophilia, zoophilia, incest, etc?
No that removes imposed social limits to bad behavior that makes bad choices easier to choose.

>They're just slaves to their will after all.
Part of that slavery is not just being slaves to their bodies and to the direct environment, but slaves to society and other bodies too.

>they are unwilling automatons that can't be held responsible for their actions.
Except with punishment and other external pressure, they can and if you do it right and provide enlightenment for your rules, they won't even be able to make the wrong choices in the future and won't even want to.

>Do we recognise that the choice we ought to make isn't always the choice we want to make, but we try to make the "right" choice anyway?
No, we choice based on expectations and decide in retrospect if it turned out the way we imagine, then use those actualities and expectations to inform future decisions.

[Anonymous No.15992026]

>>15992022
Circular argument is the most compelling type as the only other choices are regressive which never finalize and assertive which can't be supported.

[Anonymous No.15992028]

>>15992022
I'm not that anon, but am another anon who made points.
>>15992019
>I'm just exploring the consequences of the deterministic worldview.
no you aren't, you are trying to scare people into adopting your view. you will always eventually get to
>let me explain why you should lie like me, why it's good to lie, because reasons.
you always go there because you have no choice. ultimately you will threaten with violence. always did that way, always will do that way, you have no choice, you don't really have "free will" to choose, you execute your script that's it.
you are exactly the one making circular arguments
>we need to do it because we always did it which means we have to do it (somehow).
see, if doing itself is what maintains the shit state of things, it would be useful for you to not break the cycle, and it would fall exactly into circular reasoning.
all of you religious free-will having zealots are literally scaring/threatening humans into that master-slave mentality. that's what's it always is about with you weirdos

[Anonymous No.15992029]

>>15992018
>so the term will never be actual reality since in reality the will of any individual is always limited by reality first and foremost.
This sounds like the definition your are proposing though, "the more limits, the less agency". So it seems these concepts are real enough in your mind to have a measure of it, but you must ignore this to prove your point

[Anonymous No.15992032]

>>15992028
>you are exactly the one making circular arguments
Who am I? If I don't have free will, who are you blaming for the circular argument? The Great Jihad?

[Anonymous No.15992033]

>>15992024
>that makes bad choices easier to choose
But I thought people don't really choose their behaviour? If choice is an illusion, how can it be easier to "not really choose" a choice?

[Anonymous No.15992035]

>>15992029
They are idealistic and aspirational, it would be great to be able to choose anything without the limits of reality getting in the way, but that is not how reality works, it is not free, it bound by physics and we are limited in scope because they are imaginary ideals rather than real concepts, so I don't have to ignore anything, I can talk about it as an imaginary ideal while accepting that it is not actual reality.

[Anonymous No.15992037]

>>15992028
>all of you religious free-will having zealots are literally scaring/threatening humans into that master-slave mentality.
Where did I make any religious claim? Who am I threatening/scaring?
If the idea of being held responsible for your actions is frightening to you, maybe you should make better decisions about how you behave.

[Anonymous No.15992039]

>>15992033
Sounds like your reading comprehensions just sucks and you can't tell the difference between choices aren't freely made and people can't choose at all.

[Anonymous No.15992041]

Retarded post. anyone who doesn't believe in free will should try meditating, not for the sake of religiousness or spirituality but because it let's you actually think and free your mind from your surroundings.

If you had no free will you wouldn't be able to break addiction
>yes because blablabla your environment pushed you into it
no, addiction is chemical deep, it pushes your body into giving into things, you have to mentally abstain and fight against these urges that are PHYSICAL, meaning you have to use your free will to decide against your body's physical response.

[Anonymous No.15992042]

>>15992035
So agency doesn't exist? A CEO of a bank doesn't have more power, more exertion of his authority than a bank teller, because agency is an ideal sprung from the concept of free will which is a determinist illusion sprung through desire and other drives of our complex molecules formed by atoms determined by the big bang, right? So therefore you can not contrast the CEO's agency against the Bank tellers because Big Bang is the only boss

[Anonymous No.15992048]

>>15992041
>meditation
Sounds more like a cope and when you finally realize your will doesn't freely dictate your reality, you just sit around for hours on end doing nothing and trying to minimize your interaction with the environment and other people to compensate.

If your will were actually free rather than tether to physical and chemical limits, addiction and compulsive behavior would be impossible in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15992050]

>>15992048
The last few posts you do sound possessed by Neil Degrasse Tyson

[Anonymous No.15992054]

>>15992042
Agency refers to the behavior of a biological agent, it doesn't have to be tied to some supernatural concept, social hierarchy dictates those power imbalances rather than some freedom of will power, the teller will never be able to make the decisions of a CEO unless they actually become CEO because that is how the positions are dictated by society and the legal system.

[Anonymous No.15992056]

>>15992050
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15992058]

What's the free will particle/atom?

[Anonymous No.15992061]

>>15992048
>If your will were actually free rather than tether to physical and chemical limits, addiction and compulsive behavior would be impossible in the first place.
Are you fucking retarded? Free will doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's not black and white. What you're saying is like
>if you had free will you wouldnt feel pain because you would choose not to
The body has physical responses, despite it you can decide to work against them like in an addiction, when being hungry, when lifting weights and feeling pain.
If you had no free will you wouldnt be able to stop yourself from eating as a fat person, because eating is a priority for the body. You are just a delusional moron who likes to be edgy. End of discussion

[Anonymous No.15992062]

>>15992058
First point to which one of those is (You) then which part of (You) is your will, then we can test to see if it is free.

[Anonymous No.15992065]

>>15992054
Free will as a modern definition is pretty synonymous with agency. Semantical arguments often depend of language having fixed absolute definitions when you need them to, and then moving the goal post along the etymological course of any given words existence when you feel like it.

[Anonymous No.15992068]

>>15992061
>if you had free will you wouldnt feel pain because you would choose not to
People can choose to ignore pain to the point they don't feel it, that was a bad example.

>it you can decide to work against them like in an addiction,
It wouldn't be work if your will was free rather than bound by your past choices, you would just choose to act differently.

>If you had no free will you wouldnt be able to stop yourself from eating as a fat person
Fat people physically must stop eating at a certain point despite how much they might want to keep going because their stomach, intestines, and the food in it are physically real and limited by real space rather than freely able to integrate any amount of food.

[Anonymous No.15992069]

>>15992065
*Free will as a nonscientific definition is pretty synonymous with agency.

You tried to introduce agency, so you could push a different definition of free will that is actually unnecessary, you are the one being disingenuous and trying to move goal posts from free will to sentience.

[Anonymous No.15992075]

>>15992069
No, I kept free will in the discussion. I used a close synonym because the word "free will" has become a psychological trigger so much that you've begun denying your own existence barring material atoms. And I had to remind you what agency was and how it still exists, and you haven't really refuted my point at all, just stuck to semantics as usual.

[Anonymous No.15992081]

>>15992075
No, you tried to shift the conversation because all your shitty free will arguments got BTFO, but agency is entirely compatible with the axiom of choice without the ability to choose being entirely free to the point that even computer intelligences are considered agents despite their decision making process being entirely algorithmic and known.

[Anonymous No.15992082]

>>15991730
>sides are equal in magnitude
That's called an equilateral polygon, retard, not a square.

[Anonymous No.15992088]

>>15992082
In a 2d coordinate system, they are the same thing, just like in 0d, a square is the same as a circle.

[Anonymous No.15992091]

>>15992088
Nope, a square is an equilateral polygon with exactly 4 sides.

[Anonymous No.15992092]

>>15992081
You're the one who keeps jumping from definitions of free will, between "it's entirely free in some form no one actually believes is possible" to more reasonable "measures of limitations upon one ability to act" (not direct quotes mind you), and you act like the word Agency is a major jump of the goal post. You haven't satisfied one argument I've made with a proper counter-argument. It's just Destiny talking points that make yourself feel smart, because there is no possiblity of you learning anything, you're above that. It's a pretty lame discussion if this has only boiled down too pawning religion or humanists magical and romantic of free will because then it's not actually a discussion about nature, but about the people who hurt you.

[Anonymous No.15992098]

>>15992091
In a 2d coordinate system, each point does have exactly 4 sides and 4 diagonals.

[Anonymous No.15992101]

>>15992098
Stop using ChatGPT, retard.

[Anonymous No.15992103]

>>15992092
So your argument boils do to the fact that you think free doesn't actually mean entirely free when used in proximity to the word will, free actually means something else besides free entirely?

[Anonymous No.15992104]

>>15992101
How about I just don't start using it and actually understand how math is structured instead.

[Anonymous No.15992107]

>>15992103
Lets see, on principle if you get a free ice cream cone but you had to pay for the Happy Meal does that mean the ice cream was no longer free because the entire universe wasn't a free day off that day?

[Anonymous No.15992108]

>>15992107
Correct what you described means the ice cream cone was sold as part of a bundle rather than given away freely.

[Anonymous No.15992110]

>>15992104
In what way do you understand a point to have exactly 4 sides?

[Anonymous No.15992117]

>>15992110
The coordinate system limits the directions other points can be and in a 2D coordinate system with two axis going in two directions, you have exactly 4 possible sides and 4 possible diagonals to each and every point in the plane.

[Anonymous No.15992123]

>>15992117
Oh, I see... Good luck in life, friend.

[Anonymous No.15992127]

>>15992108
That's why I said on principle, but sure, stealing lunch money, or someone generously gifting you with something is free for you, or any number of circumstances where the word "free" is close enough to approaching zero to fit the definition.

[Anonymous No.15992130]

>>15992123
Thanks, good luck constantly blaming computers and computer programs for your lack of critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous No.15992131]

>>15992039
You have a logic issue if you can't understand that they're the same thing in this context.

[Anonymous No.15992133]

>>15992127
So you finally admit that free will is an idealist approximation using semantics rather than an actual physical reality?

[Anonymous No.15992136]

>>15992131
They aren't the same thing at all, they are potentially infinitely different, the exact difference being one has an arbitrary number of limitations thrust upon choices while the other has no possible choice at all.

[Anonymous No.15992144]

>>15992136
Free will can only ever refer to the set of POSSIBLE choices that we can make. Out of all the courses of action that circumstance does not allow, which choice shall we make? Whether or not to engage in criminal behaviour, whether or not to act on a violent or deviant impulse, etc.
You seem to be saying that we DO have a choice as to whether or not we goon for 12 hours to sissyhypno porn. If I want to goon, if I feel an overwhelming urge to goon, but i resist the temptation, have I not exercised my free will?
"Resisting temptation" is possibly the most concise and least controversial definition of free will that I can think of.
Are we slaves to instinct and desire, or are we capable of examining ourselves, of self-reflection, of questioning our own decisions and making choices contrary to our base desires?

[Anonymous No.15992151]

>>15992144
>Free will can only ever refer to the set of POSSIBLE choices that we can make.
No that is axiom of choice worded correctly compared to free will because choice doesn't imply some impossible supernatural ideal like being free, just arbitrarily deciding between an arbitrarily equal set of choices.

>have I not exercised my free will?
No you chose a different activity, but it wasn't freely chosen, you weighed pros and cons and picked between them, the freedom of which is heavily debatable.

>"Resisting temptation"
That generally is just a matter of choosing social well being ahead of your own momentary well being because you recognize it will work better in the long run.

Base desires aren't the only ones the world is full of complexity and ignoring momentary base desires for longer term fulfillment is still a matter of choosing in your best interests, but with a longer term strategy filled with more unknowns instead of short term only to fulfill instant gratification with less unknown factors.

[Anonymous No.15992152]

>>15991826
>Free is the ability to act without limit or boundary.
>Will is the desire to act.
Therefore free will is the ability to act without limit or boundary on the the desire to act?
Okay but that's a pretty convoluted definition just to say "free will = no limit to my dreams."

[Anonymous No.15992158]

>>15992133
I'll concede that free will is an emergent property in nature, better described as biological agency, that has not necessarily a vertical or lateral progression, but is evident enough in contrast with other inanimate and often less intelligent entities to have distinction, thus the springing of the concept of free will long after this emergence occurred. But that reduction of the concept of free will underrates the unique qualities of what this agency is, and by complexity through evolution it has some likelihood too develop into something beyond our current abilities to analyze or reduce into simple drives or motives if one were to expect a greater measure of behavior patterns from emergent sentience.

[Anonymous No.15992159]

>>15992151
>choice doesn't imply some impossible supernatural ideal like being free
It's only an impossible supernatural ideal if you consciously decide to define it that way.
You're applying the definition of "omnipotence" to the phrase "free will".

[Anonymous No.15992161]

>>15992152
Ok, but you are still limited no matter how convoluted your limitations are, you can't act freely, only in the bounds of reality rather than willpower.

[Anonymous No.15992168]

>>15992161
Then you need to redefine Free and Will because all that says is that there's no limit to your desire to act (which there isn't), not that there's no limit to your ability to act (which there is).

[Anonymous No.15992170]

>>15992168
>no limit to your desire to act (which there isn't),
There is though, your knowledge of action limits your desire to act, you can't desire to mphrumphy because you have no idea how to.

[Anonymous No.15992180]

>>15992170
That's an argument about how many actions you can define with a finite alphabet in a finite time, not whether there's a limit to desiring those you can.

[Anonymous No.15992182]

>>15992170
>free will isn't real because you don't know how to prisjfpejdn
Lmao

[Anonymous No.15992193]

>>15992182
Yes not only is your will not free, neither is your imagination.

[Anonymous No.15992195]

>>15992180
No, its about how many actions and assets you can have knowledge of which is definitely finite making your desires also finite.

[Anonymous No.15992204]

>>15992180
So your will is not only limited by your ability to see things you want, but also to be able to put those things into words and ask for them?

[Anonymous No.15992206]

>>15992195
That's not a "No," that's an agreement. Your argument is that actions are limited by time.

[Anonymous No.15992208]

>>15992204
If by "put into words" you mean "think of," yes. (I'm not endorsing the argument, just clarifying it.)

[Anonymous No.15992240]

>>15991826
You're a fucking moron

[Anonymous No.15992242]

>>15991826
An object acting on behalf of itself, that is free will. The object does not need to be free from itself. It needs to wrestle against the encroachment of others into its bou daries.

[Anonymous No.15992259]

Free will is a religious idea (particularly Abrahamic), as is something like a "soul". There's no defending it in this day and age, both atheistic materialists and spiritual idealist non-dualists have correctly come into conclusion that these things don't make any sense so much that they only argue about semantics anymore.

[Anonymous No.15992261]

NTA.
>>15992242
>bou daries
No organism has a wall between itself and its environment. To interact necessitates permeability. For example: the words you read have migrated from my mind via public space to your mind. Therefore a better perspective is to consider whether or not you can conserve the form of your mind and body despite being permeated by your environment. That's not the case.

[Anonymous No.15992273]

>>15992259
You're overlooking a quirk of religious dualists: they believe in divine will and objective morality which means that ideally they must use their free will to follow God and prove themselves worthy.

[Anonymous No.15992310]

>>15989437
None of that has to do with free will. Realizing we are naturally selected and that we inherit behaviors that can be obey or not is exactly what allows choice within that realm. Those who don't realise it have thus less choice in the matter.

>you didn't consciously choose your identity
Yes I did, I visualized it first, and slowly developed it
>psychoanalysis
Freudian pseudoscience, according to Karl Popper himself. Doesn't work as therapy either.
>analyzing
Free will implied

>it's an illusion
>why?
>IT JUST IS OKAY, SCIENCE YOU IGNORANT CHRISTCUUUUUUUUUUCK

Tranny thread?

[Anonymous No.15992312]

Not either of you but how does >>15992261 conflict with >>15992259 ?
>whether or not you can conserve the form of your mind and body despite being permeated by your environment
>wrestle against the encroachment
Seems like you're saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.15992313]

>>15992312
I mean >>15992242 not >>15992259 obviously

[Anonymous No.15992328]

>>15992312
>>15992313
I made this reply
>>15992261
because that anon asserts a clear distinction between self and other to defend free will. I argue that there is no clear distinction between self and other.

[Anonymous No.15992341]

>>15992117
Anon are you stupid? Don't answer, that, i know the answer's yes. On a 2D coordinate system, lines can be drawn from any point at any angle relative to the dimensional axes. They do not need to follow gridlines. Are hexagons squares, or are they not 2D? Because under your definition, there are no 2D polygons that aren't squares.

[Anonymous No.15992361]

>>15992328
Oh, got it. So "whether or not" a permeation even exists.

[Anonymous No.15992380]

>>15992361
>So "whether or not" a permeation even exists.
Read again:
>>15992261
>conserve the form of your mind and body despite being permeated by your environment.
There is no doubt that the environment permeates body and mind. You consume sensory data all the time and you need food. Now do you transform what you consume completely into yourself (1) or are you also transformed by what you consume (2)? To me the first position seems impossible to hold. For example: when playing one kind of instrument you will develop differently than playing another kind of instrument because an instrument has a particular logic and form that shapes the body and mind of the player.

[Anonymous No.15992385]

>>15992380
>the environment permeates body and mind
>no clear distinction between self and other
What's the reconciliation here?

[Anonymous No.15992437]

>>15992385
That's exactly the problem that I'm pointing to: I don't think self, other, body, mind or spirit can be defined as independent things because language and logic are comparitive.

[Anonymous No.15992462]

Nice try, loser. But you have free will. It's so strong that it can bend reality. The identity you have is because your free will lead you to this point. If you fell for the social media brainwashing then your freewill is suppressed. Balance your left and right brain, and the true path to knowledge will be opened. The elites don't want you to know that your will matters but it does and it can undo their years of effort.

[Anonymous No.15992468]

>>15992437
But how can you be Saussure?

[Anonymous No.15992474]

>>15992261
>No organism has a wall between itself and its environment
That's literally the definition of an organism. It's been like that since the lipid bilayer protocells developed in the hydrothermal vents. Your body is a fiefdom.

[Anonymous No.15992506]

>>15992437
How are mind or spirit defined independently of each other anyway? This is like the religious people using like 10 different literary terms for "mind" and getting confused by them.

[Anonymous No.15992512]

Schizo routinely operate outside of causal chain.

[Anonymous No.15992513]

>>15992474
Every atom and molecule in your body is individual, but they make up something more.

Every cell is individual, but it's visibly not separate from every other cell.

Every system in your body, whether musculoskeletar or gastrointestinal, is intertwined with, and therefore not separate from, every other system.

You are an individual, but you speak at, touch, consume, and in the end are consumed by, the world around you.

Atoms are a part of an atomic structure, cells are part of a cellular structure, systems are part of a bodily structure, and you are part of a social and ecological structure.

[Anonymous No.15992571]

>>15992474
>That's literally the definition of an organism
After the first chapter of a middle school biology textbook that says an organism regulates an internal temperature different from external temperature there's a chapter about environmental factors regulating an organism's temperature and behaviour. There's even a microbiology chapter describing the wall of a cell as permeable to facilitate osmosis. Even more surprising in a later chaper the book says that an organism does not stop at its skin because there are micro-organisms on the skin that can be considered part of how the immune systemof the whole organism functions and organisms build stuff that biologists call an extension of the organism and then biologists started a debate about a group of organisms behaving like a single organism and so on.The definition of an organism begins but does not end with the first chapter. It never ends because it's a fuzzy concept.

[Anonymous No.15992573]

>>15989437
Please go undermine your host society somewhere else, rebbe.

[Anonymous No.15992655]

>>15992573
Your host society has already been undermined by a certain tribe in every concievable way.
Tradition is not going to solve things, as there are currently no organic traditions left to preserve.
Your bet for saving your society is to understand the tools that undid your society, and use those tools to your own benefit.

[Anonymous No.15992676]

>>15992462
The idea of humans possesing free will has been the norm and standard for pretty much all of human history.
The elites would probably you rather not know that free will is an illusion, as the entire American dream is built on the idea that free will is real, and Christianity is also based on the idea of free will being real.
The idea that we actually do not possess free will is a far more potent and civilization changing idea, and one that elites would not want to become widely accepted.

[Anonymous No.15992687]

>>15992676
>elites would probably you rather not know that
You shattered your own bait.

[Anonymous No.15992689]

>>15992687
In what way?

[Anonymous No.15992693]

>>15992689
Assumes free will. You should have said the elites don't want you to know.

[Anonymous No.15992776]

>>15992693
Options dont imply free will. A chess engine looks at millions of moves before choosing the strongest move. Claim that chess engines have free will, i dare you

[Anonymous No.15992889]

I am the master of my own destiny and the keeper of my own waters. Though I may have bestial or simple origins, I can exercise my will and reject my base impulses or narrow self interest in a way that cannot be completely predicted on an individual level. I am apart of and separate to the rest of the world both real and imagined
My decisions and behaviour are never bound by all possible worlds, but all imaginable worlds, of which there are an infinitely unknowable variety. Anything we can conceive of has the power to change how we behave in the future.
>anti free willers: wahhhh but things affect me how is my will free if my body only exists during the ever present now?

[Anonymous No.15992903]

>>15992889
Did you eat today?
Did you drink water today?
Did you sleep last night?
Did you breathe multiple times in last minute?
How coincidental that a master of his own destiny copies what everyone else does like he is some part of hive mind. All that unlimited imagination and this is what it amounts to?

[Anonymous No.15992908]

>>15992903
>enjoy water and nourishment kiddo?
>checkmate, free will btfo

[Anonymous No.15992915]

everything in this universe, every school of thought, assumes that determinism is in play except for religion and the court of law. two atoms can't choose to not react if the circumstances deem it suitable. why, then, do we assume that us humans are so special that determinism doesn't apply to us?

[Anonymous No.15992920]

>>15992908
Why do you as a master choose to enjoy the same thing as everyone else enjoys? Surely you masters arent robots from the same model, right? You all seem to enjoy nourishment too, coincidentally of course

[Anonymous No.15992932]

>>15992776
"probably" isn't "choosing the best option"

[Anonymous No.15992941]

>>15992693
>>15992776
Indeed, neither of you shouldn't have said anything because if there's no free will, all you've accomplished is a painting of your environment; paintings are only meaningful if they have an artistic value, art requires intent, and intent requires free will. You retards really set yourself up the bomb, so to speak, just by saying anything. Reflect and try harder next time.

[Anonymous No.15992947]

>>15992941
An artist accidentally splatters his paint all across his canvas while cleaning his room and finds that it made a beautiful painting. Is that not art because he didnt intend to make it?

[Anonymous No.15992951]

>>15992947
Correct. A stone polished by a caveman is art. A stone polished identically by a river is not.

[Anonymous No.15992956]

>>15992951
That painting is then hung up in an art museum, one that you coincidentally went to and saw, you think to yourself "This is beautiful art" completely unaware it was made without intent. Are you wrong?

[Anonymous No.15992960]

>>15992956
Yes and no. Yes, the intentional curation of nature is art. No, the nature itself isn't.

[Anonymous No.15992968]

>>15992960
Now heres the thing. As valid as your definition of art is, most people would disagree with you if they first found that an art was beautiful and then later found out it was accidental. It touched their hearts so of course most of them are going to think it counts as art. Is your definition the right one?

[Anonymous No.15992976]

>>15992968
Yes and yes. It's completely valid to have your heart touched by nature. Moreover, by curating that nature they sublimated it to art.

[Anonymous No.15992978]

>>15992960
>>15992976
Forget what i said, found something more appealing to talk about
If the artist who spilled it never noticed by some miracle and threw the canvas out without looking, would it have held no meaning to you if you saw it on the street? There was no intent involved, none to present it as art by anyone. It would have zero artistic value and as a painting, should have no meaning to you
Sorry for making you answer twice

[Anonymous No.15992979]

Jesus christ, the semantics on this thread

[Anonymous No.15992982]

>>15992979
Join in if you are jealous

[Anonymous No.15992985]

>>15992978
If you walked by two discarded canvases, yours and a blank splattered by aleatory bird shit, neither would be art unless curated.

[Anonymous No.15993002]

>>15992985
>paintings are only meaningful if they have an artistic value
Im sure you can see how i set this up to target this but i realize that doesnt really matter to your overall point so i give up. Such is life is when fucking around with semantics when you really shouldnt

[Anonymous No.15993025]

>>15993002
We're not far apart.

[Anonymous No.15993182]

>>15992208
So you can only "think of" things that involve finite alphabetical symbols?

[Anonymous No.15993405]

>>15993182
No, his original argument >>15992170 was expressed in terms of a finite alphabet over a finite time and expanded >>15992195 to finite thoughts over a finite time.

[Anonymous No.15993417]

>>15993405
So how is your ability to desire not finite if your life, your knowledge, your ability to act, everything your desires are dependent are are finite?

[Anonymous No.15993431]

>>15993417
I give up, how?

[Anonymous No.15993439]

>>15993431
It doesn't seem possible, I thought you were >>15992168 >>15992180 trying to justify the original nonsense about an individual's free will being unlimited in nature.

[Anonymous No.15993448]

>>15993439
I'm both of those posts. What do you imagine I'm justifying?

[Anonymous No.15993452]

>>15993448
I know you can't actually justify how a few finite values can add up to an infinite value to support your idea that your finite life can produce infinite willpower without any limitations.

[Anonymous No.15993453]

>>15993452
Where did you get that idea from?

[Anonymous No.15993464]

>>15993453
The posts I linked where you were said there was no limit on the number of things you could possibly desire in your finite life and your complaining that the definition of free will provided doesn't work since you think desire is not limited even though everything about you and your desire is limited.

[Anonymous No.15993474]

To summarize the absolute state of discussion in this thread: the free willies are performing gymnastics to redefine ''free'' and those who are determined to be determinists do what they want but can't want what they want. Not that I know who or what made this reply. Anyway: do you now understand why the term ''free will'' was discarded by philosofags over 9000 years ago in favor of ''agency''?

>>15992468
>Saussure
Many such postmodernists are closet buddhists. Since christians must submit to divine will I suspect the main concern of christians is ethical and not ontological. Christians fear that the postmodern and buddhist' attack on free will, identity and objectivity have political consequences that benefit total control by the globohomo. This concern is valid but also points to political motivations of religious dualists / christians participating in philosophical and scientific debates. (Yes I know: hindu's and buddhist can believe in a soul too and there are materialist christians but those are not the typical anons on 4chan).

[Anonymous No.15993484]

>>15993464
To be clear, you think that what you wrote here
>no limit on the number of things you could possibly desire in your finite life
>desire is not limited even though everything about you and your desire is limited
is the same as what you wrote here?
>a few finite values can add up to an infinite value
>your finite life can produce infinite willpower without any limitations

[Anonymous No.15993487]

>>15993484
You mean other than you purposely leaving out the "can't justify" part that applied to the second two things so you could remove the context of them still being negated by arguments and evidence and make it seem like I was making the opposite point of what I was making because I was trying to empathize with your claims while pointing out you can't actually justify them?

[Anonymous No.15993489]

>>15993487
To be clear, you think that what you wrote here
>no limit on the number of things you could possibly desire in your finite life
>desire is not limited even though everything about you and your desire is limited
is the same as what you wrote here?
>CAN'T JUSTIFY a few finite values can add up to an infinite value
>CAN'T JUSTIFY your finite life can produce infinite willpower without any limitations

[Anonymous No.15993492]

>>15993489
They are similar, feel free to actually describe your issue with text if you actually understand your confusion, but both cases require you to prove that finite values can add up to be infinite which you can't, so you can't actually justify infinite desire since it takes time and experience to discover new things to desire.

[Anonymous No.15993502]

>>15993492
Hmm. Okay, this is a guess, not trying to put words in your mouth.
Do you see a difference between
>You can desire everything in a finite time
>There's no limit to what you can desire in a finite time
or would you say there's no difference?

[Anonymous No.15994364]

>>15991966
>he believes in libet experiments

[Anonymous No.15994468]

>>15993474
I think OP’s post is provocative in the sense that it suggests that nobody possibly has any agency without using that word, but using instead “free will” as a blanket term that suggests you have no freedom other than illusion of being free to choose. Then when anyone who provide examples of how agency in the sense of having freedom or will to choose can have different scope in limits depending on which form of being into existence something is in, then it’s suddenly a topic about the absolute value of free will in a perfect godly theological state which has become the star man for anti-free will camp.

[Anonymous No.15994472]

>>15994468
*straw man

[Anonymous No.15994481]

>>15994468
no, there is nothing "provocative" about op whatsoever. he is retarded and so are you

[Anonymous No.15994483]

>>15994481
care to 'pilpul' any further?

[Anonymous No.15994486]

>>15994483
>Pilpul is a method of studying the Talmud through intense textual analysis in attempts to either explain conceptual differences between various halakhic rulings or to reconcile any apparent contradictions presented from various readings of different texts.
are you having a stroke?

[Anonymous No.15994496]

>>15994486
Yea, I was basically calling you a jew but meant to call you a faggot.

[Anonymous No.15994499]

>>15994496
>https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-stroke/basics/art-20056602
good luck, if you don't die feel free to ask a question that makes sense later

[Anonymous No.15994508]

>>15994499
care to 'pilpul' that article for me?

[Anonymous No.15994510]

>>15994508
prayers for a swift recovery

[Anonymous No.15994528]

>>15994510
No thanks Rabbi

[Anonymous No.15994532]

>>15994528
>>15994528

[Anonymous No.15994535]

Don’t need those. Can’t trust them coming from (You)

[Anonymous No.15994721]

>>15993502
The first one limits what you can desire to things.
Neither one is actually possible as no one can become aware of every single thing in a finite time period and time itself specifically limits the amount you can desire.

[Anonymous No.15994724]

>>15989437
Yes, free will and all knowing is mutually exclusive. Rejecting freewill doesn't make you all knowing tho.

[Anonymous No.15995087]

>>15994721
Everything, not every thing.

[Anonymous No.15995933]

>>15995087
So everysinglething, not every single thing?