/sci/, how do you deal with the scientific fact of determinism?

[Anonymous No.9965295]

Assuming all that browse this board are scientifically-minded, intelligent, and rational, you must recognize the fact that the universe is entirely deterministic. Thus, free will doesn’t exist, and the feeling of agency and choice is an illusion. How do you cope?

[Anonymous No.9965296]

>the universe is entirely deterministic
[citation needed]

>Thus, free will doesn’t exist
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9965298]

>>9965295
actually the universe is NOT deterministic.

in quantum mechanics there are random events. even if you argue that quantum mechanics is unitary and the schrodinger equation is deterministic, that describes the multiverse, not the universe we measure

protip: next time you have the urge to post a big brain feels guy, go for grug instead

[Anonymous No.9965303]

>>9965296
The burden of proof is on you to prove free will exists. You did not choose your genes, nor did you choose the environment you grew up in. Even if you believe in something immaterial like the soul, you did not choose your soul. If you had the upbringing and the genes of LeBron James, you would be LeBron James.

[Anonymous No.9965305]

>>9965295
Other replies aside arguing about determinism, ASSUMING the universe is deterministic, I cope knowing that I'm experiencing the ride. If things are good, I enjoy them, if things suck, I deal and one day I will be dead and my dissolved consciousness will be none the wiser. If my post influences you, was that pre-determined? Or are you pre-determined to call me a faggot? Either way, we both live on.

[Anonymous No.9965307]

>>9965298
Regardless, free will is an illusion in this case as well considering we do not control the quantum dice rolling.

[Anonymous No.9965309]

>>9965303
>The burden of proof is on you to prove free will exists.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

[Anonymous No.9965316]

>>9965309
I’m responding to the brainlet masses that believe the free will meme. You are the one claiming that something that isn’t proven exists. If I made a thread saying “how do you cope with the lack of existence in a god”, you wouldn’t say “citation needed”z

[Anonymous No.9965318]

>>9965316
>You are the one claiming that something that isn’t proven exists.
Where did I make that claim?

[Anonymous No.9965324]

>>9965318
If I say “Cookies cannot take shits,” is the burden of proof on me to prove that cookies cannot take shits if the general public say cookies take shits? Of course not. That’d be ridiculous. No citation is needed. The citation is needed to PROVE that cookies take shits.

[Anonymous No.9965326]

>>9965309
No you are claiming that free will does not exist - assuming you are the OP you are making a claim.

Btw a study was done on this that proves if you believe you have free will you act differently.

[Anonymous No.9965329]

>>9965326
I also claim that cthulhu doesn’t exist. I do not have the burden of proof now. That’s not how that works.

I agree, it’s probably beneficial on a societal level to believe in free will. But that doesn’t make it the truth.

[Anonymous No.9965334]

>>9965324
>If I say “Cookies cannot take shits,” is the burden of proof on me to prove that cookies cannot take shits
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9965338]

>>9965295
>>9965303
>>9965307
>>9965316
>>9965326
>>9965329
>>9965334
i normally ignore the "free will" threads, since they're nonscientific imho, but i got suckered into this one because it brought up determinism first

so anyhow, how about this

someone PLEASE define what is meant by "free will" and explain how it, or the absence of it, is a real observable phenomenon

protip: you can't

[Anonymous No.9965340]

>>9965334
To disprove free will I would have to prove that the immaterial doesn’t exist, which is impossible. It’s essentially an unfalsifiable claim.

[Anonymous No.9965347]

>>9965340
>It’s essentially an unfalsifiable claim.
Then it doesn't belong on a science board, since falsifiability is part of the scientific method.

[Anonymous No.9965351]

>>9965329
Well it would be quite awesome if he were to exist! :)

But how do you explain the effect if it does not exist?

The world is not deterministic it is probabilistic

[Anonymous No.9965352]

>>9965338

Free will: the ability to do differently than you did. The ability to have choice.

We don’t have that. It’s an illusion.

We are a product of our genes, and our environment. If you had Bernie Sanders genes and the exact same upbringing, you would live the EXACT same way Sanders did. To believe otherwise is ridiculous. What else is there? You couldn’t do anything different to the exact way you’ve done it.

[Anonymous No.9965357]

In this largely antimetaphysical treatment of free will and determinism, Mark Balaguer argues that the philosophical problem of free will boils down to an open scientific question about the causal histories of certain kinds of neural events. In the course of his argument, Balaguer provides a naturalistic defense of the libertarian view of free will.

The metaphysical component of the problem of free will, Balaguer argues, essentially boils down to the question of whether humans possess libertarian free will. Furthermore, he argues that, contrary to the traditional wisdom, the libertarian question reduces to a question about indeterminacy—in particular, to a straightforward empirical question about whether certain neural events in our heads are causally undetermined in a certain specific way; in other words, Balaguer argues that the right kind of indeterminacy would bring with it all of the other requirements for libertarian free will. Finally, he argues that because there is no good evidence as to whether or not the relevant neural events are undetermined in the way that's required, the question of whether human beings possess libertarian free will is a wide-open empirical question.

[Anonymous No.9965359]

>>9965347
I’m not proposing a debate of free will. I assume that 95% of people who browse this board believe in the validity of science and thus believe in free will. My question is how you cope with the fact that you are a puppet to the universe, and you have zero choice in what you do

[Anonymous No.9965363]

>>9965352
>Free will: the ability to do differently than you did.
uh, what does this mean? this means you can timewarp and change your mind in the past?

you're talking about counterfactuals -- nobody can answer the question "what if instead...?" empirically in this case, and therefore it's meaningless scientifically to ask this question

>The ability to have choice.
define choice. scientifically.

and don't play more word games introducing new vocabulary, where a wishy-washy term like "free will" is replaced by an equally wishy-washy term like "choice"

subjectively these things might have meaning to people, but objectively they are purely nonsense concepts. this is a classic pitfall of philosophy -- getting stuck in word games centered around arguing about meaningless words using misapplied semantics

[Anonymous No.9965365]

>>9965359
>My question is how you cope with the fact that you are a puppet to the universe
Why is this the case? Free will is a spectrum, and some are born with more of it than others, and some are born with none at all.

Some speak of white privilege or male privilege etc., but free will privilege is the greatest privilege of all.

[Anonymous No.9965368]

>>9965359
"You" and the universe are not two separate things.

[Anonymous No.9965372]

>>9965363

Choice: a selection between two or more possibilities.

The idea that their were possibilities in you selection is an illusion. People tend to think that when choosing between a ham sandwich and turkey sandwich that they could have chosen the other option, when in reality, they couldn’t have. Based on their prior experiences, their genes, and the current state of their brain, that was the only choice they could’ve made. You did not choose your genes. You did not choose your parents. You did not choose your upbringing. If “you” had the genes and upbringing of John Coltrane, you’d live the exact life of John Coltrane. If you don’t have the ability to do anything different in your life, how is that freedom?

[Anonymous No.9965374]

>>9965368
Well, I agree. The idea of the self is an illusion too. There is no “me”. But I’m just using “you” as a convenient marker.

[Anonymous No.9965375]

>>9965295
>you must recognize the fact that the universe is entirely deterministic
Prove the universe is deterministic
>Thus, free will doesn’t exist
That doesn't follow at all. Prove that determinism implies lack of free will.
>the feeling of agency and choice is an illusion
How so?
>How do you cope?
I chose to not believe in falsities ;)

[Anonymous No.9965376]

>>9965316
>If I made a thread saying “how do you cope with the lack of existence in a god”, you wouldn’t say “citation needed”
i most definitely would

[Anonymous No.9965377]

>>9965372
>People tend to think that when choosing between a ham sandwich and turkey sandwich that they could have chosen the other option
But you can also choose neither, or a different sandwich altogether, or leave the choice up to chance by flipping a coin.

[Anonymous No.9965378]

>>9965359
You can't mix duality and non duality. Objectively, there's no free will and the universe is "deterministic" because it is only 1, the infinite (with infinite interconnectedness which again, makes it just 1. There's no two separate things, no puppet and puppeteer, no relations). On the other side, human experience is limited to duality, we live in a constant illusion that there are at least 2 separate things

[Anonymous No.9965380]

>>9965365
No. You are the product of your genes and upbringing. You don’t choose either of those factors. Your prior experiences and genes cause 100% of all the actions you take. And even if we introduce a immaterial x-factor like a soul, the point remains. You did not choose your soul. There no argument for free will. You are destined to do exactly what you are going to do from birth.

[Anonymous No.9965382]

>>9965374
Convenient marker of what? The thing you're trying to refer to is an illusion, also

[Anonymous No.9965385]

>>9965378
>he universe is "deterministic" because it is only 1, the infinite (with infinite interconnectedness which again, makes it just 1. There's no two separate things, no puppet and puppeteer, no relations).
can I have some drugs too anon?

[Anonymous No.9965387]

>>9965372
It's freedom, because it's liberation of having to choose. Its just being

[Anonymous No.9965388]

>>9965377
But ultimately what ever you “decide” was the ONLY “decision” you could’ve made, considering you are simply a product of your genes and your upbringing. And considering you didn’t choose either of those factors, where’s the freedom?

[Anonymous No.9965389]

>>9965380
>Your prior experiences and genes cause 100% of all the actions you take.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9965393]

>>9965380
>You are destined to do exactly what you are going to do from birth.
"destiny" is an even bigger meme than "free will"

[Anonymous No.9965394]

>>9965385
Just trying to say that there are no two separate things. In order to have a choice, you need to have at least 2 separate things, right?

[Anonymous No.9965395]

>>9965382
Convenient marker of the illusion of persona

[Anonymous No.9965396]

>>9965388
>But ultimately what ever you “decide” was the ONLY “decision” you could’ve made
Coins can land on either side.

[Anonymous No.9965397]

>>9965394
>Just trying to say that there are no two separate things
Ah, so you are retarded? You're right, anon, only one single thing exists.
>your brain when you think you know philosophy

[Anonymous No.9965399]

>>9965393
It’s not destiny in the sense that it’s prescribed by a deity, but by the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.9965400]

>>9965372
>>9965377
i'm not arguing that there is nothing mysterious happening when somebody needs to choose between a ham sandwich, a turkey sandwich, or flipping a coin

i'm arguing that whatever happens is not amenable to science at the moment. what happens within a person's "mind" is way, way beyond science at the moment, and what happens in a person's brain is similarly (but not quite as) beyond what empirical observations can attain

arguing these things on principle/logic/philosophy is OK, but not on /sci/. there is no scientific or mathematical way to model these things at the moment, so just give it up

whether or not "free will" (an ill-defined term, unless you resort to picking your sandwich meat) exists is not scientifically falsifiable, and therefore it's meaningless and boring to argue about it

the only way to make progress on this front is to do more experiments on the neurophysiology, and so far decades of research has not led us to anything meaningful. so it ends up being akin to arguing about the properties of solitons--nobody knows and nobody can get the answer. so assuming you can figure it out with pure brain power is ridiculous

[Anonymous No.9965401]

>>9965396
>>>9965388
>Coins can land on either side.
No, they can only land on one AT A TIME

[Anonymous No.9965402]

>>9965399
>It’s not destiny in the sense that it’s prescribed by a deity, but by the laws of physics.
What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.9965403]

>>9965395
>personality is an illusion

[Anonymous No.9965404]

>>9965396
In theory, yes, but how hard you flipped that coin, and how you decided what side of coin represents what sandwich, is all a product of past experiences and genes. Thus was certain to happen.

[Anonymous No.9965406]

>>9965401
>No, they can only land on one AT A TIME
Is that supposed to contradict what I said? I didn't say coins can land on both sides at once.

[Anonymous No.9965407]

>>9965397
Give me any 2 things that are completely separate.

[Anonymous No.9965408]

>>9965404
>how hard you flipped that coin, and how you decided what side of coin represents what sandwich, is all a product of past experiences and genes.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9965409]

>>9965400
>whether or not "free will" (an ill-defined term, unless you resort to picking your sandwich meat) exists is not scientifically falsifiable, and therefore it's meaningless and boring to argue about it
see >>9965357

[Anonymous No.9965411]

>>9965400
It will never be possible. Humans cannot grasp objectivity. Everything we think of is compared to ourselves. We cannot go out of our own boundaries. Even the strongest of computers is modeled in our image

[Anonymous No.9965412]

>>9965411
>Humans cannot grasp objectivity.
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.9965413]

>>9965407
My cock and your mouth
Also,
>moving the goal post from "two objects" or "two decisions" to "two things that are COMPLETELY ISOLATED from another"

[Anonymous No.9965415]

ITT: willlets

[Anonymous No.9965417]

>>9965415
This

[Anonymous No.9965419]

>>9965408
What else could it be?

[Anonymous No.9965421]

Everything in this thread sounds like great fodder for Newtons Flaming Laser Sword

[Anonymous No.9965422]

>>9965412
You are limited by your own nature (perception). What if there are ysheg-rays that do ysheg to us, but we can't perceive it?

[Anonymous No.9965423]

>>9965419
>What else could it be?
Anything else. Why would it be past experiences and genes?

[Anonymous No.9965424]

>>9965419
Explain how
>human experience and our genes make up 100% of what we do
negates
>free will
I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.9965425]

>>9965413
Your cock and my mouth are connected by many things, including gravity, atmosphere etc

[Anonymous No.9965426]

>>9965422
>You are limited by your own nature (perception).
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.9965428]

>>9965425
>Your cock and my mouth are connected by many things, including gravity
Only thing with mass are affected by gravity.

[Anonymous No.9965429]

>>9965421
What’s that supposed to mean smart guy?

[Anonymous No.9965430]

>>9965422
>What if there are ysheg-rays that do ysheg to us, but we can't perceive it?
Show that those dumb ass hypotheticals exist, and then you can use it as evidence that theres no free will, fag.

[Anonymous No.9965431]

>>9965429
>What’s that supposed to mean smart guy?
I'm not a "guy".

[Anonymous No.9965433]

>>9965425
So? What does that have to do with the discussion at all? All I need is two distinct options to make a choice, even if they are related somehow.

[Anonymous No.9965434]

>>9965426
So you have no limitations? I agree in a sense that we are the universe and the universe is infinite. But your body and it's senses are limited, you cannot feel x-rays. Yes, the x-ray machine is an extension of ourselves, but there might be things that are unreachable not by quantity, but by quality

[Anonymous No.9965439]

>>9965409
i read that post and it looks like mostly nonsense philosophical word games to me. except for the part about how it is an empirical question that is "wide-open" -- for sure we might learn something about how the brain (or even mind) works by doing experiments

however, psychologists have been doing experiments on how the mind works for decades, and i'm not sure their field even qualifies as a "sicence" yet. and brain science, at the moment, is analogous to everyone currently knowing some basic chemistry, but they're failing at using it to try and understand advanced genetic biology (i.e. they can't explain a goddamned thing)

anyhow i support more empirical tests on the human mind and brain, but doing such experiments is ethically questionable, and even absent the ethical issues, extremely difficult. this is well known in psychology -- subjects can lie, the experimenter can impart bias (in a way much more subtle than in the physical sciences), and the interpretation of results is usually not at all straightforward

my main problem with these threads is that they encourage the philosopher's idea that "pure thought can resolve all the issues". it can't. you need empirical evidence. and in this case, there is basically nothing to work on, so it's a big hubbub over nonsense, non-scientific speculation

[Anonymous No.9965438]

>>9965434
>So you have no limitations?
I have limitations, but I still have the ability to choose what I do from moment to moment. Funny how that works. I cant literally do anything, but I can choose from a multitude of options.

[Anonymous No.9965440]

>>9965429
It's means that if a premise cannot be subjected to experimentation and produce quantifiable results, then one should not waste breath on frivolous semantics.

[Anonymous No.9965441]

>>9965424

Free will implies you have the ability to choose. We did not choose our genes and prior experiences. 100% of our decisions will be made solely from those two factors. Meaning there is no choice. Where is the freedom in that?

If you had the exact genes and upbringing of Tom Cruise, you would live the exact same life.

[Anonymous No.9965443]

>>9965430
Show me they don't. Every day, a new mathematical law is discovered. What if mathematics is just one of many roads? All we do is diverge, we never converge to the source

[Anonymous No.9965446]

>>9965433
The connection makes them a single thing

[Anonymous No.9965447]

>>9965324
>Cookies cannot take shits
This is false. When you have a chocolate chip cookie that you reheat and the chips melt out that is called a cookie shit.

[Anonymous No.9965449]

>>9965441
Nice rephrasing of the exact same thing you said above. You still didnt establish that
>i have genes and a location and time of birth I didnt chose
and
>I have free will
are contradictory. You're using a non sequitur.
>If you had the exact genes and upbringing of Tom Cruise, you would live the exact same life.
"No"

[Anonymous No.9965450]

>>9965438
In order to have options, there has to be two separate things. Objectively, there's no two separate things. Choice is an illusion

[Anonymous No.9965451]

>>9965443
>Show me they don't
Right. Prove Russell's Teapot isnt up there.
>implying you know any maths whatsoever

[Anonymous No.9965452]

>>9965446
No. That's not what objects are. Things can still be distinct things if they are related.

[Anonymous No.9965458]

Free will is a nonsense term. No one in this thread even provided a coherent definition, let alone an argument for why it exists.

[Anonymous No.9965462]

>>9965452
How? The relatedness is connectedness. Literally means members of the same group. The group is what unifies them. All the properties of group members are contained in their group. The group itself is still a (single) thing.

[Anonymous No.9965463]

>>9965449
Well if you don’t think that having the same genes and upbringing as Tom Cruise would lead you to the same exact life, you believe in some miracle, immaterial x-factor like a soul. But even then, that doesn’t grant you free will because you did not choose that soul. Choice is an illusion in this universe. It doesn’t exists. There’s no way for it to exist.

[Anonymous No.9965464]

>>9965462
>if two things are related they are the same

[Anonymous No.9965467]

>>9965295
> the universe is entirely deterministic
Any quantum physicists here able to competently refute this? It is to my knowledge that, at the most basic level, the universe is probabilistic. That doesn't imply free will exists, whatever the fuck free will is even supposed to be.

>the feeling of agency and choice
What dis this concept?

[Anonymous No.9965469]

>>9965458
You agree that choice is an illusion though, correct? How else would you define free will besides the ability to choose?

[Anonymous No.9965473]

>>9965467
Even quantum mechanics effect the brain, we don’t have agency on quantum dice rolling. We still wouldn’t have free will.

[Anonymous No.9965475]

>>9965464
Didn't say they are the same. I said they are not separate, which they aren't. There are no 2 separate things. Separate means unrelated

[Anonymous No.9965482]

>>9965464
The criteria on which you judge two things is what connects them. You can only go to extremes, but the extremes of the same thing

[Anonymous No.9965563]

not bait, I genuinely don't know the answer

[Anonymous No.9965568]

>>9965563
Unstable equilibrium. Nothing happens.

[Anonymous No.9965583]

>>9965563
I don't know, not enough data

[Anonymous No.9965704]

>>9965295
Free will doesn't exist without determinism, stupid bluepilled goy.

[Anonymous No.9965709]

>>9965563
assuming it's perfect, nothing.

no physics needed. by symmetry, there's no preferred direction for the ball to roll.

[Anonymous No.9965710]

>>9965709
also assuming it starts from rest

[Anonymous No.9965714]

>>9965295
I can make decisions and those decisions have consequences. Due to my lack of omniscience I'm not aware of every possible permutation of every decision, or even the minutia of the decision making process itself, thus I experience this as free will. I may ultimately be following a railroad track, but I don't experience it that way, and even if I am, it's a track of my own making.

Good enough for me.

Ultimately, everything's an illusion - shouldn't bother you that you are too. All evidence suggests the total energy in the universe sums up to zero, after all.

[Anonymous No.9965717]

>>9965298
But it's literally mathematically deterministic, your feels are not an argument. And superposition is not multiverse.

[Anonymous No.9965720]

>>9965295
Man the into to philosophy class is really messing you up huh?

[Anonymous No.9965722]

>>9965717
uh, google Bell's theorem

[Anonymous No.9965729]

>>9965296
The only real possibilities there are compatibilism and hard indeterminism, the other two are oxymorons.

[Anonymous No.9965732]

>>9965717
Not him, but Ignore the quantum woo cop-out. Block universe still applies to QM, and it hasn't been experimentally proven to violate time-symmetry (and insomuch as anyone has predicted they might, they only do so in noninvasives, and thus aren't really relevant to anything you actually do.)

But until you can escape the illusion of free will, you have free will. No matter how "aware" you are of determinism, it doesn't save you from having to make decisions with imperfect knowledge and perception. Everything you've done, is done, everything you will do, will be done, but that doesn't prevent you from experiencing the process as your point of perception runs across it, as well as the consequences of the decisions you made.

Among conscious beings, only gods and laplace demons lack free will. Everyone else is stuck with it. Calling it an illusion does not make it go away.

[Anonymous No.9965733]

>>9965380
The ability to choose is the foundational principle of existence

[Anonymous No.9965735]

>>9965298
>the inability to properly measure and parse data is the same thing as random data
imagine being this stupid

[Anonymous No.9965736]

>>9965729
>hard indeterminism
In which nothing could be predicted, and nothing could exist... Save maybe Boltzmann brains at random moments.

[Anonymous No.9965743]

>>9965722
Bell's theorem proves that either
a) information can go faster than light
or
b) correlations don't need a common cause

how does that prove the universe isn't pre-determined?

[Anonymous No.9965745]

>>9965736
>things can't exist... except they can
Make up your mind

[Anonymous No.9965747]

>>9965463
There's no way for free will to arise from matter.

But, what if... consciousness was fundamental, and matter wasn't?

Welcome to metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.9965748]

>>9965736
This is why the quantum mechanics arguments is so retarded, randomness doesn't permit free will, if anything a universe with randomness have even less of a concept of will than a wholly deterministic one.

[Anonymous No.9965751]

>>9965745
Well... I suppose they could, if you started off with a bunch of eternal particles, but they'd have no causal relationship, so you could only get "things" by totally random occurrence, not by interaction. I suppose that still allows Boltzmann brains to happen.

The Boltzmann brain idea being, basically, by random chance particles meet up in a formation of a brain, complete with memories and history... But in a universe with no predictable interactions, such a happenstance would be but a single instant, and, in the next, all its parts would wander off randomly.

I mean that *could* be what's going on, but seems an unnecessary stretch.

[Anonymous No.9965753]

>>9965751
Except that given enough time, even our universe would happen. But it would mean that all the seemingly eternally consistent natural laws are just a fluke, and we happen to live in the time and place where the fluke hasn't been exposed yet.

[Anonymous No.9965754]

>>9965743
rather, b) hidden variable theory is wrong and the universe is not deterministic as far as current physics knows

so, if Einstein was right, and a) is wrong, then b) is right. and a lot of people think Einstein was right.

[Anonymous No.9965756]

>>9965298>>9965303

>actually, since mathematicians could only predict a 50/50 probability for that coin falling on heads, there's a universe where it landed on the other side
This is your brain on pop sci

[Anonymous No.9965757]

>>9965753
There wouldn't be a time for it to exist - as there'd be no laws binding it together - it'd be entirely undetermined. Yes, particles might come together to form us and the entire universe for an instant, but they wouldn't go on that way, as they don't follow any particular pattern, and the memory that they had done so in the past would be an illusion created by that temporary configuration.

Which seems quite a bit more shocking than the idea that free will is (ultimately) an illusion, frankly.

[Anonymous No.9965758]

>>9965754
but Einstein also said that the universe was deterministic, so what he said is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.9965760]

>>9965757
Given enough time, they wouldn't just simulate the current state, but the next state would also be the next logical state, and so on.

[Anonymous No.9965761]

>>9965760
I suppose that works, though it's even more fantastic than the single Boltzmann brain idea, and makes the concept of free will even more meaningless.

[Anonymous No.9965762]

OP blown the fuck out

[Anonymous No.9965763]

>>9965748
Well, that, and even QM doesn't fulfill that requirement - it's just something a lot of new agers try to pull.

Still, saying "X is an illusion" isn't enough for science, ever. You also have to explain through what mechanism you are experiencing that illusion.

[Anonymous No.9965774]

>>9965758
i meant his theory on locality. fuck what any one given person says

[Anonymous No.9965787]

>calling yourself scientifically-minded
>being so afraid of not having free will that you'll delude yourself into believing in magic

pick one

[Anonymous No.9965793]

>>9965295
You used your free will to type that statement

[Anonymous No.9965801]

>>9965352
>to believe otherwise is ridiculous.

I believe otherwise. Not only do you believe people who think differently than you on a topic that cannot be accurately tested are thinking ridiculously, your philosophical viewpoint is mired by fallacy. To assume that a clone of Bernie Sanders would follow the same path as the current Bernie Sanders if he were born in the same place during the same time does not equate to a life devoid of free-will. Why? Because you’re specifying a time-frame which, if could be accurately simulated, would have zero non-random values found within the simulated environment.

You only know the Bernie Sanders you know of today because you’re living in present time.

You can only replicate an environment fully if you are able to control the time as well as being able to log every single variable that had an impact on that person’s life. However, an almost infinite range of random occurrences can happen to us now and into the future that we cannot predict. Each of these random occurrences could theoretically open up an almost infinite range of paths that our lives can choose from, and the path that we choose is based off of free-will.

It is my belief that free-will is only shaped by our genetics and environment, and if you believe otherwise then that is okay.

[Anonymous No.9965832]

Not sure I agree that everything is predetermined in that there's all that weird random quantum shit going on (which as a biofag, I don't understand). Maybe if any of that gets demystified, it will seem orderly as well.

But I do moreorless agree that free will is a sham. It's a really functional concept that we need to pretend exists to all get along with eachother and ourselves, but to think that we have choices that are up to some ethereal sense of "me" that can't be pinned down seems unlikely. It always feels that way whenever we make a decision, but biologists only ever find more little genetic traits that indicate differing behavioural outcomes, and when we add them all about, there just isn't a lot of room left for free will.

[Anonymous No.9965838]

>>9965832
To answer the actual question, a philosophical denial of free will is not the same as a functional denial of free will. To functionally deny free would would be to limit my potential, whereas to philosophically assume free will would be to philosophise inaccurately, and create a flawed view of society and the human animal. So I apply a double standard. I double-think. Unironically an important skill that people underestimate today. Sometimes you need to hold different views in different contexts, so long as you understand that you're doing that and why.

[Anonymous No.9965890]

>>9965832
>It's a really functional concept that we need to pretend exists to all get along with eachother and ourselves
I don't think that's the reason at all - I think it's because that's just how we experience life. Yes, we kindly assume other people are philosophical zombies and thus are also having an experience, but that's the extent of it.

I mean, a society that didn't believe in free will wouldn't be that different. Criminals are still a nexus of the negative consequences they create, and would have to be dealt with in much the same way, and those who survive their activities would still need the cathartic relief of "justice" (ie. state sponsored revenge), so we'd probably be just as cruel to our prisoners. (Or not, in the case of Norway - but arguments for rehabilitation over punishment hold the same in either reality.)

All this talk of it being an "illusion" though, doesn't explain squat. You also gotta explain why we experience this illusion, otherwise the claim is meaningless and there's no argument to be had. How does this illusion come to be? Cuz, yeah, it might be an illusion, but we're nonetheless experiencing it.

[Anonymous No.9965893]

>>9965890
>kindly assume other people are philosophical zombies
are not* philosophical zombies
(Also with the caveat that *most* of us do.)

[Anonymous No.9965909]

>>9965890
>I don't think that's the reason at all - I think it's because that's just how we experience life.
I do think that we evolutionarily perceive things that way because of its functionality, not that we can't allow ourselves to and so perceive ourselves that way.

I do wonder how realistically we could justify punishment in a world that doesn't believe in free will. Afterall, aren't we then all animi trapped in betraying biologies? You and I clearly don't have a philosophical problem with thinking of punishment as a sort of 'soft eugenics,' but I've brought up questions of free will to normies (lmao) and it clearly destroys them. The whole justification we use for punishment is that people make bad 'choices' and therefore anything that isn't a choice is seen morally as 'not deserving of punishment,' even if the law says otherwise. But in a world where there are no choices? It's a rewriting of moral justification that people don't have the balls to follow through on.

Just my two cents, though.

[Anonymous No.9965923]

>>9965909
The closest thing we get to free will in our legal system is rational thought. If you were temporarily incapable of rational thought, and thus incapable of making rational decisions, you can claim temporary insanity. This usually involves a lesser sentence. Same as any other mitigating circumstances, such as performing the act under threat or coercion, or as self-defense, that last of which often leads to no sentence at all.

A society that didn't believe in free will would be in much the same situation. Criminals would still be disruptive, still need to be dealt with. Mitigating circumstances such as the above would mean the person involved may not have been the nexus of the chain of events with the negative impact, meaning action against them would have no effect on the odds of a recurrence, and thus consequences to them would be similarly mitigated or waved.

I think, at best, some of the language surrounding the justice system might change, but probably not much. Guilty in our society just means "you did it, and this is your fault and we will take action to ensure it doesn't happen again", in theirs it'd mean, "you are the reachable cause of this and we will take action to ensure it doesn't happen again". Same diff.

Though while I suspect the justice system would be a near mirror image of ours - religion, may be not so much so. Then again, they'd still have many of the same needs for the functions religion fulfills, so it may be, again, just a case of the same shit with different wording.

[Anonymous No.9966085]

>>9965729
>the other two are oxymorons.
In what sense?

[Anonymous No.9966351]

>>9965923
To be fair you probably have a point now that I think about it after a night's rest. The Calvinists were ardent predeterminists, and they loved punishing people like no one else.

[Anonymous No.9966722]

>>9965305
>>9965305


>>9965305


>>9965305

[Anonymous No.9966881]

>when the brainlets take their 'causality' meme too far
Given cause and effect remains an unprovable hypothesis, how can you be so sure the universe is determinist? I thought you were scientific minded

[Anonymous No.9966987]

>>9965295
why is this even a thread. it has nothing to do with science.

[Anonymous No.9966993]

Determinism is uncertain
Uncertainty is far more so
True randomness exists somewhere out of view

[Anonymous No.9966999]

Determinism is uncertain
Uncertainty is far more the certainty
True randomness exists somewhere out of view

[Anonymous No.9967060]

>>9966987
Thinly veiled Christian vs. Science thread. The pseuds need to psuede, consider it containment.

[Anonymous No.9967119]

>>9965295
determinism and free will both exist, FUCKING DUMBASS, how else could you write let alone know about them?

[Anonymous No.9967135]

Well, the way I think about it is this:
Dopamine and other neurotransmitters get moved around in my brain, so whether or not my "feelings" are "real", and whether or not my "will" is "free", I feel good when I do certain things that I'm biologically programmed to do. I can submit to the inescapable illusion and just live on. It's always interesting to ponder the metaphysical, but frankly, I'd rather spend my time studying math. It makes me feel good, and the fact that I'm biologically programmed to enjoy something like that is oddly comforting.

[Anonymous No.9967147]

>>9966881
Well for the sake of philosophical argument, the hypothesis of free will and determinism exist simultaneously, so the burden of proof lies on whoever is first making the claims in a discussion. But that's not the context of this thread. Without evidence supporting either hypothesis, they're both equally likely, so nothing should be prohibiting anyone from a thought experiment which supposes that either hypothesis is absolutely true. That's all this thread is. Assume that determinism is the absolute truth, what do you have to say about that? What is life? It's not really a scientific discussion rather a philosophical one, so I suppose there's an argument to be made that this thread doesn't belong here, but that's pretty much it when it comes to any opposition to OP

[Anonymous No.9967151]

>>9965338
Free will is the ability to choose from multiple different options, if you went back in time and chose again under the same circumstances, you would be able to choose another.

[Anonymous No.9967201]

>>9967151
Think yer not getting the core concept - exactly the same circumstances include memories - so no, you couldn't.

Not that in itself really negates free will, but it's the first basic point of contention.

[Anonymous No.9967204]

>>9967201
I'm not saying free will exists, I'm just defining the concept.

[Anonymous No.9967218]

>>9967204
You still have the ability to choose from multiple options and suffer the consequences of those decisions - it's only that the choice is inevitable due to the circumstances, both internal and external, that preceded it.

[Anonymous No.9967223]

>>9967218
>it's only that the choice is inevitable due to the circumstances
It's a choice only if one has the power to decide otherwise, the moment it become inevitable it can't be called a choice.

[Anonymous No.9967287]

>>9967223
so by your definition a decision can never be a choice? what is a choice then.

[Anonymous No.9967295]

>>9967287
a choice is a decision where the actual potential of it being refused and chosen exists simultaneously, the outcome selected by a will unbound by the limitations of causality.

[Anonymous No.9967332]

>>9967295
if thats how we define choice then how am i using it in everyday language to describe what i choose to do? Also, how can you be sure there isnt the potential for a choice not to be chosen. You cant be sure of that.

[Anonymous No.9967337]

>>9967332
you just said it was inevitable, that clearly contradicts that possibility

[Anonymous No.9967357]

>>9967337
i was asking you a hypothetical question which is conditioned upon your views. no where did i present my views.

you believe it all choices are inevitable, im not sure they are.

[Anonymous No.9967365]

>>9967357
I'm not stating any beliefs one way or the other, since I don't really know. I'm just putting out definitions.

[Anonymous No.9967387]

>>9967365
thing is i think youre being quite closed minded in your definitions because its well known yours isnt the only definition of free will thats in the philosophical arena. and im not talking about just amongst ppl in these free will threads.

[Anonymous No.9967393]

>>9967387
Compatiblists are cowards that distort the meaning of freedom just to avoid the ramifications of determinism.

[Anonymous No.9967394]

>>9967147
>>9967365

id also say that in your definition of free will, whether determinism is true or not is completely irrelevant to whether free will is true or not.

[Anonymous No.9967397]

>>9967394
go on

[Anonymous No.9967405]

>>9967393
>>9967394

in a deterministic universe, the will is not free, and if a choice is indeterministic, there is no will.

determinism is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9967413]

>>9967405
>in a deterministic universe, the will is not free, and if a choice is indeterministic, there is no will.
I agree

>determinism is irrelevant.
I don't see how that follows. A deterministic universe is relevant precisely because my definition of freedom is incompatible with it.

[Anonymous No.9967430]

>>9967413
yeah but youre begging the question because your definition of a free choice is an indeterministic choice and im following from that also by saying that an indeterministic choice is one without "will".

i.e. your definition of free will is faulty.

[Anonymous No.9967443]

>>9967430
Ah, I see. Yes it isn't enough to say that it's indeterministic. The sort of will I'm talking about is the self causing the self. I'm having trouble finding the words to explain it any better though but I know what you mean.

[Anonymous No.9967474]

>>9967443
the self is clearly illusory. free will cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.9967505]

>>9967474
I think therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.9967507]

>waahh stop attack my special snowflake status

children born in the year 2000 are old enough to be fully licensed drivers now

[Anonymous No.9967508]

>>9967474
no, i don't think the self is illusory, it is just undefinable..

[Anonymous No.9967534]

>>9967505
But what caused the thinking. Define me. Define my thought. Is a dream I dream me? Is the sight of a door in my room me? What if i take LSD and the world is part of me or I am a schizophrenic and my own thoughts are no longer mine? Is a phenomena a self? In that case is the whole universe a self?

[Anonymous No.9967540]

>>9967534
Everything that occurs in your brain is a thought, so everything you observe is, in a sense, also you yourself.

[Anonymous No.9967588]

>>9967540
so i see therefore i am also applies?

[Anonymous No.9967590]

>>9967588
well, yes

[Anonymous No.9967596]

>>9967540
what if you dont acknowledge it as yourself like when a schizophrenic has thoughts that they disown or disown movements in their own body?

doesnt it erode the whole epistemological point of cogito?

but anyway we digress. can something really be self-determined? and if thats without agency is that free will. what about dreams
thats a good example. is that free will if thats yourself but not agentic.

[Anonymous No.9967607]

>>9967508
in anycase when you think of causes of thought and the self, it is inevitably from outside the self or due to internal factors where the self is reduced away.

[Anonymous No.9967913]

>>9967223
>It's a choice only if one has the power to decide otherwise, the moment it become inevitable it can't be called a choice.
Inevitable choice is still choice, as you become the gateway that redirects the flow of events. If you were not involved, another choice maybe made, or no choice would be made at all. Your existence and ability to choose redirects the flow of events, however inevitable your actions may ultimately be. So, it maybe akin to a groove in a record player, but it's one of your own design.

Other problem I've always had that, is that isn't what you experience. You know of determinism, ephemerally, or at least suspect it, as it's unprovable beyond a doubt, but even if you believe in it as an absolute, you still don't experience decision making in this fashion. You still have to make the decision.

When a computer comes across an "if" statement and has to choose its action based on the values of two numbers, its decision might be as inevitable as yours (however much more complicated yours may be). The key difference, however, is the computer does not experience the decision making process as a conscious being.

[Anonymous No.9967919]

>>9967913
That doesn't make any sense. How can it be of my own design if it's inevitable. I didn't choose my genetic code, environment, or any other factor that would actually contribute to the outcome. It would be unjustified to credit a person with an inevitability of that nature.

[Anonymous No.9967927]

>>9967596
I'm not saying anything is self determined, it's just that anything less wouldn't be free will. In all likelihood free will doesn't exist at all, but neither does the responsibility the concept entails.

[Anonymous No.9967929]

>>9965295
>cope
with what, there's nothing to cope with

[Anonymous No.9967937]

>>9967919
>That doesn't make any sense. How can it be of my own design if it's inevitable. I didn't choose my genetic code, environment, or any other factor that would actually contribute to the outcome. It would be unjustified to credit a person with an inevitability of that nature.
Because if that particular series of circumstances hadn't lead to the formation of that system, the events of which it is a nexus may not have taken place in the same way, as well as all the events that flow from that nexus into the future which it will travel (and possibly beyond).

Further, if that flow of events is negative, and the nexus wasn't a person, but instead a killing machine or such, of course you are going to blame it as the immediate cause of that disaster, and destroy it to put an end to said. You might then look beyond to its creator to see what could be done to prevent more from appearing, but the consequences remain, both for the device and the ones it acts upon. Its actions affected its future and that of those around it, and it is the most immediately responsible. With, again, the difference being you experience that decision making process and consequences first hand, while an unconscious device does not.

[Anonymous No.9967940]

>>9967937
>and the nexus wasn't a person, but instead a killing machine or such, of course you are going to blame it as the immediate cause of that disaster
I might blame it as the cause, but I would never insist that it had a choice. If humans functioned the same as a self aware machine I would likewise not fault them as if they had a choice. They might cause tragedy and need to be dealt with, but in that case they can never be seen as personally accountable.

[Anonymous No.9967953]

>>9965298
>even if you argue that quantum mechanics is unitary and the schrodinger equation is deterministic, that describes the multiverse, not the universe we measure
If someone were to make a perfect copy of you right now, with the same memories, would the fact that "you" end up in only one of the two copies mean that the process was indeterministic?

No, so the same is true of our "world" in the many worlds ensemble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Outline..

[Anonymous No.9967960]

>>9965295
I just act like there is. Might as well enjoy the ride and act like you can do anything.

[Anonymous No.9967962]

>>9965303
>some things are "deterministic"
>therefore the universe is entirely deterministic and free will doesn't exist
Excellent reasoning.
>>9965316
>If I made a thread saying “how do you cope with the lack of existence in a god”, you wouldn’t say “citation needed”z
And what would be the problem with this? A lack of evidence of X doesn't prove that X doesn't exist.

If you cannot prove that there isn't a god, why would you say "how do you cope with the lack of existence in a god"?

[Anonymous No.9967964]

>>9965305
Based Tetrapharmakos

>Don't fear god,
>Don't worry about death;
>What is good is easy to get,
>What is terrible is easy to endure.

[Anonymous No.9967973]

>>9965295
By realising that I am a high-level product of it.
It's not like I'm external to it, not even like I'm chained to it -- I am it. It's impossible, using the universe, to 100% predict determinism, even if you turned a million galaxies into some yet unknown type of computer. What makes you think you can even begin to grasp at it, let alone realise it in your life? It's not a matter of the macro examples often given for cause & effect, it's impossibly complex. Agency and choice are not illusions, they, in some form, partially comprise me (even if they're determined) that still exist. Indeed, if they were undetermined they wouldn't exist. It's like saying 'you' don't exist just because you are actually complex forms of matter interacting and endlessly changing. Though that's what I am, I am not illusory or just nothing, as I feel by my own subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.9968003]

>>9967973
This. The universe isn't something external to you that "controls" you. You are not separate from the universe. As Alan Watts said:

You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.

You are a function of what the whole universe is doing in the same way that a wave is a function of what the whole ocean is doing.

Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.

[Anonymous No.9968009]

>>9967940
>might cause tragedy and need to be dealt with
And how is this not blaming them? They are the nexus of the action that resulted in the tragedy, and the fact that they are decision making machines, allowed decisions to resolve in such a way as to make that tragedy happen. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to deal with them in the way one does. They wouldn't be punishable nor redeemable as potential assets, their behavior could not be molded, so no need to threaten them with consequences, there'd be no need for education or culture.

Even a society that does not believe in free will would have to contend with all these issues, because, free will or not, people still make decisions based on previous input and experience. Same as any other learning machine.

The fact that they are aware, and not omniscient, incapable of knowing the totality of the events leading to their decisions, the results there of, or even the decision making process itself, leads to them experience this decision making process as free will.

[Anonymous No.9968046]

common sense tells you it is the present that influences the future, and the past is frozen
actually quantum mechanics indicates it is the future that influences the past, and the present is frozen

[Anonymous No.9968056]

>>9965295
the axiom of determinism is not a part of most mental systems. Forcibly introducing it will cause them to halt. To cope with it you simply realise it is usually irrelevent.

[Anonymous No.9968066]

>>9965316
[tipping intensifies]

[Anonymous No.9968313]

>>9968009
>And how is this not blaming them?
Blaming someone as a cause isn't the same as asserting that they're morally responsible or could have chosen otherwise. They're two different things and so have two different blames.

[Anonymous No.9968539]

>>9968313
They are still morally responsible, for it was their lack of morals that lead to the final decision, or they would have chosen otherwise, in addition to being literally responsible as the most immediate cause. How does any of this have any practical effect on the response?

[Anonymous No.9968663]

>>9967960
>Might as well enjoy the ride and act like you can do anything.

weird to say this when youre not choosing to. agency paradox.

regardless of causes you are an agent

[Anonymous No.9968708]

>>9968539
> for it was their lack of morals that lead to the final decision
they didn't choose their lack of morals, it was literally not their fault. The practical result is that things such as retribution, which hinge on the ability to choose, are no longer justified responses to an act.

[Anonymous No.9968712]

>>9965295

the universe is deterministic, because it is apparently so

the circulatory of the argument indicates it has fundamental weaknesses at least to logicians.

[Anonymous No.9968724]

>>9965295

>the universe is entirely deterministic

We know for almost a century that the universe partially inherently stochastic. Get with the times, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9968734]

>>9968712
best evidence [math]\Rightarrow[/math] best theory

[Anonymous No.9968756]

>>9968708
>The practical result is that things such as retribution, which hinge on the ability to choose, are no longer justified responses to an act.
They are perfectly justified as it prevents a repetition of the decision to take the heinous act, while also providing cathartic release to the victim.

Free will doesn't have to enter into retribution or justice. The function is the same. Stop the problem at its source, repair the damage insomuch as you can, and deter a repeat of the behavior, both by the offender and others.

It's instead contingent on the fact that bad decisions with consequences for others can be made, and must be dealt with, and when possible, prevented.

Your computer or phone, which most would assume has no free will nor awareness, made several thousand decisions as you typed that post up. Yes, they were all inevitable given the design and input at hand, just like ours, but as it has no awareness it doesn't experience that process, unlike you or I, who experiences it as free will. Like us, however, if it misbehaves (spreads a virus or fails due to fault), it gets corrected, the only difference in that regards being that it's a much simpler matter. Also similar to us, if it didn't make decisions, weighing inputted values against each other by its design, it'd be inert and of no consequence. Among humans, that's a state fairly exclusive to the dead.

[Anonymous No.9968815]

>>9968724
stochasticity doesn't necessarily suggest determinism.

[Anonymous No.9968856]

>>9965295
My takeaway ultimately can be summed up in this statement "so what?" I had a buddy of mine trying to convince me that polyamorous relationships are more natural than monogamous one, to which my rebuttal was "well humans aren't meant to be in outer space, yet there we are all up and in that bitch with a space station." Just because an axiom is established as an accepted fact doesn't mean we have to adhere to it. So what if I don't have free will and the universe is deterministic, I still choose to believe I have a choice in the chaos.

[Anonymous No.9968892]

>>9968756
>Free will doesn't have to enter into retribution or justice
yes it does, moral responsibility is only justified by the individual being the center of control of themselves, which isn't truly the case in a deterministic world. Additionally, the practical ramifications of retribution differ tremendously from rehabilitation.

>Your computer or phone, which most would assume has no free will nor awareness, made several thousand decisions as you typed that post up
Those aren't decisions, those are merely outcomes of a causal chain. There must be conscious thought put into the choice for it to be a decision, that's in the dictionary definition of the word.

[Anonymous No.9968895]

>>9968815
Illiterate nigger

[Anonymous No.9968899]

>>9968895
why did you say illiterate twice?

[Anonymous No.9968904]

>>9968892
I don't think it makes a difference.

Regardless of peoples ability to choose i.e. if someones crazy, we still punish them in society now.

[Anonymous No.9968907]

>>9968895
its true though.

[Anonymous No.9968908]

>>9968904
>Regardless of peoples ability to choose i.e. if someones crazy, we still punish them in society now.
Pleas of insanity are a thing in court. One can avoid the death penalty and even prison time if they're legit insane. They'll then be carted off to a mental hospital for years of rehabilitation.

[Anonymous No.9968931]

>>9965295
Read up on current neuroscience opinion
Listen to what experts in the field have to say (Robert Sapolsky amongst others) and understand that free will is nothing but an illusion.
As we speak nations are in an arms race to make devices that can read your mind. Hell, they already have rudimentary devices that can tell what side (left or right) you're going to choose when you need to pick a side before you've decided on the side.

[Anonymous No.9968933]

>>9968907
Stochastic implies non-deterministic, retard. No one said otherwise

[Anonymous No.9968947]

>>9968908
mental hospital is just another form of imprisonment.

>>9968933
No it doesn't, it just implies unpredictability. We use stochastic models for lots of things which are hypothetically ciompletely deterministic but just too complex to predict. Modelling something stochastically doesn't mean it is so.

[Anonymous No.9969596]

>>9965433
But you're not making a choice. Your senses relay information to your brain, which then responds in a manner that is determined by its structure and chemistry. This entire process is governed by the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.9969600]

>>9965747
You mean welcome to made up bullshit and fairytales.

[Anonymous No.9969789]

>>9965407
Existence and non-existence

[Anonymous No.9969810]

>>9965407
Freedom and inevitability.

[Anonymous No.9970337]

>>9968892
>moral responsibility is only justified by the individual being the center of control of themselves, which isn't truly the case in a deterministic world.
Impulse control is a decision, and people have that. They do not act on every thought that pops into their heads. Those that fail at this basic task of social maintenance are dealt with accordingly. Correcting behavior still applies, free will or not.

The Calvinists, for example, don't believe in free will at all (all actions are predetermined by God), but are *huge* on punishment. More so than the legal system, which has *some* predilection for salvaging potentially functioning citizens, will allow.

Free will or not, rehabilitation and punishment are equally justifiable approaches to such violations.

>>9968908
>>9968947
Insanity is about being capable of making rational decisions - the legal system doesn't give a damn about free will, but who is the most immediate cause of the violation and the method of dealing with it.

If the action wasn't the result of a decision, but temporary insanity, the method of correction of the situation is likely going to vary, free will or not. Same should the action be coerced by another, self-defense, or what not - where person is not the prime nexus of the event, the need and method to correct them is different, reduced, or eliminated altogether.

[Anonymous No.9970342]

>>9970337
Granted, the whole ability to claim insanity is kind of a new thing. Wasn't an option in most societies for most of human history, though partially because they had no other way to deal with an "insane" individual. (Save, in some cases, to attempt to purge them of demons - but that's a whole other bag of worms.)

At the same time, punishment for children has almost always been less or waved, as we accept the fact that their decision making processes are not fully developed and their behavior patterns are still being molded. (Plus that instinct of protection we have that is fundamental to the whole moral system.)

[Anonymous No.9970389]

>>9970337
>Impulse control is a decision, and people have that. They do not act on every thought that pops into their heads. Those that fail at this basic task of social maintenance are dealt with accordingly. Correcting behavior still applies, free will or not.
Impulse control is no less an inevitability in a deterministic world than any other "choice". You can't fault someone for what they had no control over, so no, retribution is not justified at all.

>The Calvinists, for example, don't believe in free will at all (all actions are predetermined by God), but are *huge* on punishment.
Then they're wrong.

>Free will or not, rehabilitation and punishment are equally justifiable approaches to such violations.
I think punishment should be distinguished from actions whose purpose it is to protect the community. Locking someone away or killing them isn't punishment if it is solely done for the defense of the citizenry. Retribution is specifically about holding an individual accountable for their choice, which they are precisely because they didn't have to make it the way they did.

[Anonymous No.9970412]

>>9970389
>Impulse control is no less an inevitability in a deterministic world than any other "choice". You can't fault someone for what they had no control over, so no, retribution is not justified at all.
It's entirely justified, it corrects the situation, deters recurrences, and gives the victims release.

Free will or not, that's all shit you gotta deal with.

>Then they're wrong.
So determinism isn't a thing? (Nevermind why they believe it is - they still believe in retribution even though they do, and to a higher degree than most.)

>I think punishment should be distinguished from actions whose purpose it is to protect the community.
That's nice, but it doesn't change what needs to be done or what will be done. Inevitably (sic), you're going to have retribution, whether you believe in free will or not. Plus, in most legal systems, one can barely distinguish between the two, if at all - that wouldn't change.

[Anonymous No.9970536]

>>9970389
is retribution rational? whats the logic behind it? should justice be based around something like that? to me its just a shithouse.

maybe punishment should be dealt relativistically on someones capacity for rational choice given the society and given the fact that people must be punished.

[Anonymous No.9970554]

>>9968947

>Modelling something stochastically doesn't mean it is so.

Which part of "the universe is inherently stochastic" did you not understand? Not just a mere model of it, but the nature itself.

This is true regardless of whether we have free will or not.

[Anonymous No.9970594]

>>9970536
>is retribution rational? whats the logic behind it? should justice be based around something like that? to me its just a shithouse.
"Justice" as it applies to crime and punishment, is simply institutionalized retribution under another name. People need release, and people do bad things, thus bad things sometimes must be done to rectify and discourage this. It's perfectly logical, barring an alternative, though it is taking the logical consequences of emotions into account.

>maybe punishment should be dealt relativistically on someones capacity for rational choice given the society and given the fact that people must be punished.
It generally is, these days. I mean, it's not perfect, but, in most of the world, it's kinder and more "relativistic" than it has ever been, at least when it comes to criminal offenses. A lot of other laws are, well, kind of a crime unto themselves and the result of corruption legalizing exploitation.

[Anonymous No.9970632]

Definition: free-will - the ability of a system to execute without external constraints.

(Definition) Reality - all real objects
(Axiom) Reality exists

Reality is such a system, since there can be no real constraint on reality which is alien to reality, by definition. Therefore, the proposition 'reality has free-will' is true.

Do the definitions and axioms provided here imply we have free-will?

[Anonymous No.9970685]

This is so easy I just choose to believe in God

[Anonymous No.9970858]

>>9970685
If you believe in a deity that knows everything that will happen, then you've got a bigger problem. Some atheists may believe in determinism, but tend not to believe in a conscious being that actually lacks free will because he's omniscient, and thus already knows everything he will decide to do, as well as the results there of.

[Anonymous No.9970989]

>>9970554
so im supposed to just take what some random guy on 4chan says as truth?

youre intellectually arrogant if you think you can say that for sure. you can only say that if you think we are at the end of scientific history.

[Anonymous No.9971008]

>>9970632
No, they imply reality as a whole could have free will. Humans are constrained by higher order sets. To contrast, imagine the set of all real numbers. This set contains all primes. But you can't argue from this that each element of that set is prime.

[Anonymous No.9971227]

>>9965411
*It will never be possible for brainlets. Good job pajeet.

[Anonymous No.9971256]

>>9970632
Yes, of course. If a small creature in it desires anything, then the whole Universe can be assigned with the same desire. If you are happy winning a few chess matches on a Friday night, the entire Universe which contains you is just as happy with it. Whatever you do or not do is an action of the whole set. Your local finite mind simply reflects the whole set. This is an equal relation, instead of a causal relation, of a = b and b = a, and not classical determinism because it ascribes a non-past cause to the first event in time.

[Anonymous No.9971570]

>>9970632
No. You can't assume the parts have the same properties as the whole, that's a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.9971574]

>>9971570
and how does that apply to anon's statement?

[Anonymous No.9971605]

>>9971574
People are a subcomponent of reality, and the laws of that reality constrain us. Supposing that reality itself had free will, that will is the will of a single overriding entity, it says absolutely nothing about us and an individual will for each and every person.

[Anonymous No.9971609]

>>9971570
>>9971605
My conclusion: you're talking shit. More than the original poster you replied to... who is also talking shit.

[Anonymous No.9971619]

>>9971609
I'm not, it's called the fallacy of division.

[Anonymous No.9971627]

>>9971619
i think youre talking shit because the other guys clearly talking shit so if you think you understand him enough to criticise him. so are you.

if youre not then i suggest sticking to fuko

[Anonymous No.9971634]

>>9971627
Sounds more like you have no grasp of the abstract.

[Anonymous No.9971638]

>>9971634
Sounds like youve taken too much LSD pupper.

[Anonymous No.9971642]

>>9971605
what do you think of that quote william james said about combinations? you sound like the inverse almost.