/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13468259

230KiB, 600x628, Worried NPC.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 22:33:27 2021 No.13468259 View Reply Original Report

Is this a valid argument against the existence of free will?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY&t

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 2021 22:33:54 No.13468263 Report

Quoted By: >>13471155

Eternal return

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 2021 22:37:23 No.13468278 Report

Quoted By: >>13468380 >>13482407

>>13468259
Nobody has free will except me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 2021 22:38:02 No.13468282 Report

Quoted By: >>13471488 >>13472377 >>13475630

>>13468259
>If you make a claim to the contrary you're contradicting well established science
>I can't prevent you from denying scientific evidence, but I can tell you that this way you will never understand how the universe really works
This is very representative of how experts think. In 1000 years the well established science will be something different but they will still be saying how now they actually get it so if you doubt it you're wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 83451348_p0_master1200.jpg, 376KiB, 611x1000

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 2021 22:44:09 No.13468309 Report

Quoted By: >>13468353 >>13469055 >>13471411 >>13479754

>>13468259
No. Already argued extensively why similar arguments are faulty, but I do not wish to spoonfeed you if your interest in the topic is low. Here's what I suggest you do if you genuinely want to understand the issue: try to put her argument in a succinct bullet-list of syllogism. I.e. a bunch of assumptions she makes, and the list of purely logical deductions that follows from those assumptions. That way it will become much easier which assumptions are suspect. This is the method by which I've become convinced that all the arguments against free will I've encountered are fallacious and false. I have an argument in favor of free will, but that's for another time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 2021 22:55:07 No.13468353 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468309
>try to put her argument in a succinct bullet-list of syllogism. I.e. a bunch of assumptions she makes, and the list of purely logical deductions that follows from those assumptions
Sounds like an interesting exercise. Might be a good way to begin a critique of a lot of things, not only this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Aug 2021 23:01:44 No.13468380 Report

Quoted By: >>13473030

>>13468278
Unironically true, but me (me) instead of you (me)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 00:56:34 No.13468780 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
>this is to deny scientific evidence
No, it's to deny scientific methodology which is predicated on induction which has already been proven to be an insufficient method of proof for generating knowledge by Hume.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:02:47 No.13468794 Report

Quoted By: >>13468856 >>13470898 >>13472976

>>13468259
Free will is just determinism via utility-maximalization and modelling ability. The predicate free in free will refers to will being free, aka having control. This is what the folk-concept free will corresponds to, not an undetermined determination by will, which is what she considers it as.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:21:01 No.13468856 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468794
I agree but ideally anyone who means free will in that sense should use another term to avoid being thrown in with confused theologians and half-baked philosophers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:26:57 No.13468866 Report

Quoted By: >>13468881

>>13468259
Two lotteries
-------------------------------------------------
A. The winning ticket is chosen After the
tickets are sold

B. The winning ticket is chosen Before the
tickets are sold

If determinism is true, all your lottery tickets
were chosen before you were born.
So what?
So you are determined to have good luck on
some occasions and bad luck on others.
But also true if indeterminism is true!
There is no difference between indeterminism
and determinism as far as having opportunities
in this life.
So we should temper our traditional conviction
that there is a deep incompatability between
determinism and free will, and moral
responsibility - it just isn't there.

https://youtu.be/EJsD-3jtXz0?t=30m

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:30:30 No.13468881 Report

Quoted By: >>13468891

>>13468866
>Dennet
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:31:34 No.13468889 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
This is probably to complex for the brainlets here

Is Free Will An Illusion?
https://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

/ thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:32:22 No.13468891 Report

Quoted By: >>13468904

>>13468881
>i have no argument

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 01:35:30 No.13468904 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468891
There's no point. You're a brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 02:03:05 No.13469022 Report

Quoted By: >>13469053

>>13468259

This is the only reason why I don't take seriously "free will isn't real" arguments

People who say they don't believe in free will, don't tell their kids free will doesn't exist because they fear that belief might affect them negatively (it will make them be lazy and underperform, and say they aren't responsible for that, because there is no free will and they were predestined to be lazy and underperform).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 02:09:14 No.13469040 Report

Quoted By: >>13470585 >>13480972 >>13481003

>>13468259
there is no valid argument *for* the existence of free will

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 02:13:26 No.13469053 Report

Quoted By: >>13470585 >>13482319

>>13469022
>People who say they don't believe in free will, don't tell their kids free will doesn't exist because they fear that belief might affect them negatively (it will make them be lazy and underperform, and say they aren't responsible for that, because there is no free will and they were predestined to be lazy and underperform).
or whats vastly more likely is that people who don't believe in free will are few and far between so its not like many kids even have an opportunity to have parents that don't believe in free will.

were about to witness a philosophical explosion as the next few generations grow up without religious influence, and eventually down the line free will is going to become a hot topic. after that happens only then can we really judge how people think of it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 02:13:51 No.13469055 Report

Quoted By: >>13469383 >>13470585 >>13473110

>>13468309
Having free will implies a metaphysical sense of self.
In other words, hitting rewinding the tape and playing it again will always produce a different result.
This lacks evidence for obvious reasons. If you admit all informed are worldly, then you're admitting you're a machine reacting to stimuli from around you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 02:35:18 No.13469128 Report

Quoted By: >>13470585

I'm kind of a pro free will guy just by temperament, but I have to admit that physical laws just seem to offer an immediate and obvious bounding on the concept. Like I have free will (ostensibly) to choose Tim Hortons or Dunkin, but I cannot choose to simply not be hungry (I will inevitably starve) or to fly (I am subject to gravity) etc., etc. If you don't like those examples I'm sure you can supplant with ones from your own experience.

I guess for determinists the notion is that this inductively follows either all the way down to your atoms, or maybe all the way up to all forms of social phenomena. Maybe even arguments over free will.

So I mean, I believe in free will, but it doesn't seem like I have a lot of choice in the matter anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 03:51:26 No.13469372 Report

Quoted By: >>13470595

>>13468259
The facticity of the universe is proof itself of free will. Nothing exists without the freely willed act of creation. There is no way to go from the "whatness" of an abstract potential universe (like Tegmark's Level 4 realm of forms), to the "thatness" of an actual particular universe that we live in and experience without a freely willed act of a creator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 03:56:15 No.13469383 Report

Quoted By: >>13469422 >>13475266

>>13469055
>reacting to stimuli from around you
And what of stimuli produced from outside of the empirical world, of intellect and imagination either internal to the mind or from an excursion of the mind to non-empirical worlds like the realm of forms or imaginal worlds?

As an concrete example, where was the sense data for Einstein's thought experiments as he conceived them? It wasn't something out there in the empirical world, it was something conceived in his mind by intellectual and imaginative faculties.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 04:09:38 No.13469422 Report

Quoted By: >>13469471 >>13470595

>>13469383
well so far our observations have shown we live in a logical universe. einstein was a talented mathematician and a great thinker. I think any mind with the right knowledge can also deduce GR because its an inherent observation of an existing logical system.

I think maybe free observation could be real, slim chance free choice is real, but free will doesnt exist period. the reason nobody had figured out GR before einstein is because they didnt have his up bringing, they didnt have his education, and most didnt have the mountains of evidence and frameworks to build upon. einstein was very smart but he was not alone in creating his intelligence/greatness

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO trains.jpg, 46KiB, 512x396

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 04:28:59 No.13469471 Report

Quoted By: >>13469925 >>13471276 >>13475266

>>13469422
But where does the actual thought experiment itself in Einstein's mind come from in its particular thatness? Where in the empirical world is the stimulus that produces the particular acts of imagination and intellection as they occured as events?

They don't exist in the empirical world. The empirical world may provide a ground for acts of imagination and intellection, e.g. Einstein's material brain, the work of others in building frameworks, his education etc. but they don't explain the cause of specific creative acts of imagination and intellection as performed in the thought experiments conceived by Einstein, in their specific "thatness" as an actual event, their origin comes from somewhere outside the empirical world in the daydreams and thinking of Einstein's wandering mind.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 06:36:41 No.13469777 Report

Quoted By: >>13473656

I am never listening to what a tranny says.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 29527641.png, 1MiB, 1500x1455

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 07:00:58 No.13469875 Report

Quoted By: >>13470595

>theists believe they are special because there is magic man in their head moving ions in and out of a neuron so they can have free will
take your meds

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 07:12:32 No.13469906 Report

Quoted By: >>13470595 >>13470862

Compatibilism is the only view that makes sense to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 07:15:12 No.13469916 Report

Quoted By: >>13469983 >>13470595 >>13475653

If free will does exist why don't you decide to become rich?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 07:18:15 No.13469925 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469471
>3/5ths the speed of light
>How can we tell which bolt happened first?
I call it the "Three Fifths Compromise"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 07:39:12 No.13469983 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469916
Some people feel wealthy in their natural environment, while other's feel poor inside a castle.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 87348548_p0_master1200.jpg, 562KiB, 850x1200

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 12:11:39 No.13470585 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469055
>Having free will implies a metaphysical sense of self.
Not necessarily metaphysical, but yes.
>In other words, hitting rewinding the tape and playing it again will always produce a different result.
Talking about hypothetical time machines is like sensible as talking about machines that could make 2+2=5. The premise is just meaningless wordplay and so is useless. In reality, if you have a tape of a film, if you rewind it and play it it will always be the same film, unless you alter the tape. But I don't think that's what you have in mind.
>This lacks evidence for obvious reasons
Yeah, there's no evidence that there could be a time machine, just like there's no evidence that there could be a machine that makes 2+2=5. But that's hardly an objection to free will.
>If you admit all informed are worldly, then you're admitting you're a machine reacting to stimuli from around you.
Explain.
>>13469040
There actually are many such arguments. If you think about it for a few minutes you might realize it.
>>13469053
>were about to witness a philosophical explosion as the next few generations grow up without religious influence
Perhaps grow up without being directly indoctrinated, but not without religious influence. Religious influence is all around us and will remain so until collapse.
>>13469128
People who believe in free will don't believe you can do anything, that you can jump to the moon etc. That's obviously ridiculous. I can't imagine what makes you think such physical limitations are an argument against free will.
The actual position of us, free will proponents is the following:
"I have free will = there are some instances in which I am able to change the future". Now it might appear simple but it actually contains many complications. What is this future thing that can change on individuals whim? What is this "I" that brings about the change? These are all interesting questions and we could discuss further if you want.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 85446761_p0_master1200.jpg, 640KiB, 934x1200

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 12:19:11 No.13470595 Report

Quoted By: >>13470914 >>13470937 >>13472006

>>13469372
>The facticity of the universe is proof itself of free will. Nothing exists without the freely willed act of creation
I don't believe that's a good argument. Even if the universe came about as a result of some willing agent, it could be that we as humans are not actually willing agents and have no free will, just an illusion thereof. The universe might be just God playing Sims.
>>13469422
>well so far our observations have shown we live in a logical universe
Explain what you mean by a "logical universe".
>slim chance free choice is real, but free will doesnt exist period
What's the difference between free choice and free will? And why do you think free will doesn't exist?
>>13469875
I believe in free will and I'm a staunch atheist. I believe it requires a high level of delusion and cope not to believe in free will. In the end I think it's mostly a coping mechanism for failures in one's life. It allows you not to take responsibility for where you end up in life. I am sad, poor and lonely? It was destined to be. It's not my fault. It's very similar to how religion is a coping mechanism for death for a lot of people. But sure, as long as it feels good for you, you can believe what you want regardless of logic.
>>13469906
What about genuine libertarian free will doesn't make sense to you? After all it's the correct position on the question.
>>13469916
If two plus two equals four then why is your post so bad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:06:41 No.13470862 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469906
>cope-patibilism

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:17:01 No.13470897 Report

Quoted By: >>13470916

>>13468259
In this very video she argues that your genes do not determine your future. But by her own argument, they must. Even she isn't willing to carry her argument to its conclusion. That alone should be enough to discount it.

The assertion that you can know the outcome of any system if you know all its initial conditions is entirely unfounded. There is no evidence for this. There is good evidence that this *isn't* true. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You cannot know both a particle's speed and position. So you will never be able to know everything about a system. This claim can *never* be verified.

Of course this is only a real problem if you are a materialist in the first place, which I'm not, so I'm entirely unbothered one way or the other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:17:54 No.13470898 Report

Quoted By: >>13472976

>>13468794
>aka having control.
No, that's just will. Free implies free of outside influence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:25:29 No.13470914 Report

Quoted By:

>>13470595
>Explain what you mean by a "logical universe".
from our perspective as a human, everything that happens to us is causally linked. So far science hasn't found any mechanisms in this universe that allow for energy or matter to change without outside influence.
>What's the difference between free choice and free will?
You and the other anon already defined free will in the quote above. Free choice is the idea that there may not be any true sense of self, some decisions we do make could seen as uniquely personal enough however to explain as free choice, even though if there is no free will because the factors deciding that choice (like our senses) are already defined for us by our DNA.
>just like there's no evidence that there could be a machine that makes 2+2=5
this statement sounds really fucking retarded if you knew anything about math or computing. we can easily manipulate information into any other dimension we please. 2+2=5 is a trivial task on paper or on a computer. However in this universe no you can't magically make four apples into five. The same reason why we can't force 2+2=5 into reality is the same as to how free will doens't exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:26:07 No.13470916 Report

Quoted By: >>13470951

>>13468259
Yes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply deluding themselves.

>>13470897
That's not what she said. She said gene's only partially determine your future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:30:09 No.13470933 Report

Quoted By: >>13470951

Magic-brain believers, self-proclaimed """philosophers""" and theists irreversibly btfo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:30:45 No.13470937 Report

Quoted By: >>13470951

>>13470595
>If two plus two equals four then why is your post so bad?

I try to make a better one.

>I believe in free will and I'm a staunch atheist.

Just because something feels a certain way doesn't mean it is a certain way.

For example my little brother felt as he was a kid that a certain mushroom looks extra delicious, but in fact it was an lethal one. You see just because it has this very nice hazel coloration doesn't mean its extra yummy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:33:47 No.13470951 Report

Quoted By: >>13470986 >>13470997 >>13471014

>>13470916
>>13470933
Astronomical levels of cope in these posts.
>>13470937
>Just because something feels a certain way doesn't mean it is a certain way.
Correct. Just because it feels good for you to believe there's no free will doesn't mean it's true. Cope =/= reality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:44:05 No.13470986 Report

Quoted By: >>13471007

>>13470951
Y sorry. You are right. It was my decision to have an iq of 135.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:47:01 No.13470997 Report

Quoted By: >>13471013

>>13470951
The only one sniffing copium is you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:47:38 No.13470999 Report

Quoted By:

There is no free will, but the cool thing is we don't decide if we believe in it or not, so it doesn't matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:49:11 No.13471007 Report

Quoted By: >>13471049

>>13470986
Wow, you're so retarded.
1. We know IQ is largely genetically determined.
2. If there's no free will then you can't have chosen your IQ, since you don't choose anything. So your beliefs are inconsistent and thoroughly retarded.
With such poor arguments, your IQ is much more likely to be in the low 80s rather than 130s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:49:15 No.13471008 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
The problem with these arguments is that free will always seems to be ruled out by definition from the get go. Her definition of free will (which I'm guessing at apophatically) seems to be invalidated by temporality or outside input. I don't even know what the condition for free will would be unless the willful individual were god himself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:50:39 No.13471013 Report

Quoted By: >>13471030

>>13470997
Said the coper. It feels 1000x better to believe you're not responsible for anything, and that's why you believe in determinism. Calling the opposite the cope is simply delusional. Is it also cope to believe there's no afterlife? And is it cope to believe there's no Santa Claus? Lmao

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO onions.jpg, 45KiB, 550x513

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:51:03 No.13471014 Report

Quoted By: >>13471019 >>13471025 >>13471041

>>13470951
>n-n-no *voice cracks* it's YOU THat's coping *sniffle* ... m-magic is REal!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO afkgaming_import_media_images_64 (...).jpg, 57KiB, 1080x578

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:52:38 No.13471019 Report

Quoted By: >>13471025

>>13471014
HAHA cope more.
>muh magical platonic laws of nature which nobody can see or know, but they're there I swear and they agree with me!
pic related is you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:54:37 No.13471025 Report

Quoted By: >>13471030

>>13471019

This is still you, and you've proven it even further: >>13471014

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:56:17 No.13471030 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471025
see
>>13471013
and cope harder.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 14:59:04 No.13471041 Report

Quoted By: >>13471130

>>13471014
Also you're the one who believes in magic because magical platonic entities that no one has discovered or seen are the only way you can justify determinism. I just believe in the real world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:01:08 No.13471049 Report

Quoted By: >>13471052

>>13471007
Yes it is true that the intelligence is about 40% nurture and 60% nature. I just decided with my hardcore will harder. With out my decision I would have an IQ of only 80.
I decided to have 50 points more as nature gave me. So you can reach 150 with ease.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:02:16 No.13471052 Report

Quoted By: >>13471058

>>13471049
40% nurture doesn't mean you can influence it through your will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:03:54 No.13471058 Report

Quoted By: >>13471068

>>13471052
So what can I influence with my will?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:05:45 No.13471068 Report

Quoted By: >>13471086

>>13471058
Well I'm not sure if YOU can influence anything at all, since a lot of people who don't believe in free will tend to be actual NPCs with no free will who assume nobody else has it either. But me, I can influence what I'm going to write in this post and the next one, as one example.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:10:59 No.13471086 Report

Quoted By: >>13471095

>>13471068
I believe its like this, I willed all the good things about me and all the bad things where causality and determination.
In a nutshell, all the good stuff I did was purely my merit, all the bad things about me where someone else fail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:13:20 No.13471095 Report

Quoted By: >>13471100

>>13471086
> I willed all the good things about me
That's an absolutely ridiculous position. You couldn't have willed your parents, the location where you were born, your genes, all of which have massive influence on the good things about you. You didn't actually think this through, did you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:15:23 No.13471100 Report

Quoted By: >>13471105

>>13471095
Yes ofc i can cause willpower is real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:16:15 No.13471105 Report

Quoted By: >>13471119

>>13471100
That doesn't follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:19:20 No.13471119 Report

Quoted By: >>13471124

>>13471105
>It allows you not to take responsibility for where you end up in life. I am sad, poor and lonely?

But you said it does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:20:56 No.13471124 Report

Quoted By: >>13471393

>>13471119
Believing there's no free will does. But if you have free will, then it's your own choices and there's no one to blame, no magical platonic cosmic plan of the future that you can refer to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:22:29 No.13471130 Report

Quoted By: >>13471143

>>13471041
>this much cope and seething
You're the one mentioning Plato and asserting nonsense.
If you got any evidence for that nondeterminism and free will, feel free to share. (and I'm not talking about technique/technological limitations (see quantum mechanics))
>inb4: "n-n-no, YOU show me how my unsupported assertion without evidence, that relies on some misunderstandings of QM, magic and ignorance is false!"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:25:54 No.13471143 Report

Quoted By: >>13471149

>>13471130
Dude just admit you form your beliefs based on what feels good instead of what's rational and move on.
>n-no you're the one asserting nonsense
lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:27:18 No.13471149 Report

Quoted By: >>13471154

>>13471143
Dude just admit you form your beliefs based on what feels good instead of what's rational and move on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:28:26 No.13471154 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471149
That's what I just told you, correct. Good job repeating it. :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:28:43 No.13471155 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468263
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:29:10 No.13471157 Report

Quoted By: >>13471160

>>13468259
How doesn't everyone know this already? Physics dictates everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:30:11 No.13471160 Report

Quoted By: >>13471166

>>13471157
18th century called. It wants you back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:31:56 No.13471166 Report

Quoted By: >>13471173

>>13471160
That makes no sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:33:22 No.13471173 Report

Quoted By: >>13471180

>>13471166
Your understanding of physics is stuck in the 18th century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:35:05 No.13471180 Report

Quoted By: >>13471194

>>13471173
Tell you need to tell us anon what has changed in the last 200 years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:35:06 No.13471181 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
Yes. Our queen has bequeathed upon us more truth!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:38:38 No.13471194 Report

Quoted By: >>13471201

>>13471180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:40:29 No.13471201 Report

Quoted By: >>13471216

>>13471194
QM isn't physics?

Also did you even watch the video where that is directly answered?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:42:44 No.13471207 Report

Quoted By: >>13471214

>>13468259
fucking hilarious how they present this shit as a fact as if science can even begin to extend its reach into this domain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:44:06 No.13471214 Report

Quoted By: >>13471219

>>13471207
science is valid in every domain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:44:37 No.13471216 Report

Quoted By: >>13471224

>>13471201
>QM isn't physics
It is.
>Also did you even watch the video where that is directly answered
I did. It answered the wrong question. Basically a strawman.
>just because the world is random, doesn't mean you have free will
Correct. But nobody is making this argument. At least I'm not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:45:48 No.13471219 Report

Quoted By: >>13471224

>>13471214
Sure but it's not even close to being able to make these claims yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:46:45 No.13471224 Report

Quoted By: >>13471232 >>13471240

>>13471216
>It answered the wrong question. Basically a strawman.
Unless you say what is the right question and explain it you're the strawman.

>>13471219
In your opinion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:48:16 No.13471228 Report

Quoted By: >>13471244

The only arguments for free will are theism and dimensions above and beyond our observation. Even then, those dimensions are likely as predetermined or chaotic as theorized in the ones visible, so the likelihood of free will existing in an atheistic compatibility remains at <0. A lot of sophists in here that aren't even willing to explain why free will can exist without God*, just a bunch of edge.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:49:58 No.13471232 Report

Quoted By: >>13471241

>>13471224
>In your opinion.
No, not in my opinion. Science has not explained the hard problem of consciousness and none of our models of physics fully explain reality. You need at least both of these things before you can start making conjectures about free will. She assumes that science has already explained all causality in the universe when it hasn't, and she never offers any explanation for consciousness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:50:34 No.13471237 Report

Quoted By: >>13471266

>>13468259
>valid argument

Attacks on freewill are all self-refuting. The concept "argument" presupposes the existence of freewill. It is a choice to even consider the question let alone decide that an argument is "valid" or "invalid" (even if you get it wrong).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:51:33 No.13471240 Report

Quoted By: >>13471246

>>13471224
Her whole video is basically a list of fallacies and unfounded baseless assumptions. Here's what I suggest you do. Take what you think is her argument, put it in a bullet-list form as a syllogism, where assumptions are clearly stated and the deduction is purely logical which ends with the conclusion that free will doesn't exist. I could try to do that, but in all likelihood you would object that my bullet list is not actually her argument, and since she didn't actually give such a formal argument, her video is just a mishmash of random facts and assertions, nobody could verify which one of us is right. So it's best if you provide such a list, and then we can examine the argument and see if it holds up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:51:46 No.13471241 Report

Quoted By: >>13471245

>>13471232
You are confusing consciousness with free will. Not the same things at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:53:41 No.13471244 Report

Quoted By: >>13471264

>>13471228
>The only arguments for free will are theism and dimensions above and beyond our observation.
How do you know?
> A lot of sophists in here that aren't even willing to explain why free will can exist without God
Why couldn't it exist without god? I'm an atheist and I know free will exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:53:57 No.13471245 Report

Quoted By: >>13471251

>>13471241
It doesn't matter whether they are the same thing or not because until we explain what consciousness is we can't discount any effect it might have. It's like you're solving an as of yet unsolvable equation by just getting rid of the variable you don't know, sure it could end up just being 1 and not having any effect, but you can't make that kind of assumption.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:53:58 No.13471246 Report

Quoted By: >>13471272

>>13471240
> ake what you think is her argument, put it in a bullet-list form
The laws of physics explain everything.

end of list.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO komo.jpg, 600KiB, 1536x2048

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:54:49 No.13471248 Report

Quoted By: >>13471258 >>13471400

>>13468259
Concept of free will is not meaningless, only the argument agaisnt free will is stupid.
By definition 1: free will = (you) control your will, 2: no free will = (you) not control your will. Which mean the concept of free will require the concept of (you) to be meaningful. The materialistic argument prove nothing but block you from defy (you). "you are not control your will, its physic laws"
>then what am I?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:55:49 No.13471251 Report

Quoted By: >>13471259

>>13471245
> explain what consciousness is
She has the exact same argument. It's all just particles in the brain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:57:07 No.13471258 Report

Quoted By: >>13471313

>>13471248
A lot of arguments against free will are indeed attacking the concept of self as an illusion. IMO it's a valid tactic to make an argument against free will by arguing the concept is incoherent as there is no self. Basically you're not arguing that "you do not have free will" but rather that the proposition "you do have free will" is false, which is a different proposition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:57:18 No.13471259 Report

Quoted By: >>13471269

>>13471251
Well that's not a verifiable explanation so it's not very scientific to make an entire video presented as fact with that assumption as a basis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:57:54 No.13471264 Report

Quoted By: >>13471275

>>13471244
>
By the absolute delusion posted in this thread. :^)
>know
You don't know anything, you only believe by what you observe. Give an argument for free will without God, don't just postulate like you've been doing in this thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:58:03 No.13471266 Report

Quoted By: >>13471318

>>13471237
It could be reframed under provability/improvability or just falsifiability and then falsification, but I can't think of a scientific argument that yields any amount of truth as that is not the target. Even in the event that science determines freewill is impossible, it only extends to as far as the then current paradigm exists and it could be turned around in some future, or even past, iteration of it. In short, I really don't give a shit what science says about freewill. They are wholly delusional unironic memers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:58:35 No.13471269 Report

Quoted By: >>13471281

>>13471259
If you honestly believe science and our existing laws can't explain it why are you on this board?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 15:58:57 No.13471272 Report

Quoted By: >>13471282

>>13471246
Is that all that you took away from the video? That's rather sad imo. And this is not a syllogism. The syllogism must end with "free will doesn't exist" and yours ends with "The laws of physics explain everything". Perhaps you've missed a few steps?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:00:05 No.13471275 Report

Quoted By: >>13471283

>>13471264
>you don't know anything, you only believe by what you observe
Dangerously close to a "nothing is real and I can prove it" sentiment

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:00:33 No.13471276 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469471
They came a highly evolved brain that excels in creating models of reality. Einsten's was just tuned in a certain way that was above everyone else's.
I don't know why you're even using Einstein as your example. Where do any ideas come from? They are not generated out of choice. They pop into the mind from unconscious processes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:01:41 No.13471281 Report

Quoted By: >>13471286

>>13471269
It doesn't matter whether I think science can explain it because it HASN'T explained it so it's insane to talk like it has. You do realize that not every problem has been solved right? There is no agreed upon theory of everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:01:46 No.13471282 Report

Quoted By: >>13471306

>>13471272
> syllogism
just because you learnt a new word does not make your argument any more valid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:02:39 No.13471283 Report

Quoted By: >>13471308

>>13471275
>can't give a valid argument
If you can't accept that you cannot know anything, and can only believe in everything through observation since you cannot remove yourself from the environment you are observing, then you cannot be helped, as you disregard the root. You are not better than the animals that lounge around in the deserts and forests, you aren't even able to provide an example of how free will can exist without capacity through a higher power. Be quiet, egotist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:03:14 No.13471286 Report

Quoted By: >>13471294 >>13471311

>>13471281
What makes you think consciousness or free will are any different to any other complex dynamical system? Is there some magic pixie dust involved that makes them special?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:05:45 No.13471294 Report

Quoted By: >>13471297 >>13471314

>>13471286
>Is there some magic pixie dust involved that makes them special?
until it's fucking figured out yes, the missing variables are quite literally magic pixie dust that makes them special

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:06:23 No.13471297 Report

Quoted By: >>13471301

>>13471294
Retard.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1627105090618.jpg, 16KiB, 400x400

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:06:49 No.13471300 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
Free will doesn't even make sense as a concept. It's like a square circle. How the fuck can something make decisions that are not dictated by prior events? Even if you say the mind is somehow free of physical processes, it still doesn't explain the actual decision making process. At best you can have purely random decisions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:07:22 No.13471301 Report

Quoted By: >>13471309

>>13471297
ya that's productive, that'll solve the problem of consciousness. good job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:08:49 No.13471306 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471282
Which argument? I didn't make an argument. I asked you to make one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:09:12 No.13471308 Report

Quoted By: >>13471320 >>13471357

>>13471283
I still don't understand how people in this thread define "free will." You can consciously dictate an action, therefore free will is real. If you believe that nothing can be known and that consciousness is false then you destroy empiricism anyway, as empiricism necessitates the ability of the individual to separate the internal from the external stimulus. I guess, if you like, you could just embrace solipsism, in which case the argument against free will is tautological since all reality is an unmoored illusion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:09:16 No.13471309 Report

Quoted By: >>13471315

>>13471301
Yes you being a sophist is totally more productive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:09:54 No.13471311 Report

Quoted By: >>13471335

>>13471286
we don't even know what the elements that make up the system are or if it even is a system and not a thing in itself

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:10:15 No.13471313 Report

Quoted By: >>13471400

>>13471258
I don't think its a valid tatic since its destructive on both morality and logical practice. The term "free will" and the debates around it is culturaly related to decision making, while "self" is entire diffirent topic. The argument is playing around the limit language to avoid the debate while dabbing and shitting over the table

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:10:19 No.13471314 Report

Quoted By: >>13471321

>>13471294
in the running for the most illogical post on /sci/ this week.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:10:24 No.13471315 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471309
i think so

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:11:49 No.13471318 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471266

This sounds like "scientists could be wrong" argument to defend freewill, i.e. skepticism. This is an error too. You don't "prove" freewill you show that it is implicit in any claim to knowledge, including skepticism. Skeptics saying "I know we know nothing" is a claim to knowledge so also self-refuting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:12:06 No.13471320 Report

Quoted By: >>13471338

>>13471308
>I still don't understand how people in this thread define "free will." You can consciously dictate an action, therefore free will is real
The argument is that your supposedly conscious decision is in fact caused by events out of your control like neurochemistry and upbringing. It has nothing to do with solipsism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:12:11 No.13471321 Report

Quoted By: >>13471330

>>13471314
it was deliberately illogical you fucktard, you can use whatever fucking analogy you want to exemplify the unknown

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:14:14 No.13471330 Report

Quoted By: >>13471339

>>13471321
No, you just say the unknown. Only a religgie defaults to magic or pixie dust.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:15:21 No.13471335 Report

Quoted By: >>13471343 >>13471373

>>13471311
> we don't even know what the elements that make up the system
yes we do. it's every single cell in the brain and the rest of the human body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:16:02 No.13471338 Report

Quoted By: >>13471353 >>13471366

>>13471320
But that's wrong, are you saying that a couple extra norepinephrine molecules and a spanking would make me want toast for breakfast instead of eggs?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO EdE6k3fXgAAcZHG.jpg, 17KiB, 400x394

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:16:13 No.13471339 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471330
fuck you nigger i'll do what i want

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Girls.jpg, 81KiB, 600x536

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:17:14 No.13471343 Report

Quoted By: >>13471356

>>13471335
>cells
>elements

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:18:15 No.13471353 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471338
kek, maybe

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:18:41 No.13471356 Report

Quoted By: >>13471374

>>13471343
is english not your first language?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:18:46 No.13471357 Report

Quoted By: >>13471368 >>13471380

>>13471308
>empiricism destroyed
That's the point. I'm not saying that you can't hold empiricism to the height that we hold it as of now, but you can never forget that you cannot remove yourself from what you are seeking to observe, something that defeats the purpose of finding what is "impartial" if you're always partial to the set. The defining of free will does not lie in creating action, it is derived from what made you enact that action. Was it truly you that decided to engage? Or was it merely push and pull and a stimuli instead of your own decision? I don't believe reaction is an acceptable argument to defending conscious. If anything, it would mean you can never escape the environment and its agenda as it influences you entirely to the "decisions" you make. Prove to me that you can make a free thought inside the environment you're attempting to denounce, and I will switch opinions in total honesty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:20:22 No.13471366 Report

Quoted By: >>13471384

>>13471338
So are you saying that your food preference is not in any way predicated on you being a biological organism?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:20:52 No.13471368 Report

Quoted By: >>13471386

>>13471357
Who needs to be impartial? I just need to be decisive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:21:15 No.13471373 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471335
1. How do you know
2. if cells aren't conscious or don't have elements of consciousness, then how do they create a conscious system? And if they are conscious or do have conscious elements, then we still haven't described what that is with out current models of physics so we can't make conjectures about free will.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Periodic_Table_of_Elements_w_Che (...).png, 434KiB, 3300x2550

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:21:16 No.13471374 Report

Quoted By: >>13471379 >>13471385

>>13471356
find cells for me pl0x

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:22:27 No.13471379 Report

Quoted By: >>13471388

>>13471374
>there is only one definition of the word element
read a book fag

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:22:39 No.13471380 Report

Quoted By: >>13471386

>>13471357
What do you mean by change your mind?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:23:38 No.13471384 Report

Quoted By: >>13471396 >>13471459

>>13471366
I mean this gets back to my problem with the definition of free will in general in this argument is that it necessitates a complete removal from reality to begin with. Yeah I'm a biological organism and therefore I get nutrition from certain types of matter. I'm also culturally influenced toward certain dishes to taste. But those limits do not mean that I don't have choice or will. I legitimately don't understand this hard materialist's attitude of "well our being is bounded so therefore we're practically robots."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:23:40 No.13471385 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471374
element - as in basic component of a system or set

not atomic element you muppet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:23:57 No.13471386 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471368
That's why you don't matter and you should go back.
>>13471380
Where's your argument?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:24:11 No.13471388 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471379
that's where i got the periodic table from jackass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:24:53 No.13471393 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471124
If you reach the level of "will power" of this one Buddhistic monk who burned him self alive, we can discuss about free will again. Unless you reach this point i stay with deterministic logic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:25:38 No.13471396 Report

Quoted By: >>13471406

>>13471384
So you never provide an explanation for why you believe you have a choice, you just want to feel good. Kay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:28:36 No.13471400 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471313
also, the debate is the definition I said in >>13471248 this is what we are trying to calculate, and it value will be called through the word "free will". "Free will" in the materialisitc arugment still present same kind of value, but now its determined by a different calculation. This is harmful for logical practice, the result is not whatever we ask for when we first ask the question

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO there is no free will.png, 13KiB, 691x185

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:29:32 No.13471403 Report

Quoted By: >>13471523 >>13478272

>>13468259
>muh physics
Free will is not even a scientific problem; it is a chimeric concept and it can be refuted logically without invoking much physics at all. The refutation has nothing to do with how we currently understand the laws of Nature. Just read any philosophy book on the matter.
Here Galen Strawson shows how belief in free will is pretty much logically untenable:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/free_will.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:29:58 No.13471406 Report

Quoted By: >>13471423

>>13471396
I consciously elect to do things. Again, you have to deny that I'm conscious, or that consciousness is real, in which case empiricism is dead anyway and the game is moot, and the distinction is meaningless. A position you can have if you like, but a position that refutes nothing because it precludes refutation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:31:09 No.13471411 Report

Quoted By: >>13479754

>>13468309
>I have an argument in favor of free will, but that's for another time.
Don't bother posting if you're gonna chicken out before you know other Anons will destroy your cute little "argument".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:33:06 No.13471423 Report

Quoted By: >>13471432

>>13471406
Your decisions are just reaction so you can't choose to do anything removed from influence, it's impossible. Sorry but you haven't provided any actual argument and just want to feel warm and fuzzy inside. That's okay, but until you can prove you can make a totally removed thought from the environment you exist in, you cannot have a free will without God.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 90540749_p0_master1200.jpg, 570KiB, 903x1135

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:33:31 No.13471424 Report

Quoted By: >>13471436

>prove to me you have free will
What you don't realize that free will is epistemologically subjective but ontologically objective. That means there is no way for me to definitively prove to someone else that I have free will. No matter what I say, a possible interpretation you could hold is that I'm just a well-programmed NPC repeating words that I was always programmed to say. There is no paragraph I could write or an action I could do that could definitively convince a skeptic that I'm not an NPC.
What's more, I don't need to prove to myself or others that I have free will. I know I do, as a result of direct experience. Others don't have this experience, which is why they think they don't have free will, i.e. are NPCs, and that's ok. Not everyone is the same.
Therefore the only interesting arguments to discuss are arguments for why nobody can have free will. As this thread proves, such arguments are rarely based on logic and science, but are rather based on wishful thinking, magical beliefs and non sequiturs. That said, it would really be interesting to see a good argument against free will. Maybe one day someone will come up with one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:33:44 No.13471426 Report

Quoted By: >>13471451 >>13471471

>>13468259
Her argument is that the brain is made up out of "particles", and that "particles" have a deterministic trajectory.

The problem is that she never defines what a "particle" is, and if you start pointing at quantum (as in "countable" as in "particle") physics, then there's innumerable evidence pointing at the randomness of quantum particles. What's there to say that we don't have a deciding factor in quantum randomness? Can't disprove it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:34:58 No.13471432 Report

Quoted By: >>13471447

>>13471423
But why do I need to be removed from my environment to have free will? This is your definition of free will, not mine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:35:32 No.13471436 Report

Quoted By: >>13471492

>>13471424
>first paragraph
Exactly, get fucked. You can't so shut up nerd.
>second paragraph
Complete sophistry, like you've been doing this entire thread. Post your argument for free will or fuck off you 130IQ midwit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:36:15 No.13471442 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
Debating free will are for midwits.>>13468259

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:36:53 No.13471447 Report

Quoted By: >>13471474

>>13471432
If you cannot have a free thought then you never had free will. Where do your decisions come from when engaging the stimuli? You can't even answer that, so how do you have free will? Just admit you want to be warm and fuzzy and you can go on in life happy like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:37:49 No.13471451 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471426
Does it matter?
Even if we grant some processes are stochastic and not deterministic, does it matter?
Does a random decision make you freer than a decision that follows from the initial positions of all particles right after the Big Bang?
A throw of dice isn't any freer than clockwork is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:38:38 No.13471459 Report

Quoted By: >>13471487

>>13471384
>I consciously elect to do things. Again, you have to deny that I'm conscious, or that consciousness is real, in which case empiricism is dead anyway and the game is moot, and the distinction is meaningless. A position you can have if you like, but a position that refutes nothing because it precludes refutation.
You can be consciously experiencing an illusion that you have free will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:41:07 No.13471471 Report

Quoted By: >>13471511

>>13471426
>What's there to say that we don't have a deciding factor in quantum randomness?
>we
Who is "we"? How do our brains interfere with quantum randomness? How is it "random" if you can play a role in deciding the outcome? On what basis do you decide to interfere in one way rather than another? There is bound to be something that determined your will, or your will is just random. Either way, you aren't "free" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:41:37 No.13471474 Report

Quoted By: >>13471505

>>13471447
Look you can spam the words warm and fuzzy all you like but by your definition to have free will you would have to not live inside time or the world. In which case your designation of freedom has little to do with thought and more to do with finitude. Free to elect is not the same as free from influence, your belief that it is stems from your own bias.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:43:12 No.13471487 Report

Quoted By: >>13471518

>>13471459
Then we are at an impasse. If you deny the reality of experience you deny the meaning of the question. Have fun in solipsist hell.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:43:24 No.13471488 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468282
Actually listen. She says "Established". She's using that work to acknowledge that knowledge may not be perfect, but we still build off of it to discover new things, potentially to correct our previous understanding of things if Isaac Newton did not discover Gravity and call it a force that applies to everything, it's possible Einstein would not have discovered Special Relativity either.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 87372684_p0_master1200.jpg, 499KiB, 818x1200

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:44:41 No.13471492 Report

Quoted By: >>13471546

>>13471436
A low IQ person who fails to grasp your argument accusing you of sophistry - such a common phenomenon!
>Post your argument for free will or fuck off you 160IQ midwit
As I said, there is no argument for the proposition "free will exists". But I have an argument for "It's rational to believe I have free will". It goes as follows:
1. It's rational to believe X is real if you experience X and if you've looked for arguments that your perception of X is faulty or illusory and didn't find any valid arguments. (assumption)
2. I experience that I have free will. (assumption)
3. I've looked for any haven't found a single reason why my perception could be faulty. (assumption)
4. Therefore it's rational for me to believe free will is real. (follows from substituting "free will" for X in 1, and combining it with 2,3 ).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:46:32 No.13471504 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
>We know that we can derive from the laws for the constituents what the whole object does
Is she serious? How do we know? Has anyone ever managed to measure all the positions and momenta of the particles in a human brain? Is that even possible considering Heisenberg's principle? Why does she say we "know" something that doesn't seem feasible even theoretically?
Not that I believe in free will, but her argument seems just a bad argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:46:35 No.13471505 Report

Quoted By: >>13471521 >>13471894

>>13471474
Free will means you have a choice. How do you have a choice when you cannot escape the variables of environment? You still can't explain how you can ever elect, you've made no argument for it at all, just a bunch of warm and fuzzy retard shit that your mother believes. That's why I keep calling you deluded. You won't provide an argument. Now explain how that makes sense that you can choose when all your decisions are made from reaction? You won't or can't, so just leave the thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:47:19 No.13471511 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471471
That just runs into the problem of free will not even being a logically coherent model. Even if you posit a supernatural force that influences quantum randomness, call it willpower, that willpower must still have characteristics that influence the decision it makes, meaning it isn't actually free.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:48:35 No.13471518 Report

Quoted By: >>13471529

>>13471487
Admitting that humans can make errors about their own experience does not automatically mean solipsism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:49:20 No.13471521 Report

Quoted By: >>13471577

>>13471505
Because the variables do not dictate, they influence. And the influence is consciously intelligible. I have a choice about whether I will stand or sit at this very moment. Am I powerless to pick? The fact I may have inclinations one way or another does not mean that I have no choice. It is this justification that you refuse to provide.

Autolycus

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 8000.jpg, 141KiB, 799x502

Autolycus Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:49:42 No.13471523 Report

Quoted By: >>13471566

>>13471403
>Here Galen Strawson shows how belief in free will is pretty much logically untenable:
No he doesn't: "It seems that the only freedom that we can have is compatibilist freedom."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/two-stage_models.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:51:06 No.13471529 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471518
But errors of this kind are unknowable so it's the same thing either way. Either you have intentionality or you don't. If your intentionality isn't real then your entire line to the world outside your head is severed.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO free will.png, 393KiB, 1600x1002

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:54:59 No.13471541 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:56:31 No.13471546 Report

Quoted By: >>13471604

>>13471492
>1
Cyclic arguing found in all sophists. Of course you state this, your ego can't handle it otherwise.
>2
True, you do believe you have free will - nobody denies this.
>3
Because you exist in your own data, so you cannot be impartial, you will always remain biased to conclusion.
>4
You've made no actual arguments, you're just stating that since you feel you have free will, you do. Your (1) position is just a way for you to avoid providing an actual ground to how free will is possible, cluttering up the thread with your banality in the process. You know you won't provide any such argument because you are incapable of doing so as you posit. To this extent, you avoid it at all costs, denounce it, and you try to enact a sophistry to make sure you won't be found in a compromising position, because you know you can't do so without being shit on. Face it - you're the definitive of falsehood and since you now have proven yourself empty headed, I will just dismiss you.

Provide an argument to how free will can exist in the material, or state that you believe in God. Either way, until you do so, you're just a 130IQ midwit who thinks pooping vague opinions throughout the thread is useful in any way. Quite amusingly in your first post, you spell out your dimwitted personality on the first take you make in the thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 16:59:32 No.13471566 Report

Quoted By: >>13471687 >>13471808

>>13471523
"Compatibilist freedom" isn't freedom.
As the woman in the OP video put it, it's just "verbal acrobatics". It's just a philosopher redefining a word so that he can claim that the concept to which the word applies actually exists (even if it is now a different concept and the word no longer means what it used to mean).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:01:51 No.13471577 Report

Quoted By: >>13471614

>>13471521
No one is stating that you cannot sit or stand, that would be idiotic. We are asking you to provide how you can feasibly prove you and I can hold the ability to make free choice. You sitting or standing is just again, a reaction to the stimuli you've been provided. The very argument of free will in itself provides stimuli that ripples throughout someone's entire life until they either forget or dismiss it. And even then, the stimuli of forgetting or dismissing replaces the stimuli of the arguments in free will. You cannot escape the variables of environment, so your choice of standing or sitting is still the same - a deterministic outcome that will happen not because you chose too, but because you were told too. Whether or not quantum mechanics holds its fingers in every pot, it's still irrelevant. You will have a single outcome in this presence, so how did you ever decide to sit or stand by free will alone? You still have not provided an actual argument.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 87469476_p0_master1200.jpg, 596KiB, 626x900

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:06:41 No.13471604 Report

Quoted By: >>13471649

>>13471546
>Cyclic arguing found in all sophists
Where do you see the circularity?
>You've made no actual arguments,
I literally wrote down a bullet-point list argument, noting all the assumptions and how the conclusion follows from the assumptions. That's a textbook example of an argument.
>You're just stating that since you feel you have free will, you do
I've never asserted this nor implied this. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
>Your (1) position is just a way for you to avoid providing an actual ground to how free will is possible
Free will is a completely natural process just like gravity, electromagnetism. I do not understand what you mean by grounding how free will is possible. Let me take another natural phenomenon that presumably you feel more comfortable with: electron movement. How do you ground how electron movement is possible? After you provide such a ground, I will know better how to answer your question.
>Quite amusingly in your first post, you spell out your dimwitted personality on the first take you make in the thre
Oh? And how do I do that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:08:55 No.13471614 Report

Quoted By: >>13471648 >>13471666 >>13475617

>>13471577
Ah, I get it. Your issue is that because my movement is the result of organic activity that exhibits a causative process therefore it's not pure will, since that would be inorganic(?) You define free will as a purely spiritual phenomenon and the fact that we are people of matter means that it doesn't exist. So you have taken the material reality and claimed that I can't choose or have consciousness because they aren't purely metaphysical processes, though I don't see why they should be. You believe matter is dead despite the existence of mind, which persists regardless of spirit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:11:39 No.13471629 Report

Quoted By: >>13471687

No, she is a demoralizing jew. It's all lies.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91585016_p4_master1200.jpg, 110KiB, 583x680

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:15:28 No.13471648 Report

Quoted By: >>13471671

>>13471614
Good post. People like him are stuck with the 18th century understanding of physics where everything follows from deterministic laws, and that can only mean the physical is the dead. Well, turns out that understanding of physics is completely false. The current physics we have is not deterministic at all, and there is no longer any argument for determinism from physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:15:31 No.13471649 Report

Quoted By: >>13471682

>>13471604
>
By pretending there are no arguments against free will that count, and then positioning that there is no point to arguing free will exists. That is cyclic, and is something sophists do every time.
>
Let me specify. You've made no arguments to how free will can exist, and you even concede you cannot provide them. You're just attempting to argue in the bubble you want to operate in - i.e arguing your feelings, not material posit. How is this an argument? It's not - it's a predetermined script that is meant to be displayed. It is not profound. It is a non-sequitur. It is complete useless. That's why you have no arguments.
>
See your (1).
>
Semantics arguments are not arguments at all. Something sophists use all the time as well. :)
>
Maybe you need some reading comprehension if you cannot understand why your first post is indicative of stupidity and sophistry. Provide an argument for how free will can be, or just stop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:17:57 No.13471656 Report

Quoted By: >>13473618

if free will isn't real why do people who don't know it is in fact real still alive and not suicided
oh yeah because they were destined to argue about being literal npcs lmao this has to be the most pathetic circular logic shit ever

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:20:34 No.13471666 Report

Quoted By: >>13471689

>>13471614
More or less, yes. Your mind if only materialistic, no spirituality, no further dimensional operatives, cannot decide. It can only react. Provide an argument to how the mind is free when it operates in an enslaved environment. Without the metaphysical or further introspection into dimensions we can only assert and not observe, I don't believe you can. But you are free to try.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:21:34 No.13471671 Report

Quoted By: >>13471687

>>13471648
Another sophistic post by the midwit. You replying to him just furthers my belief that you are now butthurt and upset you got called out. :^)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91585016_p1_master1200.jpg, 168KiB, 585x680

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:25:15 No.13471682 Report

Quoted By: >>13471706 >>13471857

>>13471649
>By pretending there are no arguments against free will that count
I never asserted this, just that I've never seen one.
>and then positioning that there is no point to arguing free will exists
Positing? Correct.
>That is cyclic
How so? You haven't explained.
>You've made no arguments to how free will can exist
Because the question is nonsensical.
>and you even concede you cannot provide them
I never said this. I said I cannot provide arguments for the existence of free will, which is very different.
>You're just attempting to argue in the bubble you want to operate in - i.e arguing your feelings, not material posit
I am not interested in arguing feelings or what we wish to be true. I'm only interested in arguing the factuality of free will. Just because it's epistemologically subjective doesn't make it arguing about feelings.
>See your (1).
I did. That's not what it says. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
>Semantics arguments are not arguments at all. Something sophists use all the time as well. :)
I don't see what this response has to do with my question to you. I repeat: what's the ground for how electron movement is possible?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91585016_p11_master1200.jpg, 209KiB, 677x680

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:27:38 No.13471687 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471671
You called me butthurt. How will I ever recover?
>>13471629
Don't talk like that. Jews are smart and good people. Sabine just overdosed on copium. It's hard being a middle age physicist.
>>13471566
It makes them feel smarter :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:27:56 No.13471689 Report

Quoted By: >>13471728

>>13471666
Explain how matter that is sufficient for consciousness is not also sufficient for free will. I was right, you believe only an uncaused cause, a god, has free will. This is an irrational standard; if matter can live, and it can think, it can be conscious. The absence of a ghost in the machine doesn't mean that you have no agency, or do not think, or cannot live.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:30:49 No.13471696 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
even if someone somehow scientifically proved we have souls, some nihilistic influencer would still find some gymnastic way to say we don't have free will because we're meat puppets to a greater entity or some shit. "free will" is so loose of a term anyone could easily claim it's not real and you'd have a hard time arguing it because you can set the goalpost for what "free will" is pretty much anywhere you find convenient

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:34:46 No.13471706 Report

Quoted By: >>13471727 >>13471857

>>13471682
>and didn't find any valid arguments.
You stated this, so right here we see you are a liar and an idiot. You're a sophist making more semantics arguments by trying to be dishonest with word interpretation. You're btfo right here.
>
More semantics, nice.
>
If you cannot understand how this is cyclic, it just means you shouldn't be arguing.
>
Then just leave, because you're a complete sophist trying to muddy the thread.
>As I said, there is no argument for the proposition "free will exists"
Looks like your reading comprehension needs to be better, we're talking about the same thing as found in your previous quote. Stop being an idiot.
>
Then provide an argument to how free will can exist, or as you say, the factuality of free will. You have not and you will not, because you are a sophist moron.
>
If you can't understand how its cyclic then I cannot help you.
>
You're using semantics arguments as a way to skirt the arguments. By bringing up "ground" for electron movement you move the argument away from free will to one of semantics. It's highly disingenuous and what all sophist do.

At this point if you will not provide an argument to how free will can exist, and will just continue doing your retard babble in semantics, I will not respond anymore and I will ignore and block you by turning off images. If you cannot see how your semantics arguments are that of limited and malicious, I will not participate any further with you as you're a lost cause.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91585016_p0_master1200.jpg, 194KiB, 653x680

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:42:07 No.13471727 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471706
Learn to read then we can discuss :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 17:42:08 No.13471728 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471689
And what is consciousness if not just chemical and bioelectrical component? Give a different definition if that isn't what it is? Why do you believe that consciousness, in whatever spiritual romanticizing you're currently holding it too, is capable of thinking completely freely to outside influence? What is thinking? Isn't that just more material component being utilized for processes? You don't believe conscious exists outside of the material, right? That is what you're arguing? So how can it possibly create something free if its binds are only and objectively material? It can't. Every thought will always adhere to the properties of matter. Physics the same, it will always operate unto the principles it holds. QM just means that randomness is the same as deterministic, you will always be the dial, and never the hand.

Autolycus

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 162112all.png, 630KiB, 707x1000

Autolycus Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:02:39 No.13471808 Report

Quoted By: >>13471863

>>13471566
Free will is just merely a measure of randomness or novelty in how an entity responds to its environment. It is inherent to the universe. Chick in the video is daft.

Autolycus

Autolycus Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:13:20 No.13471857 Report

Quoted By: >>13471863

>>13471682
>>13471706
>what's the ground for how electron movement is possible?
"Inherent in each actual entity is its respective dimension of time. Potentially, each Whiteheadean occasion of experience is causally consequential on every other occasion of experience that precedes it in time, and has as its causal consequences every other occasion of experience that follows it in time; thus it has been said that Whitehead's occasions of experience are 'all window', in contrast to Leibniz's 'windowless' monads. In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience. An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them. This is the process in process philosophy. Such process is never deterministic. Consequently, free will is essential and inherent to the universe." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy#Whitehead's_actual_entities

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:14:16 No.13471863 Report

Quoted By: >>13471901

>>13471808
>>13471857
Oh great, another schizo namefag

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:23:32 No.13471894 Report

Quoted By: >>13471906 >>13471924

>>13471505
how absurd must writing posts like yours make one feel is beyond me
imagine being a human with free will thinking he doesn't have any and then willfully producing an argument for it
maybe the npc meme is real after all lmao

this is fucking grotesque

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:26:29 No.13471901 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471863
/
Schizophrenia
Containment
Imageboard
/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:27:35 No.13471906 Report

Quoted By: >>13471961 >>13471971

>>13471894
Provide an argument for your free will without metaphysical properties or leave the thread.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Dmx4MA0UYAER5Ea.jpg, 56KiB, 971x546

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:31:47 No.13471924 Report

Quoted By: >>13471943

>>13471894
They are literal NPCs. The sooner you realize this, the more things will make sense.
It has been well-studied that people with mental illnesses like schizophrenia often don't have a sense of agency.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27040134/
>This study is the first to examine the relationship between free will perceptions and psychiatric symptoms in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia
>As hypothesized, a negative association was found between free will perceptions and total symptom severity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:36:17 No.13471943 Report

Quoted By: >>13471961

>>13471924
>no argument for free will existing
Yes, you are deluded.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1618481482136.png, 62KiB, 1183x1492

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:41:51 No.13471961 Report

Quoted By: >>13471983

>>13471943
>>13471906
They won't because they can't. Best to just stop wasting time with people who are too afraid to face their predetermined conclusions

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:48:12 No.13471971 Report

Quoted By: >>13471979

>>13471906
Suck a dick. You aren't a janny.
On a scale from 1-10, how much hope do you have for pfizermectin? Do you think boosters will be needed for every variant?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:51:37 No.13471979 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471971
>posts peepeepoopoo comments
>assmad when he gets a peepeepoopoo response
Provide a free will argument without metaphysical properties or stay assmad - I can be content with either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 18:52:08 No.13471983 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471961
>n-no it's actually you who is coping!
lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 19:00:36 No.13472006 Report

Quoted By:

>>13470595
>I believe in free will and I'm a staunch atheist. I believe it requires a high level of delusion and cope not to believe in free will. In the end I think it's mostly a coping mechanism for failures in one's life. It allows you not to take responsibility for where you end up in life. I am sad, poor and lonely? It was destined to be.
free will requires signals to arise for no reason but also not randomly, basically ions going in and out of a neuron on their own without any cause in a very specific manner which means there is a force doing work out of nothing which violates thermodynamics. theists believe this to be a soul, there is no such thing really

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 515.jpg, 55KiB, 640x680

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 19:14:53 No.13472058 Report

Quoted By: >>13472080

>>13468259
Midwit SCIENCE™
Errors in the video:
1. Deterministic model of the universe
Disproved by quantum mechanics. We can't even predict the motion of a single particle, let alone a human. From the uncertainty principle it follows that unpredictability is ontological, and not just a lack of precision in our instruments.
2. Brainlet-tier false dualism between "random" events and free will. Experimentally speaking, randomness is defined as when you can't predict an observed outcome from observed initial conditions. Guess what? Free will gives exactly the same experimental results. It's indistinguishable from "random" randomness by an outside observer. My free will is the randomness in your life. It goes down all the way to particles. Free will from the inside is randomness from the outside.
3. Equivalence between prior neural correlation of a decision and the physical causation of the decision. Guess what? When displaying a sequence of images we can measure a scarred reaction in people's neurons before they actually perceive a scary image. That doesn't mean the reaction caused the image. Mere correlation does not give us the direction and form of the causation. I will to move my arm, you measure some impulses to my muscles. They're two different aspects/perspectives of the same thing.
4. Freedom of action is inherently tied to freedom of comprehension.
An automaton has neither free will nor the capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood. Nothing beyond a stimulus-response machine.On that basis alone I can choose to reject her argument because: 1) either I am free to do so and she is wrong. Or 2) i am simply programmed to do so and the metaphysical truth or falsity of the argument ultimately has no bearing on my actions. Don't hate the player, hate the game you set up for him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 19:19:49 No.13472080 Report

Quoted By: >>13472100

>>13472058
Your entire post can be defeated by your conceding that you cannot observe truth due to limited capacity. That doesn't make you right like you claim, it just means we're ignorant to what real truth is. And like you say, you were defined to do this since you were incepted, so keep at it, automaton.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 19:24:55 No.13472100 Report

Quoted By: >>13472125

>>13472080
>the automaton thinks his self-perception as an automaton automatically applies to other people
>even tough he just admitted we cannot empirically observe the truth of the matter
Npcs have a limited mid-frame to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 19:29:59 No.13472125 Report

Quoted By: >>13474188

>>13472100
Nowhere did I imply my conscious is your conscious, silly dimbo, you accepted it is a possibility. Second, you just admitted we cannot empirically observe the truth, so thanks for coming up to speed on this. You btfo yourself in your own initial post due to this, so as far as I'm concerned, we're on the same page that free will does not exist without metaphysical properties, as you cannot keep a frame of reference to even your own arguments. Reread your initial post again to realize this, if you cannot grasp what I am saying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 20:35:23 No.13472377 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468282
With "well established science" she means physics and the effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 20:41:00 No.13472397 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
>free will
Define wilol?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:16:58 No.13472916 Report

Quoted By: >>13472943 >>13472970

>>13468259
Im not watching some gay video; I see a lot of anons talking about quantum mechanics and free will... how are the two even remotely related?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:20:54 No.13472943 Report

Quoted By: >>13472962

>>13472916
They're not. It's one of the things the lady in the video points out because some people mistakenly try to draw a connection.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:24:04 No.13472962 Report

Quoted By:

>>13472943
ah okay good, almost thought I had to give a verbal beatdown on some bleeptards

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91585016_p12_master1200.jpg, 257KiB, 572x680

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:25:15 No.13472970 Report

Quoted By:

>>13472916
Some brainlets try to make the argument that free will doesn't exist because laws of physics are deterministic and everything follows from them. Quantum mechanics refutes that argument.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:26:55 No.13472976 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468794
>>13470898
Why is it always so absolutist? Why not fully free WITHIN the confines of your biology/immediate preceding states?
>muh compatibilism
It's close to it, but not the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:28:22 No.13472988 Report

Quoted By:

When I see an anime poster I automatically ignore their posts and don't read a word of what they say - is that free will?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:28:56 No.13472992 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
certain aspects of ones life are pre determined, the environment one is born in is one example

the "will" in free will is a product of society, for instance in order to know the set of all possibilities one must know of the possibilities themselves, which is derived from education in the environment the individual grew up in

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:34:57 No.13473022 Report

Quoted By: >>13473043

1. The universe is either deterministic or it has some random component.
2. If it's deterministic then you don't have any control over it
3. If there's a random component then you don't have any control over it
4. Therefore, free will does not exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:37:10 No.13473030 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468380
I knew you'd say that, you robot. I have free will because I can watch rick and morty and get all the jokes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:40:18 No.13473043 Report

Quoted By: >>13473122

>>13473022
is that a useful distinction to make? There is a finite number of choices an individual can make and if people do not feel restricted in making choices (ie they feel free) what difference does it make if the universe is deterministic?

It is interesting from the physics point of view but for average people it should not make a difference in how they behave in the world (although it may result in depressive personality traits, for the belief that the choices no longer matter)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:55:34 No.13473098 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
I don't understand why determinism should preclude free will.
Determinism is surely the PRE-REQUISITE to free will. There must be measurable conditions for you to take stock in so that you may make your decision.
>But it's not free if it's based on material conditions!
If I want to fly but can't due to my weight and non-aerodynamicism, does that mean free will doesn't exist? If so, then it's trivially true that free will only exists for an omnipotent god.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 22:58:50 No.13473110 Report

Quoted By: >>13473155

>>13469055
>In other words, hitting rewinding the tape and playing it again will always produce a different result.
That's retarded. That would only prove the decisions were random, not free. If you scrubbed back and forth through time in a universe with free will, events should play out as exactly as they did before every time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 23:01:35 No.13473122 Report

Quoted By:

>>13473043

I would suggest that it ultimately doesn't matter. If we don't have free will, we don't suddenly experience life differently. We'll still "make choices" based on our experiences and propensities. We'll still suffer sometimes and feel pleasure at other times. It's all fine.

But, as you say, it's interesting to think about, and puts an interesting spin on our existence and perspective thereof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 23:07:38 No.13473144 Report

Quoted By:

ANIME POSTERS BTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 23:10:41 No.13473155 Report

Quoted By: >>13473161 >>13477377

>>13473110
>If you scrubbed back and forth through time in a universe with free will, events should play out as exactly as they did before every time.
Sorry where does the free will play into that? If you could scrub time that implies that your future is already written or at least guaranteed. There is no free will at all whatsoever in a universe that works exactly like a tape

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 23:12:03 No.13473161 Report

Quoted By: >>13473184

>>13473155
>There is no free will at all whatsoever in a universe that works exactly like a tape
Why not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Aug 2021 23:19:09 No.13473184 Report

Quoted By: >>13475546

>>13473161
whats "free will" about a contained sequence that doesn't change? The only thing that could be is free observation

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 01:15:57 No.13473618 Report

Quoted By: >>13473787

>>13471656
why would you kill yourself if you know there is no free will? that doesnt make any sense

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 01:28:41 No.13473656 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469777
Apparently she has 2 kids.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 02:20:52 No.13473787 Report

Quoted By:

>>13473618
ikr? Like oh yeah great Im forced to exist in this world in which I have no control over except for my consequential inputs. I can think of very few reason as to why I would want to relinquish myself to a world in which I will likely have even less control over, let alone whether or not I'll even be able to do anything ever again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 04:33:43 No.13474188 Report

Quoted By: >>13476520

>>13472125
Both the non-existence as well as existence of free will are not empirically provable properties. If we lived in a Newtonian universe that would have been a strong argument against free will (it's just particles following their initial positions and momenta with 100% accuracy). But we don't. There's unpredictability at an ontological level, and this being the case, free will MAY exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

What irks me is that NPCs, despite believing themselves to be automata totally devoid of free will, somehow still think they are capable of gasping truth or making arguments and are worth listening to. I just don't see the point of having arguments under the assumption that all our responses (be they correct or incorrect, coherent or fallacious) are ultimately programed into us by factors outside our control.

1. If I am a free individual then pursuing the truth is a worthwhile activity. I believe I am arguing with a similarly free individual >>13472125, to whom I am attempting to show the inconsistency of continuing to argue and believing in his own arguments if he believes we mere are stimulus-response machines:

You keep assigning to your "truth-gasping" ability a freedom that's somehow exempt from the metaphysical presumptions you impose upon the rest of your world-view. Denial of free will is as much of a metaphysical presumption as is its affirmation. You cannot simultaneously be unfree, deterministic, or random, yet somehow still remain "free to gasp the truth"

2. If I am an unfree individual I simply see no point in not believing in free will. And neither should you. What advantages does NOT believing in your free will grant you? Free will does not violate any of the empirical findings you cherish so much. But then again, IF we are unfree, we're both just following our predetermined responses, and I shouldn't expect a change from you, even if I, in my own unfreedom, believe it to be justified.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1627322559339.png, 388KiB, 501x859

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 04:37:37 No.13474192 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
My wife

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 08:02:03 No.13474604 Report

Quoted By:

Okay lets say free will is real
In that case do you know what will happen at this exact time five weeks from now?
Now lets say that the world is deterministic instead
In that case do you know what will happen at this exact time five weeks from now?

The answer to both is no so basically uh it doesn't matter

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 09:33:57 No.13474824 Report

Quoted By: >>13475161

>>13468259
Determinism is bullshit.
We already know that there is randomness, even though we can not explain it yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 09:41:32 No.13474850 Report

Quoted By: >>13474865

Free will exists within parameters. Only mdiwits and autists don't understand compatibilism

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 09:45:40 No.13474865 Report

Quoted By: >>13475182

>>13474850
If all the actions that you think are your choices have been determined to happen by the universe thousands of years before you were conceived, that means you play no part in those choices. You don't actually influence anything. Only midwits and autists don't understand this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 11:26:10 No.13475161 Report

Quoted By: >>13475173 >>13475244

>>13474824

you have no control over the randomness so even if determinism is bullshit you have no free will

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 11:33:57 No.13475173 Report

Quoted By: >>13475223

>>13475161
>you have no control over the randomness
You don't, because you're an NPC. I do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 11:37:04 No.13475182 Report

Quoted By: >>13475230

>>13474865
Normally not having influence over something means that what you choose to do doesn't affect it. I'm not going to contemplate what can I do to make tomorrow's weather nice because it's beyond my control and influence - in a real sense that actually makes a difference. But something just being "pre-determined" in this vacuous general sense has none of such implications.
You're just using senses of "influence" and "playing a part" that are meaningless and disconnected from how we use them usually - literally nothing influences or plays a part in anything by those standards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 11:58:27 No.13475223 Report

Quoted By: >>13475230

>>13475173

you have no choice but to think that

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 90386008_p0_master1200.jpg, 777KiB, 1200x685

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:03:11 No.13475230 Report

Quoted By: >>13475236 >>13475596

>>13475223
An NPC can't imagine others having agency. Color me surprised.
>>13475182
>Normally not having influence over something means that what you choose to do doesn't affect it
Agreed.
>You're just using senses of "influence" and "playing a part" that are meaningless and disconnected from how we use them usually
No I use them in the sense you've defined above. I exert big influence over events that are considered random by physics (which only really means physics is incapable of predicting them, which is to be expected if free will exists).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:09:02 No.13475236 Report

Quoted By: >>13475239

>>13475230

an NPC believes it has free will and ignores evidence to the contrary because it is incapable of processing the evidence. color me surprised.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91553581_p0_master1200.jpg, 543KiB, 838x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:10:43 No.13475239 Report

Quoted By: >>13475245

>>13475236
Your wishful thinking and magical beliefs do not constitute evidence. I'm sorry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:13:23 No.13475244 Report

Quoted By: >>13475263 >>13475546

>>13475161
But only regarding randomness surrounding me.
That is the advantage humans have against other species. We can decide if we follow low basic/ tribal instincts or control ourselves.
We can be influenced obviously (see propaganda, marketing etc.) but if a person is aware of that it is avoidable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:14:40 No.13475245 Report

Quoted By: >>13475252

>>13475239

you literally don't know what my reasons are. curious that you don't even think to ask. likely a NPC stock response.

don't feel bad, you're only doing what you were programmed to do.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91710269_p0_master1200.jpg, 650KiB, 850x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:18:17 No.13475252 Report

Quoted By: >>13475278

>>13475245
Do you not see the irony in calling others NPC while believing you have no agency and no free will?
And please, go on and give a reason that's not just "it feels good to not be responsible for anything" or "le physics I don't understand says so".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:20:55 No.13475263 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475244

on what basis do you draw a distinction between "the randomness surrounding (You)" and everything else?

in what was is your "decision" to behave in a certain way separable from any other evolutionary behaviour? how do you tell the difference?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:22:05 No.13475266 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469383
>>13469471
Those can be empirically observed through the analysis of neurons, neural synapses, and brain waves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:26:18 No.13475278 Report

Quoted By: >>13475288 >>13475521

>>13475252

either everything is deterministic or there is some element of randomness.

only one of these things can be true.

if everything is deterministic you have no control
you don't have any control over randomness either

hmmm I wonder what the implication of this is

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91687726_p0_master1200.jpg, 664KiB, 850x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:29:37 No.13475288 Report

Quoted By: >>13475345

>>13475278
>if everything is deterministic you have no control
Why not? What if I'm part of the determinism, i.e. I'm one of those entities determining the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:45:23 No.13475345 Report

Quoted By: >>13475357

>>13475288

you may be conflating the concept of determinism with self-determination.

if determinism is true, your actions are entirely defined by past states of space and time, and by definition is out of your control.

when it comes down to it, the only remotely convincing argument for free will is that our shared experience of *feeling* like we have free will; that intuitive sense that it's true. but intuition isn't a very strong foundation for objective reality.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 87311309_p0_master1200.jpg, 1MiB, 928x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:49:34 No.13475357 Report

Quoted By: >>13475380 >>13475449

>>13475345
>you may be conflating the concept of determinism with self-determination
Ok then please define what you mean by determinism.
>by definition is out of your control
What definition?
>the only remotely convincing argument for free will is that our shared experience of *feeling* like we have free will
That's not a convincing argument at all. I'm almost getting tired having to explain again and again how there is no convincing argument for free will. And besides, the feeling of free will is by no means shared, as this thread and studies of schizophrenics demonstrate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 12:58:46 No.13475380 Report

Quoted By: >>13475612

>>13475357

> Ok then please define what you mean by determinism.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

> That's not a convincing argument at all. I'm almost getting tired having to explain again and again how there is no convincing argument for free will. And besides, the feeling of free will is by no means shared, as this thread and studies of schizophrenics demonstrate.

I did qualify with "remotely" and further qualified it that intuition isn't all that helpful here, so I'm not sure what you're think you're arguing with.

that said, I'd argue that the feeling of free will *is* shared, because so many people intuit that they have it and get really annoyed when it's suggested that they don't. :^)

also this doesn't suggest that *everyone* feels like they have free will, so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 13:07:40 No.13475401 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
Just one big materialistic, pseudoreligious cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 13:27:40 No.13475449 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475357
>And besides, the feeling of free will is by no means shared, as this thread and studies of schizophrenics demonstrate.

also if you could share those studies (and ideally any metastudies) that would be appreciated, sounds interesting.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ohtr87l5lf1rp0vkjo1_500.gif, 2MiB, 500x208

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 13:53:26 No.13475521 Report

Quoted By: >>13475542

>>13475278
>you don't have any control over randomness either
Maybe you don't. I AM the randomness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 13:58:46 No.13475542 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475521

:^(

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO a5f.jpg, 49KiB, 640x466

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 13:59:26 No.13475546 Report

Quoted By: >>13475587

>>13473184
whats "free will" about a randomly evolving sequence? given the same conditions your will should be the same.

>>13475244
>but if a person is aware of that it is avoidable.
it doesn't work like that retard, your "self" is literally a mosaic of all the experience you had in the past + how your brain happened to be shaped. all your ideas and behaviours derive directly or indirectly form other people.
you can't control how you think so free will in this sense is useless.

it's impossible to argue that free will exist as you guys mean it without resorting to some meme tautological bullshit.
the only thing i can think of is that we can see free will as the expression of the environment in which you evolved. if it isn't "free" enough for you start coping because there are no other solutions

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1628015016403.jpg, 77KiB, 720x721

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:13:30 No.13475587 Report

Quoted By: >>13484523

>>13475546
Randomness is epistemological, not absolute (Bayes theorem).

All random events happen because at some point someone wanted to do action A and not action B, and environmental factors alone were not sufficient to predict or determine the action (sorry Newton).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:18:46 No.13475596 Report

Quoted By: >>13475666

>>13475230
Ah, I assumed you were a determinist free will denier. But OK, you say there's a "you" that has influence over the events that are considered random by physics. So this part of your choices that is not determined by stuff that happened before you existed, if it's not actually random then it's determined by your mental properties. It's the same as in typical compatibilism, except you can't even in principle explain why these mental properties are the way they are from stuff that happened before you were born. They are just this kind of a brute fact, as if your choices had specifically dedicated laws for them. But you still didn't choose to have these specific properties. And at each moment, given the way you are you are determined to act in a specific way. The free will denier's platitude "Man can do as he wills but not will what he wills" applies just as well/poorly. The only difference is that there's no complete explanation for why you are the way you are. How does it make you any more free than if you merely had normal compatibilist free will?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 82276037_p0_master1200.jpg, 804KiB, 1200x811

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:24:47 No.13475612 Report

Quoted By: >>13475620 >>13475679

>>13475380
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
>Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature
Let me explain why this definition is too vague and why you need to specify it further. First of all you need to clarify what is meant by antecedent events and conditions. Do only empirically observable events and conditions come into the equation? Or do you consider some hidden variables which perhaps can never be accessed through physical investigation? In the latter case, it's not hard to consider the information about the future states of things as a hidden variable in the particles, in which case determinism is trivially true. Similarly, among the events and conditions you could also consider the individual and his will as a category, which determines the future through their choices, in which case determinism is true but free will exists, as it's a part of the factors determining the future.
...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:25:45 No.13475617 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
>it's another "define free will into increasingly absurd requirements until it's been redefined to the point of physical impossibility and then declare it to not exist" episode
>>13471614
This. They demand a mind to exist in a void to even have free will be a possibility.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91585016_p10_master1200.jpg, 274KiB, 661x680

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:26:20 No.13475620 Report

Quoted By: >>13475628 >>13476632

>>13475612
Next is the issue of necessitating, which is also very vague. One way to think about it is that there is always going to be only one future, an event either happens or it doesn't, and such constraint means that there is necessarily only one future, but this doesn't conflict with free will. Another way to think of it is as a function which takes as input the state of the world at time t and outputs the states of the world at future times. Ambiguities involving the notion of a state of the universe aside, the ontology of such a function is in need of clarification. Does such a function have to be in principle constructible by humans, given enough time and resources? Rephrased, does it have to be computable? Or could it be meta-human, completely unapproachable to us humans. In the latter case, one might consider a function as follows. It's reasonable to suppose that at any point in time the state of the universe in whatever sense of the word is unique, i.e. different from all the previous states. In that case, one might simply suppose a function which inputs a time and outputs the state of the time. If we also suppose that given two states of the universe, one might infer the period of time between them, then such a function satisfies our requirements for determinism. All the states of the universe at all future times are determined by the state now, and that determination comes from our considered function which supposedly exists in some platonic realm. In such a view, determinism is almost trivially true, but it also doesn't tell us anything about free will.
...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91555806_p0_master1200.jpg, 692KiB, 1087x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:27:48 No.13475628 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475620
It seems to me that in order to attack determinism, the only choice you have is to consider a type of determinism which deconstructs the person into its empirically observable constituents which act independently of him, and according to some intelligible in principle computable rules which determine the future completely, much like the workings of computers are deconstructed into its small constituent parts which act deterministically according to well-established computable (=accessible to humans) principles. So no magical functions in the platonic realm and no magical secret properties in the particles. So far, such a view seems to be without any evidence. Physics definitely doesn't support it, it almost supports the opposite. If you have any evidence to support such a view I would be interested in hearing it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:28:15 No.13475630 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468282
You're an idiot

A. Harlow

A. Harlow Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:38:30 No.13475653 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469916
free will does not mean free opportunity. we can be free to want something without being free to actually get what we want

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 90552587_p0_master1200.jpg, 474KiB, 1200x654

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:43:34 No.13475666 Report

Quoted By: >>13475673

>>13475596
I am a believer in libertarian free will. I am a determinist and I'm not a determinist, depending on the sense of the word.
>So this part of your choices that is not determined by stuff that happened before you existed, if it's not actually random then it's determined by your mental properties
Well it's definitely not determined by any kind of physics (understood as models to predict reality accessible to humans). The general notion of determined is too vague to be meaningful, much like the notion of a general function is too vague to settle the continuum hypothesis in mathematics.
And I'm not sure I'd agree that my actions are determined by my mental properties. Sure, properties like how tired I am or how excited I feel do have influence over my actions, but such universal properties will never be enough to predict 100% how I'm going to act. And once you try to expand the view of mental properties to be so general that the statement is true, you end up identifying mental properties with me as a person, and then the statement is equivalent to saying that I determine my actions, which is the free will position.
>It's the same as in typical compatibilism, except you can't even in principle explain why these mental properties are the way they are from stuff that happened before you were born
Again, that depends on what kind of mental properties we're talking about. If they're the universal mental properties for example those considered by psychologists, then you definitely can explain how I got them. They're largely determined by genes. In the other view, this question is again meaningless unless you provide a meaningful way to talk about these mental properties that doesn't just boil down to talking about self, the person who does things.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 86426697_p0_master1200.jpg, 429KiB, 786x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:44:54 No.13475673 Report

Quoted By: >>13475688 >>13475806 >>13475822

>>13475666
>But you still didn't choose to have these specific properties
I chose to have a lot of the mental properties that I have, and continue choosing so. To give an example, I know that exercising makes me feel a certain way, so I can choose to exercise to predictably influence my mental states.
>And at each moment, given the way you are you are determined to act in a specific way.
I prefer to say "I choose to act in a specific way".
>The only difference is that there's no complete explanation for why you are the way you are
There can never be a complete answer to a vague and ill-posed question.
>How does it make you any more free than if you merely had normal compatibilist free will?
Because compatibilist free will is a cope. It's not any kind of real free will. Compatibilists posit that people can be deconstructed into the constituent parts which act independent of them according to well-predetermined laws having nothing to do with human wishes or thoughts, which are categories that simply don't apply in physics when you're talking about categories. To me such a view is indistinguishable from the view that there's no free will and no person as an indispensable category for explanation. There are only particles and their behavior, like with computers there is only transistors and their well-defined predictable behavior. That's no free will at all, and my view is the opposite of that. My view is that I have free will, I can influence the future and that I'm not just the sum of the particles constituting me plus physical laws. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:47:27 No.13475679 Report

Quoted By: >>13475722 >>13475752

>>13475612

> First of all you need to clarify what is meant by antecedent events and conditions. Do only empirically observable events and conditions come into the equation? Or do you consider some hidden variables which perhaps can never be accessed through physical investigation?

definitionally I'd assume "antecedent events and conditions" to include all physical phenomena. I'm not sure how we'd account for "hidden variables" as you describe them (you might as well say "supernatural") and if they *do* exist, there's no reason to think that they're excepted from cause and effect unless they're random.

to save us from getting lost in additional assumptions, perhaps it's more useful to think of determinism as the absence of any true randomness. referring back to the dichotomy:

A. the universe is totally deterministic; everything is locked into a complex chain of cause and effect.
B. the universe has some element of randomness which breaks the chain.

either A or B is true. there is no third option. treating the individual and his will as a separate category is special pleading. they are as much a part of the physical universe as anything else, and therefore subject to either A or B.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:48:48 No.13475688 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475673
>Because compatibilist free will is a cope

I do agree with this though.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 87535224_p0_master1200.jpg, 666KiB, 1200x848

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 14:55:20 No.13475722 Report

Quoted By: >>13475771 >>13475777 >>13476632

>>13475679
What seems to have happened is that you've relegated all the conceptual difficulties I discussed in the paragraph about necessitating to the concept of randomness. Another anon in this thread observed well that randomness is an epistemological property rather than objective property. I ask you whether you agree with that. Even if you do, it's still much too vague to answer the question of free will. First, there's the question of the amount of idealism you permit in the epistemological notion of randomness. Is it just that you can't find a pattern, or is it that nobody in principle can find a pattern. If the latter, than the question is whether the pattern must be computable. To illustrate this, let me ask the following:
suppose I list all the valid arithmetic statements in some known order, p_1, p_2, p_3, .... My sequence is then a_n = 1 if p_n is true and a_n = 0 if p_n is false. Is such a sequence random to you (or maybe it's not even a sequence at all)? We know it's not computable (by Godel and Turing), so there's no conceivable pattern in the sequence that's accessible to humans, but maybe you admit some transcendent pattern? There are many more questions to ask, but I'll stop there not to overwhelm you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 82937235_p0_master1200.jpg, 918KiB, 1200x816

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 15:07:45 No.13475752 Report

Quoted By: >>13475822 >>13476632

>>13475679
Let me say some more. Whatever your definition of randomness is, my answer is probably going to be that I don't know if it's A or B as you formulated. All I know is that I have some influence over the future. It could be that some other parts elsewhere are completely random. That's compatible with free will.
>treating the individual and his will as a separate category is special pleading
Well it is obviously a separate category, not because of any beliefs but just because of the way language works. Talking about human beings and their actions is in a very different category from talking about atoms. For one, atoms don't have teleology, but humans do.
>they are as much a part of the physical universe as anything else
I completely agree. It is the free will denier that always insists in arguments that supposing humans have influence is somehow magical and supernatural, as if humans are not a part of nature and the physical universe. I am a complete naturalist and physicalist. I believe we are part of the natural world just like everything else, just like photons, animals and planets. There is nothing special or metaphysical about us, or about the free will we have. Free will itself is a completely natural property, it's part of the physical world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 15:15:00 No.13475771 Report

Quoted By: >>13475777

>>13475722

> What seems to have happened is that you've relegated all the conceptual difficulties I discussed in the paragraph about necessitating to the concept of randomness.

I missed your response. bear with me and I'll reevaluate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 15:16:01 No.13475777 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475722
>>13475771

by which I mean I missed your *second* response, concerning necessitating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 15:21:15 No.13475806 Report

Quoted By: >>13475822 >>13476133

>>13475673
>I chose to have a lot of the mental properties that I have, and continue choosing so. To give an example, I know that exercising makes me feel a certain way, so I can choose to exercise to predictably influence my mental states.
Sure, but this is true under normal compatibilism as well.
>There can never be a complete answer to a vague and ill-posed question.
The part you are quoting isn't a question, duh. I tried to nail down the difference between your view and standard compatibilism (I keep saying standard compatibilism because arguably your view is a weird kind of compatibilism as well but let's not get caught on this point too much). And when you put it explicitly like that, it's obvious to me that it doesn't make you any more free, and conversely it being false wouldn't make you any less free. The standard attack on compatibilism is equally applicable on your view, no more or less. You didn't ultimately choose who you are, and who you are determines what you do, so *ultimately* you don't choose what you do.
>Because compatibilist free will is a cope. It's not any kind of real free will.
It's the only kind of free will that matters. It's a very reasonable interpretation of "free" + "will". It makes sense out of concepts like choice, freedom and responsibility and the way we use them in every day life. Even without extra-physical free will there's a real distinction between things that are in your control and those that are not. And it's very important because when it comes to the former, it's rational to contemplate what to do about them where as for the latter it is irrational. None of the anti free will arguments, or non-physical free will not existing change this at all.
Why would anyone "cope" about not having something so useless?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 15:25:33 No.13475822 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475673
>>13475806
replace extra-physical and non-physical with "libertarian free will" or whatever as apparently >>13475752 you consider them "physical".

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 87514671_p0_master1200.jpg, 536KiB, 620x1000

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 16:45:30 No.13476133 Report

Quoted By: >>13476153

>>13475806
>conversely it being false wouldn't make you any less free
It does. If it's false, then I'm just a robot NPC like a computer program and all my choices are just illusions.
>The standard attack on compatibilism is equally applicable on your view, no more or less.
I don't think so.
>You didn't ultimately choose who you are, and who you are determines what you do, so *ultimately* you don't choose what you do.
The word ultimately is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there. I do choose what I do, even if I didn't choose all the things about me. At some point I didn't exist so I couldn't choose anything, but now I do. I don't see what the issue here is.
The standard attack on compatibilism as I understand it and subscribe to is that if the constituent particles of the universe are just following physical laws, and the physical laws have no consideration for personhood, just positions, momenta and states of elementary particles which have nothing to do with you, then everything that you think are your actions and decisions have been programmed before you were conceived, therefore you don't actually have any choice in them, you're just following the instructions set long time before you existed for the particles that constitute you with no regard for the category of you as a person.
Such a critique doesn't apply to my view.
>It's the only kind of free will that matters.
No. The only free will that matters is whether you have any influence over the future.
>It's a very reasonable interpretation of "free" + "will".
Just for the sake of clarity, can you explain your version of compatibilism? How do you interpret these words.
>real distinction between things that are in your control and those that are not
This seems more of a practical question like the question of morality in the absence of free will. It doesn't have direct impact on the question of free will.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 16:51:38 No.13476153 Report

Quoted By: >>13476182

>>13476133
>I do choose what I do
Thats right, and all of those choices are made based upon your prior experiences in life. Your life is already determined for you, at most you just get to choose between pre-determined option 1, and pre-determined option 2.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 88390899_p0_master1200.jpg, 2MiB, 1200x928

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 16:57:32 No.13476182 Report

Quoted By:

>>13476153
You'll have to explain what you mean by pre-determined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 18:06:42 No.13476520 Report

Quoted By:

>>13474188
I found your post humorous, but that's encouraging, not demeaning. For one, I don't actually believe in free will being impossible, in fact, I believe in free will whole heartedly. It's the day from my previous posts and I will just tell you flat out that I use the arguments I believe are strongest against the concept, to find other anons opinions and rebuttals that you cannot find in a search link from google. This type of digging has gotten me many unique and valuable answers from the internet over time. However, the case against free will is very steep due to determinism and randomness both being potential masters of the physical universe. If it is just determined then linear is still the same, and if it is just random or unpredictable, then it is still the exact same, as random is not true freedom, it is random, and the outcome is still singular in a linear tense. And if, like I say before, dimensional properties that we cannot see or observe influence us on all levels, then that too, if not metaphysical, are still variables outside control all the same. In the end, the only way we truly, physically, can have free will without metaphysical properties, is through dimensions and axioms that are beyond current observation, which would also break our laws of thermodynamics or energy cyclic order. I'm only posting this to clarify that I find most of what you said parallel to what I believe anyway.

>1
I agree.
>2
This is just a semantics argument, if you are an automaton that was led to the conclusion he can grasp "truth", then he does so in his mind, and the variables from that belief create new variables that unlock him to expanded ripples that those who believe themselves of free will would not have. In that alone, he becomes more unique and perhaps even free, than the majority who believe they can be independent from nature. Denial of the metaphysical is not metaphysical. It is just denial.
>3
I agree to an extent. Just remember delusion is a trap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 18:26:06 No.13476632 Report

Quoted By: >>13476661 >>13476946 >>13476953 >>13476960

>>13475620

you're splitting hairs. both of your examples describe determinism in a way that doesn't affect the dichotomy, which is the actual basis for the argument I've made.

both examples also pose the same problem for free will; if either is true, then whichever decision you make, that was always going to happen. whether or not you consider determinism trivially true as a result doesn't make your will any more free.

>>13475722

again, splitting hairs. if randomness doesn't exist in a meaningful sense then the physical world is deterministic.

>>13475752

> Whatever your definition of randomness is, my answer is probably going to be that I don't know if it's A or B as you formulated.

it's not necessary to know which is correct.

> It could be that some other parts elsewhere are completely random. That's compatible with free will.

we're talking about some fundamental component of existence which is random, not some pocket of randomness distinct from you.

> I completely agree. It is the free will denier that always insists in arguments that supposing humans have influence is somehow magical and supernatural, as if humans are not a part of nature and the physical universe. I am a complete naturalist and physicalist. I believe we are part of the natural world just like everything else, just like photons, animals and planets. There is nothing special or metaphysical about us, or about the free will we have. Free will itself is a completely natural property, it's part of the physical world.

sure, I accept if free will exists then it's part of the physical world, I don't see any conflict there and would disagree with anyone who considered it "magical thinking".

truth be told, I'm not entirely convinced that free will doesn't exist either, but I'm yet to see a satisfying rebuttal to the dichotomy as presented.

if you can suggest any further reading I'd appreciate it. you make interesting points.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 18:31:08 No.13476661 Report

Quoted By: >>13476741

>>13476632
>whether or not you consider determinism trivially true as a result doesn't make your will any more free.
how can determinism imply free will whatsoever?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 18:45:55 No.13476741 Report

Quoted By:

>>13476661

I didn't suggest that it does. you're lacking context, I suspect.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91403676_p0_master1200.jpg, 1MiB, 679x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 19:23:02 No.13476946 Report

Quoted By: >>13476953 >>13478247

>>13476632
As I gather, your dichotomy is that the universe is either
1. Deterministic
2. Contains a random element
and then your argument is that in either case, there is no room for free will. Correct?
Well you say I'm splitting hairs when I ask for clarifications for determinism and randomness but my whole point is that under different interpretations of determinism you leave room for free will, so it matters which interpretation you choose. In the intelligible-physical-law determinism, we both agree there is no room left for free will. In the block-universe determinism without such a constraint, I see no obstacle for free will. In any case, I'd like to see your argument for why you think the determinism that you have in mind precludes libertarian free will.
>then whichever decision you make, that was always going to happen [therefore no free will]
...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91545164_p0_master1200.jpg, 961KiB, 794x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 19:24:05 No.13476953 Report

Quoted By: >>13476960 >>13478259

>>13476632
>>13476946
This is a nice point. To rephrase this, in the past, it was going to be. It is implicit in the way we speak that the future is definite. Something is either going to happen or it isn't. The way language works, we interpret this as there being some definite object called the future, which is in one state or the other, right now, and we are able to refer to it. But such a presupposition is exactly what is in question. To what extent the future is definite has strong implications for the extent to which we have free will. So my attempt at solving this conundrum is to do the following. In the past, something was always bound to happen. It was only going to be one thing, there is only one possible past, but it is not determined and we do not have the right to refer to it as the (definite) future in the usual sense of the word. We don't have the right to say that X which we now know happened was going to happen. To give an example, let's consider me writing this post. It's not true that "yesterday, it was bound to happen that I write this exact post" even though it's true that "I have written this post" and "only one thing was going to happen". In asserting the first statement, I'm transferring the thing that became definite today to yesterday when it was not yet definite.
....

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 91566309_p0_master1200.jpg, 1016KiB, 696x1200

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 19:25:09 No.13476960 Report

Quoted By: >>13478269

>>13476953
>>13476632
This is closely related to a resolution of the omniscience-free will paradox. If God knows everything, then he must know the future, therefore he knows what you're going to do before you were even born, therefore you don't have free will. Leaving aside whether the logical leaps in this argument are sound, one sees that in it it is supposed that the future is a definite thing. In the same way "God knows everything, so God knows why Sally pushed Manny" presupposes that Sally pushed Many, or how "God knows everything, so God knows whether the continuum hypothesis is true" presupposes that the continuum hypothesis is a definite question with a definite answer, which many including me doubt.
Yet another illustration of this is in the following thought experiment. Imagine the library of Babel, where every word combination is stored. But that means that somewhere in the books, the whole story of your life from beginning to end is stored. Therefore the future is predetermined, and the determination is in those books, therefore you don't have free will. I suppose you don't think that's a sound argument for determinism, but the interesting question is why not. My answer is that it presupposes the future as being some definite thing now instead of only in the future when it happens, just like I've described above. Do you have a different resolution?
So if you agree that in discussing free will and determinism, where the future is the very thing in question, we need to be careful in what we implicitly assume with our language, it seems like your argument no longer works and needs to be modified somewhat. Do you agree?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1616605663342.jpg, 246KiB, 1080x1080

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 20:35:36 No.13477357 Report

Quoted By: >>13477372 >>13477587

Ideas can change someones mind. Ideas are not real. Therefore free will exists as your physical mind can be altered by magical stuff which does not exist "ideas".

Is this a valid argument against the existence of free will?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 20:38:40 No.13477372 Report

Quoted By: >>13477465

>>13477357
Don't you mean for the existence of free will?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 20:39:06 No.13477377 Report

Quoted By:

>>13473155
>i chose to eat a burger today, however, if he rewinds time again i will instead want a burrito, because that's how desires work
when you gas yourself, please do so in a manner that does not impact the lives of others

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 20:41:00 No.13477389 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
she's a crank

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 20:54:22 No.13477465 Report

Quoted By:

>>13477372
Yes, sorry forgot to change.

t. danny dennett

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 21:15:42 No.13477587 Report

Quoted By:

>>13477357
Ideas are auditory, visible, and chemical, so as such they are material so your argument doesn't work outside metaphysical ideas like removed conscious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 21:58:52 No.13477773 Report

Quoted By:

So wait her whole argument is that knowing initial conditions of a system, specifically the universe, one could calculate any state in future ergo free will doesn't exist? Isn't this just superdeterminism? Is there any way to even test for this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 22:00:24 No.13477778 Report

Quoted By: >>13477788

So wait, her whole argument is that knowing the initial conditions of a system, specifically the universe, one could calculate any future state - ergo free will doesn't exist? Isn't this just superdeterminism? Is there any way to even test for this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Aug 2021 22:02:21 No.13477788 Report

Quoted By:

>>13477778
>Is there any way to even test for this?
No. It's a religious belief. Somewhere in a magical place inaccessible to humans there are these deterministic rules which definitely exist. Don't question how she knows it does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 00:19:12 No.13478247 Report

Quoted By: >>13480211

>>13476946
> I'd like to see your argument for why you think the determinism that you have in mind precludes libertarian free will.

sure. let A, B and C represent three chronological states of the universe, where B represents the present state while A and C represent some past and future state respectively:

A -> B -> C

any given state necessarily follows from the states which came before, in the sense that what follows could not be any other way. it's a universe-on-rails. when you exercise free will, that action was predetermined from T=0. everything that will ever happen is predicated on the initial conditions, in the most absolute sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 00:24:42 No.13478259 Report

Quoted By: >>13480234

>>13476953
> We don't have the right to say that X which we now know happened was going to happen. To give an example, let's consider me writing this post. It's not true that "yesterday, it was bound to happen that I write this exact post" even though it's true that "I have written this post" and "only one thing was going to happen". In asserting the first statement, I'm transferring the thing that became definite today to yesterday when it was not yet definite.

I'm not sure why we don't have this right. after all, you did write the post. it couldn't have been any other way *precisely* because that's what happened. I freely admit this is tautological (and kind of mundane), but what's the alternative? for things to have gone differently - say, one of us not deciding to read this thread - would require some other sequence of antecedent events to have taken place.

your point has got me thinking though. consider this: I drop a pen that I'm holding, and a couple of seconds later I evaluate the past event of the pen being dropped. would I be justified in declaring that the pen was bound to reach the floor when I dropped it? based on my experience of the world and understanding of gravity - and assuming that reality didn't implode when I let go of the pen - I would like to think so. note that this is simply a consequence of the universe behaving in ways that are predictable - the use of language isn't an issue here, as far as I can tell.

so I'm wondering: where's the line between the predictable motions of the physical world, and free will? if free will is still rooted in nature, where are those roots? do you believe that humans are unique with regard to free will?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 00:29:48 No.13478269 Report

Quoted By: >>13480240

>>13476960
> Yet another illustration of this is in the following thought experiment. Imagine the library of Babel, where every word combination is stored. But that means that somewhere in the books, the whole story of your life from beginning to end is stored. Therefore the future is predetermined, and the determination is in those books, therefore you don't have free will. I suppose you don't think that's a sound argument for determinism, but the interesting question is why not. My answer is that it presupposes the future as being some definite thing now instead of only in the future when it happens, just like I've described above. Do you have a different resolution?

this really is an excellent point, and not one that I'd considered. my resolution to that problem would be that the library of Babel doesn't just contain the whole story of my life; it contains the stories of all possible lives in all possible universes. it's not deterministic because it doesn't determine anything in particular - it represents *all* information.

> So if you agree that in discussing free will and determinism, where the future is the very thing in question, we need to be careful in what we implicitly assume with our language, it seems like your argument no longer works and needs to be modified somewhat. Do you agree?

honestly, I'm not sure. I think that I might not be fully comprehending your point about language in light of the above examples. what I *would* take away is that even if it were practically possible to predict the future on the basis of determinism, any such prediction would be information only - a subset of the library of Babel - and could be considered meaningless until the events actually occurred. in this sense free will might be considered meaningful, although I'm not sure to what extent this aligns with your argument.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 103.jpg, 70KiB, 480x608

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 00:31:13 No.13478272 Report

Quoted By:

>>13471403
>Just read any philosophy book on the matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 08:50:52 No.13479754 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468309
>>13471411
>I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this post is too narrow to contain.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 85139347_p0_master1200.jpg, 388KiB, 707x1000

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 12:00:22 No.13480211 Report

Quoted By: >>13480234

>>13478247
>any given state necessarily follows from the states which came before, in the sense that what follows could not be any other way
If A is a past state, B a present state, C future state, then
A-> B-> C
Nothing but B can follow A, since B is already determined and there is only one possible future state for any state. However C is not yet determined, but it will be later. C could be one of many possible states, and you could influence which one through your free will. But later you will make a choice which will partly determine what C is exactly, and after that point C was necessary to follow after B, but not before that point.
I agree, it's a universe-on-rails, but the rails get built immediately before as as we ride along. They are not prebuilt before we arrive, i.e. the future is not **pre**-determined. It's just determined.
>when you exercise free will, that action was predetermined from T=0. everything that will ever happen is predicated on the initial conditions, in the most absolute sense.
That's not true in the model of determinism I have in mind, which is an evolving block universe with the frontier at the present, and for which we restrict the use of talking about the future in the definite sense as we do about the past. If my model turns out to be coherent, then it should be a good rebuttal to the notion that any kind of determinism that you have in mind is incompatible with free will in the libertarian sense. Because in that case, the action was not predetermined from T=0, because the earliest time at which it was determined was somewhere at the moment when the action happened.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 85925189_p0_master1200.jpg, 368KiB, 707x1000

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 12:06:03 No.13480234 Report

Quoted By: >>13480240

>>13480211
>>13478259
>I'm not sure why we don't have this right. after all, you did write the post
Ok I was bit confusing here so let me clarify what I actually meant. We're trying to understand determinism here. You may have the right to talk about the future in the definite sense. But you being able to do so is a very strong philosophical assumption, one which is in question in this discussion. Therefore I propose to examine what can we conclude if we drop this assumption. Is determinism still incompatible with free will?
>it couldn't have been any other way *precisely* because that's what happened.
Without the assumption that the future was definite in the past, you cannot assert this. It could have been only one way, but it's not true that this way is the only way it could have been, because in the past the future was not yet determined. In the present, it can't be any other way because that's precisely what happened but in the past, it could have been other way, because in the past it didn't happen yet and the future was not yet determined.
> for things to have gone differently - say, one of us not deciding to read this thread - would require some other sequence of antecedent events to have taken place.
This is true. But why does it follow from this that it couldn't have been any other way?
>would I be justified in declaring that the pen was bound to reach the floor when I dropped it?
I think you would be. Dropping a pen is an extremely specific, constrained and predictable event. Parts of the future are predetermined. That means whichever way the determination goes, it's bound to end up the same in some part. The pen will always reach the ground. So even though my view of "the" future now is indefinite and fuzzy, I can still assert that something unique is going to happen and that something is the pen hitting the ground.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 86464554_p0_master1200.jpg, 513KiB, 848x1200

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 12:07:06 No.13480240 Report

Quoted By: >>13480901

>>13480234
>so I'm wondering: where's the line between the predictable motions of the physical world, and free will?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Free will is not like predictable motions of the physical world. There are no intelligible computable laws that predict how humans will behave.
>if free will is still rooted in nature, where are those roots?
Again, I don't know. Gravity is presumably rooted in nature, but where are those roots? Where are the roots of electromagnetism? Do these questions even make sense?
>do you believe that humans are unique with regard to free will?
No. I think animals have it too, although it's a slightly different kind of free will.
>>13478269
> the library of Babel doesn't just contain the whole story of my life; it contains the stories of all possible lives in all possible universes
But does that matter? It contains your future, therefore your future is set in black on white in one of the books. According to your determinism, there is only one definite future, so there are no possible universes, just one possible universe, and it's all written down in one book. Of course, if you drop the peculiarity of language where you talk about the future in a definite sense, you can no longer assert this. It can't contain the story of your future, because there is no future yet.
> predict the future on the basis of determinism, any such prediction would be information only - a subset of the library of Babel - and could be considered meaningless until the events actually occurred
Then in what sense is it a prediction of the future?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Proof of Free Will.webm, 3MiB, 800x450

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 14:18:47 No.13480848 Report

Quoted By:

>free will doesn't exis...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 14:30:57 No.13480901 Report

Quoted By:

>>13480240
>because there is no future yet.
ah I see, this is why you're retarded.

Anon, the future is guaranteed, there is no stopping time in this world. Literally there is nothing we can do to avoid the future so even if choice haven't been made yet, even if things aren't set in stone, its a fact that they indeed will be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 14:52:11 No.13480971 Report

Quoted By: >>13481077

Determinism is religion for the mentally handicapped.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 14:52:27 No.13480972 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469040
right. Even that "confused" feeling during decisions is illusionary, the decision is illusionar. It's all deterministic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:01:22 No.13481003 Report

Quoted By: >>13481014

>>13469040
>empirically free will exists in actuality
>rationally free will can not exist in potential
Hmmm how to decide between these two truth claims...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:04:24 No.13481014 Report

Quoted By: >>13481050

>>13481003
>>empirically free will exists in actuality
No it doesn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:15:11 No.13481050 Report

Quoted By: >>13481073

>>13481014
For you it doesn't because you're a NPC.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:18:55 No.13481072 Report

Quoted By:

A Determinist and a Normal person are arguing over free will. Neither one is willing to back down or provide evidence for their claims. So, getting frustrated, the Determinist pulls out a gun and tells the Free Will believer that if free will exists, he should take the gun and kill himself. The Free Will believer realizes that if he doesn't kill himself the determinist will insist that that is proof that free will is illusory, that his biology and psychology would never allow him to pull the trigger, so he calls his bluff and pulls the trigger, blowing his brains all over the wall. The Determinist leans over and says "I knew you were going to do that"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:19:00 No.13481073 Report

Quoted By: >>13481113

>>13481050
NPC is just a funny meme
Nobody has free will

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:19:29 No.13481077 Report

Quoted By:

>>13480971
false, an AI can only effectively program itself by knowing the rules of the program. By understanding that free will doesn't exist and we're a product of our inital conditions, only then can we freely make choices that are truly our own.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 15:27:32 No.13481113 Report

Quoted By:

>>13481073
Of course as a NPC you're not able to realize not everyone is like you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 153KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 18:40:51 No.13481916 Report

Quoted By: >>13482069 >>13482075

>>13468259
in a (largely, microprobablisms in quantum mechanics does not refute macrodeterminism) deterministic world. you only have the free will to follow the path laid by your memory, physical state, and environment.
stop discussing free will you absolute cockfaggots and read some basic philosophy >>>/lit/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 19:16:20 No.13482069 Report

Quoted By:

>>13481916
Hume was a big fat faggot

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO supercooled_water.gif, 4MiB, 271x480

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 19:17:34 No.13482075 Report

Quoted By: >>13482091 >>13482105

>>13481916
>litfag doesn't know about chaos theory, phase transitions, butterfly effect, stability theory.
Color me surprised.

Tldr: microscopic variations can and do amplify themselves to unpredictable macroscopic effects. If anything, I thought you litfags would be more understanding of freedom than autistic scientism pushers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 19:20:56 No.13482091 Report

Quoted By: >>13482192

>>13482075
>chaos theory, phase transitions, butterfly effect, stability theory
Jewish pseudo-scientific "theories" that survive on (((mutual))) (((peer-review)))

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 19:23:09 No.13482105 Report

Quoted By: >>13482192 >>13482327

>>13482075
and you fail to understand chaos theory if you think it proves jack shit. to incorporate chaos theory you also have to incorporate its likelihood of interfering with determinism.
provide me with one instance where chaos theory has interfered with macrodeterministic events.
will chaos theory prevent me from the cause and effect of fucking your mom -> your mom gets pregnant with my seed?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 0ac247d4949688572a41a67654060612.jpg, 64KiB, 850x400

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 19:44:07 No.13482192 Report

Quoted By: >>13482305

>>13482091
>says the person arguing for the most jewish and pseudo-scientific position ever.
>>13482105
The gist of chaos theory is that small things can have large effects. More specifically, small variations in initial conditions can lead to huge variations in outcome. It doesn't deal with prediction, only possibilities. Like, for example, if you leave your mom's basement, there's the possibility that you will actually meet an irl girl and get a gf. I'm not betting on it, but hey stranger and more unlikely events have happened throughout history.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 20:14:35 No.13482305 Report

Quoted By: >>13482443

>>13482192
microprobablisms in quantum mechanics does not refute macrodeterminism
>microprobablisms in quantum mechanics does not refute macrodeterminism
microprobablisms in quantum mechanics does not refute macrodeterminism

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 20:21:11 No.13482319 Report

Quoted By:

>>13469053
>true nihilism has never been tried

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO deterministic chaos.gif, 914KiB, 550x188

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 20:22:38 No.13482327 Report

Quoted By: >>13482443

>>13482105
>to incorporate chaos theory you also have to incorporate its likelihood of interfering with determinism.
uh broski, you should learn about the double pendulums role in chaos theory. Chaos can be seeded/has initial conditions, which if perfectly recreated will always play exactly the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 20:22:48 No.13482328 Report

Quoted By:

>implying the world is deterministic when waves clearly disagree

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 20:49:20 No.13482407 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468278
the sinful ones aka you're not alone fritz leiber

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 21:00:32 No.13482443 Report

Quoted By: >>13482470

>>13482305
>>13482327
microprobablisms + chaos = macroprobabilism
Macroprobabilism does refute macrodeterminism

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 21:04:57 No.13482470 Report

Quoted By: >>13482488

>>13482443
>macroprobabilism
such as?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 21:10:27 No.13482488 Report

Quoted By:

>>13482470
Such as events that occur on a larger timescale than can be observed.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO spinning-optical-illusion.gif, 2MiB, 500x500

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 21:58:55 No.13482622 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
>Is this a valid argument against the existence of free will?

NO! the moment she said deterministic laws, I burst out laughing. Quantum effects are random, not random because we are not smart enough to figure out some way that they are deterministic, but truly random.
Our brains use nerves and chemicals that are quantum effected. It is NOT possible to to ever predict precisely what will happen at every neuron.
Quantum random effects are a HUGE problem for computer chip design. Electrons can 'jump' across gates at small enough scales. Neurons have the same problem.... mostly you get the answer you want but sometimes randomly get a different answer.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 614.png, 2MiB, 1033x1033

Anonymous Fri 06 Aug 2021 22:10:54 No.13482642 Report

Quoted By:

>>13468259
Free will doesn't exist to her because she isn't strong enough to change her deterministic path, it is a very real force.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Aug 2021 10:53:28 No.13484523 Report

Quoted By:

>>13475587
saved the pic
anyway when we talk about randomness i see it in the absolute sense, if it's only random because of hidden variables that we can't mesure as humans then it all falls back to the deterministic argument. after all we are considering both the random and deterministic scenarios because we can't know for certain how the universe work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Aug 2021 13:33:33 No.13484823 Report

Quoted By: >>13484827

Doesn't quantum uncertainty make the question of free will impossible to answer? Her arguments only work in a world in which the only physical laws are Newton Ian.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Aug 2021 13:34:38 No.13484827 Report

Quoted By:

>>13484823
*Newtonian

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches