Freewill Does Not Exist

there is the illusion of choice and it cant be ignored

Attached: 1534943097776.gif (200x317, 940K)

More like a delusion of choice...

it cannot be ignored, hence compatibilism

Attached: notreally.gif (500x213, 980K)

>"We laugh at him who steps out of his room at the moment when the sun steps out of its room, and then says: “I will that the sun shall rise”; and at him who cannot stop a wheel, and says: “I will that it shall roll”; and at him who is thrown down in wrestling, and says: “here I lie, but I will lie here!” But, all laughter aside, are we ourselves ever acting any differently whenever we employ the expression “I will”?"

We aren’t clocks. Much is determinist, but there is a little wiggle room. The worlds spin on course but nothing but I decides what I read and when and the thoughts that come of it

God has a free will and he exist. therefore Free will Exist.

Well then I should probably kill myself

I knew you were dumb, but this dumb?
Why did you decide what you read?

I seriously don't understand how you can think there is freewill and consider yourself a thinker, that there is no freewill is the most basic philosophical realization that we should all come to around 12-13. Do you people just not ask why? Are you just trying to look smart with your life?

>God has a free will
what if we created god, and time is circular, and so god is not only determined, but is determined to determine himself endlessly?

reminder: to deny free will is to deny cause and effect entirely. But no, you're special. The rules don't apply to you you are so special.

>deny free will
to deny determinism*

freedom is found in the loading process of all those actions, if you cannot predict without a doubt both are viable hence compatibilism

Attached: WillingPastTheNutToVanity.gif (498x211, 1.42M)

What determines your loading process?

wtf do you mean loading process? Think someones been playing too many videogames hehe

Can you choose to feel joy on command, or any emotion or mental state? Why not? Can you not will it? And if you will not, why?

I feel so frustrated having ever read that person's posts now knowing they come from such a fundamentally crippled mind.

linear time - the fourth dimension
if you stopped time, you as a human could never predict the next action once time is allowed to move again, uncertainty is freedom

Attached: time.gif (500x317, 994K)

So... what's your argument? Seems like you don't have one, weird.

You're a fucking retard. Free will has nothing to do with the actual outcome. It only refers to the intend. Free will doesn't mean omnipotence

I wasn't making an argument in that post?

Seething

You had no freewill over your angry response to the post. Your prior conditions ensured that there was no other way for you to respond

See

I’m pretty sure OP would similarly say that our intentions are also predetermined. There’s no need to be rude

Right you used a logical fallacy. You said I had a crippled mind. Now I challenge you to assert why, with reasoning, that is the case. Ad hominem attacks won't work, bud.

Yep, op here, I agree. All our thoughts are part of an unbroken sequence of thoughts, which are all determined to occur in a specific way

Your mind is crippled because you don't understand determinism. You are stupid, and I'm screencappng your post.

Just stop being fake.

To be FREE. What does it mean? Would anyone want to be free to do something that harms himself? What good is freedom if we use it to harm ourselves? It must be the case that we are most free when we are capable of benefitting ourselves the most.

Any prove to that claim?

Lmao, yet more ad hominem attacks

Cause and effect

procrastination, foreseeable regret, harmful addictions

because quantum theory dictates everything influences everything, which means in order to predict the next state of things we would need to analyze everything, which is impossible from our limited human perspective of the universe so far.

but you are looking at this from the HUMAN perspective (which is: "we can't predict the future exactly from a human perspective"), which is fairly worthless because that is not what the question of free will vs determinism is asking.

There is only one evil, ignorance, so you are evil.

Therefore, the fact that humans knowingly do what they know is bad for them is proof of our lack of freedom

itt: cumbrains who lost their free will to porn

Attached: 1558955319348.png (952x717, 186K)

>cause and effect
That's only how the human mind perceives the world and perception doesn't equal reality

So the only evil is predetermined and outside of our control?

Waiting for butterfly to call out the ad hominem

you’re on 4channel dude

is this some pseudointellectual debate?

In the same roundabout way that nothing is under anyone's control.

>Free will has nothing to do with the actual outcome
yes it does. Do you know what free will means?
Free will = free cause = uninfluenced cause = cause absent of effect.
Free will just means that you don't believe in cause and effect, that there are causes without effects, which doesn't even make sense.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkQYFwyX0k8

that's not an excuse for mediocrity

>that there are causes without effects,
Do you mean effect without cause?

Believing in free will is peak mediocrity, possibly the defining feature of an unable brain.

Yeah, ironically as Helen Beebee pointed out humeanism about causation and laws of nature is the safest bet to make room for free will.

Attached: beebee2000.png (582x613, 251K)

im arguing for compatibilism
the universe is determined but its not relevant to HUMANS because we cannot transcend the illusion, we are free because we cannot predict the future that will be, hence compatibilism because we are the only beings able to observe the universe making it irrational to make claims that imply our observations are not an extension of our experience

Attached: 0busy.gif (500x213, 937K)

This, simple way to put it.

You need to piss, so you think about pissing. There is a control, only the illusion of choice, followed by reaction.

>Free will = free cause = uninfluenced cause = cause absent of effect.
I missed one.
Free will = free cause = uninfluenced cause = cause absent of cause = cause absent of effect.

No control*

both. Their being an effect without a cause also implies that there will be causes without effects (the effect without a cause).

Porn is damaging, but this website certainly isn’t helpful either.

>Why does everyone act like it does?
Because they have no choice ;>)

I don’t see how that follows, sorry

>Free cause
What are you on?
Because it makes no sense

That a pretty good argument. Also, since we can't prove that we have in fact a free will or not, we have to look at what the concept of free will or determinism entails. If the second is true that would mean that noone carries any responsibility for their action. Thus a rapist is just a victim to determinism as the raped one. Therefore we couldn't judge a rapist on his actions and so on. One would have to question what that would mean to society and if society could even exist without the concept of free will

Unless we don't punish rapists because they deserve it.

Right, crime and punishment becomes a question of practicality, not morality.

Since I don't believe in freewill, I believe no one is morally culpable for their actions. However, well still have laws to control behavior for the sake of society.

All is interpretation. Statements like "X does/does not exist" are interpretations.

>Why does everyone act like it does?
they in fact don't really. It is usually not hard to see why people acted the way they do by just looking at the chain of desires, thoughts, and events preceding their actions, which chains ends eventually in situations outside their control.

If you actually talk to anybody about this subject without bringing up the term 'free will' they will more or less admit that people don't choose to be the way that they are. Murderers and rapists chose to murder and rape, but not to be the sorts of people who wanted to murder and rape, and who wanted it more than their ability to resist the impulse. Usually people will start saying something like 'but they still have to be held accountable' at this stage, which indicates that the concern is practical, they don't want murderers to have justification for their actions because they want them punished, for the good of the community and for their feelings of retribution or justice.

your average man on the street type doesn't actually give a shit about 'free will' and is more or less aware that people are just born a certain way to a large degree, but he cares very much about the set of social customs and laws surrounding the concept of agency, and he has feelings of pride for his own actions, and etc. It is only people who have gone out of their way to think about this subject, but don't have the stomach for the conclusions involved, that end up spouting absurdities like 'compatibilism' and worse.

>since I don't believe in free will
That's right its a simple faith in determinism. There are no proofs for your claim and you even live in total contradiction to your own life

Shut the fuck up butterfly.

The purpose of punishment is to prevent crimes. It’s not purely for the sake of revenge or anything like that. Punishment is natural for organisms, needing no free will to exist properly.

How can it prevent crime, if I can't choose to commit a crime or not?

Because it can influence your decision.

That implies that I have a choice and thus have free will to a certain extent

Have you ever, in your whole life, wanted to do something, but decided not to, because it was forbidden by a rule or law? Laws don’t work on everyone all the time, but it’s better than there being no laws at all.

Again that implies I have a free will. Why does everyone in this thread think that free will = actual outcome of actions? Or that cause and effect = reality

No it just means that the human decision-making process is complex and processes various factors. For some people, the existence of law and punishment is enough to dissuade them from committing the crime. Others may be more impulsive, having no foresight of the consequences. This all makes sense under a deterministic system with no free will.

No it is an action that can influence your reaction. Is your IQ even two digits?

What is a world without free will? Please describe it

Choices dont require free will, they just require that you have some sort of algorithm(your brain) and the inputs of a given situation

I am the one arguing for free will, you dumb dumb

I hate stupid questions so much. You should have to earn the right to learn to read and write.

Please answer my question. I want to know what you’re arguing against. You think this world has free will. But I’m asking you what a world without free will looks like.

>intellect = algorithm
Tell me what algorithm is self-apprehending?

who gives a fuck
>describe a world you cant conceive

a sufficiently sophisticated and recursive one.

kek

I'm arguing simply against the claim that there's no free will because of determinism, because determinism is merely a result of human perception but says nothing about reality

You can’t conceive of a world in which beings make predetermined decisions, but living with the illusion that they make “choices” ? They have no control over their wills, but simply act out whatever they desire the most. Is this inconceivable? Or do you still call this free will?

All thoughts are divided from previous mental states a la cause and effect.

Prove me wrong, protip, you can't

Lol stay mad

If our wills are free, then we should be able to freely change them, should we not? There’s no reason why I should procrastinate if I have free will. If I’m addicted to porn, I should be able to form a stronger will for some other activity and do something else. Free will doesn’t explain bad decision making and the existence of sin. Rather, it’s the lack of free will that explains it.

You can't conceive of anything, you don't understand cause and effect.

>
Free will doesn't equal omnipotence nor does it imply total wisdom. Free will also doesn't imply that you can't be influenced in your choice.

Then why call it free will and not just will

Stop with your fucking cause and effect. It only says something about our way of perceiving the world, not how the world actually is.

Then you're not describing free will, your describing a will bound by conditions, hence not free. No wonder you argue in favor of free will, your definition is so broad as to make the term meaningless

Your right, imaginary space jesus makes way more sense than empirical observation of reality

Because you can still choose to act against your urges. If you feel the urge to watch porn and masturbate, but you don't, although that would mean instant pleasure, that means you have free will

meant for

No, it means your will have sufficient requisition of willpower to resist the urge. This in turn was due to prior conditions. The choice you made to resist was illusory. There was no other way for your choice to have been made.

That just means your desire to not jerk off(for whatever reason) is stronger than the desire to jerk off.

I mean come on m8 this shit is tautological

>Because you can still choose to act against your urges
Only because you have another competing urge that is stronger. You conflate the individual’s understanding of his various desires and his subsequent decision as an operation of free will, when his decision was determined from the beginning.

You’re retarded. What influences people from a deterministic perspective? I.E., what are the inputs that determines what they will do?

Genes and Environment (formed by the genes of others).

So by adding punishment to the environment, less people are likely to be “determinism’d” into committing crime.

Good way of putting it

The fact that we feel as though we have free will is enough to make it the de facto truth

Human perception is all that we can comprehend, and the fact that most perceive free will makes it true. Deterministic drives are just the technical parts of the larger picture.

Attached: 0AE6F4DE-7BEA-4423-8D9F-2BD0CAAB95D8.png (399x607, 372K)

Things become more complicated when someone questions his desires and concludes that he isn’t free. He perceives his will, but he doesn’t call it free.

Romans 9
>19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Lol

>a lot of people think something true, it must be!
> is a christfag

Checks out

He’s not using a bandwagon argument though

based

>quantum theory determines everything
If anything you mean quantum phsysics and that's not even true. Quantum physics are the prove of indeterminism, because they is no cause and effect but all possible states exist simultaneously

>I perceive the world in deterministic way
>it must be true
You just exposed yourself

Based and correctpilled.

>adding punishment to the environment
Added by whom? Does that mean that it was added intentionally, to reduce crime? Intention always implies free will, because in a deterministic world intentions can't exist.

Truth isn’t a thing, only perception

Added by others, driven to do so by deterministic forces

Based sculpture. Neither. Check out Schopenhauer's on the freedom of the will for a great breakdown of how free will is just false.
most agree and love the phrase fetishisation of the arbitrary. why does "everything" happen though? i.e. the totality.
Exactly.

I can't speak as to why 'everything' happens, but what I do know is that what happens is 'meant to', and this is where old ideas of fate and destiny come from. Of course just because something it 'meant to happen' doesn't mean it is desirable or the best outcome, just that it could not be otherwise. My conclusions about this have actually little to nothing to do with any kind of materialism/hard matter universe.

Attached: 21.png (452x51, 2K)

everybody shut the fuck up it's actually determinism which doesn't exist because free will instantiates it as a linguistic construct to support itself semantically

does free will not exist or determinism not exist? on the one hand 'free' will implies something inherently wrong n even self-refuting, as nothing escapes the processes that instantiate it, free will cannot escape that which ultimately produces it... it is caused and therefor not truly free.
One might say, oh but, certainly the notion of free will doesn't refer to this at all (that wills are not caused), and refers instead to the view that wills are caused yet exhibit some precedence over the material realm that allows them to direct themselves perhaps not unconditionally but rather as befits itself within its own limitations and contexts... now we're converging n the terms determinism and free will are losing their meaning altogether... they only seem to be linguistic sublimations of our own perception of ourselves... the idea that anything is free is bunk because everything is caused... the idea that anything is determined is bunk because it subsumes that anything could have been free... the idea that they are compatible is bunk because it implies a little bit of both...
if compatibilism asserted that free will is expressed through deterministic processes, then how is it free? and in what way is it determined? compatibilism asserts the inefficacy of those categories themselves, or does it? i dont know anymore

someone wanna explain this to me who's not a complete tool?

Attached: mpv-shot0003.jpg (1920x1080, 195K)

The Self-Referential Argument against determinism breaks down determinism. And There's a paper by Joseph Magno,
>Beyond the Self-Referential Critique of Determinism,
that shows why the Self-Referential argument REALLY breaks it down.

This is true.
People who believe in free will believe that every individual human's actions are uncaused causes.
There is no such thing as free will.
But what's really important is realizing that this knowledge doesn't matter, because from the human perspective neither free will nor the lack thereof are observable phenomena.

What's really gonna bake your noodle later on is,
if your reasoning follows, and I think it does, that all future events are predetermined, then what need do we have of time?

It's being posited in some physics circles these days that time does not exist. That all events occur at the same "time", thus time has no meaning.

Einstein's positing of space/time, the 4 dimensional space with time being the 4th dimension may be superseded.

Attached: The-Oracle-the-matrix-6856144-350-307.jpg (350x307, 82K)

Op here. Yeah, I've heard the idea of reality being some kind oh multidimensional hyper-crystal solid. We only experience the passage of time because we can only perceive 4 dimensions, when in reality, all events have already happened in a predetermined way within the solid. I think I first heard of this idea from an Alan Moore interview, but I'm not sure. Coolidge tho.

There are only four lights

Nah, I used the word "believe" because I'm not so arrogant to say I know everything and that I'm absolutely right. I simply BELIEVE that it is very likely I am right, and I stated my reasoning thusly: free will does not exist because the universe operates on the basis of cause and effect. Using the word belief, does not invalidate my reasoning. Besides, I had no real control over my choice of words, it was deterministic ;)

we are the latency between an unknown fragmentation

Attached: Breaking Glass.gif (500x250, 2M)

Can you tl;dr it for me, I can't find a copy and it looks unnecessarily complicated to fit some vague academic agenda

“everybody has choices. i choose to get money, im stuck on this bread” - E-40 - Choices (Yup)

Attached: 9A62037A-EAC5-4E6F-A69F-0F8A76DC18AB.png (500x337, 32K)

everybody got choices. i choose to get money, im stuck on this bread

E-40

>people are the sum of their experience
>past experience determines or influences people's actions
>this is cause and effect

>all actions we have taken and all actions we will take are determined by past events
>all our actions, our wills, are predetermined
>our wills are not free

People are deceiving themselves into thinking that choice = free will, but choices are merely an illusion.
Are they really tricking themselves or do they simply not think about this stuff? After-all, why even think about it when you can live your life, reacting to events without worrying about free will, the illusion of choice is enough. It has to be, it's all we've got.

Attached: 1480645460535.jpg (255x225, 13K)

What you are choosing is a philosophical mistake. Less and less women even respect money these days, it is frequently something many would rather not have :3

I believe free-will does not exist theoratically. The cause-effect spanning through time and space. Yet, human mind (or any artifical mind for that matter) is and will be unable to calculate and process such vast quantities of information in a time span that it would still be relevant, so practically it exists.

Attached: 1558621920733.jpg (690x690, 107K)

Does it matter? Will you rationalise being a piece of shit because it was determined to be so?

Attached: FB_IMG_15582601589660296.jpg (1072x436, 362K)

Imagine being a materialist lmao

Discussing it doesn't matter in the same that, if everything is deterministic, then doing so couldn't have happened in any other way. As a consequence of determinism, I made this thread for the lulz

What we understand as a choice is just incomplete information on how our neurology compels us to do x instead of y. If humans were fully understood in their biological mechanisms and how those interact with the environment we would be no more mysterious to ourselves as is a ball rolling down a hill. Yet for the ball there is no judge waiting at the end of the slope to adjudicate over the manner in which it rolled down the hill.

Would you be any less of a faggot if there were free will?

If it doesn't exist then why bother trying to convince other people?

Whether free will exists is strictly undecidable. It's similar to the halting problem. The basic test of free will is a binary decision given some prior input that has biased the response one way or the other in the past. No amount of prior information will allow one to predict how an agent will respond to it, despite even the most detailed observations. That's another way of saying, given the same conditions multiple times, a person can behave differently. This implies that there is at least some element of capriciousness (perhaps the biological equivalent of an RNG) involved in decision making.

For similar reasons behaviorist methodology in psychology was seen to be lacking. People don't behave with completely regular responses to conditioning.

There is zero sum between freedom of will and freedom of action. In fact, that is precisely why the former is self-evident. This argument would be almost unassailable if they were one and the same. Had my will been "free" in implicitly being made manifest, then I would have to concede that it would be Empistemologically indistinguishable from a will totally subordinate to an autonomous Phenomenal. But I and the Phenomenal can disagree and, indeed, though it quantitatively binds my action, it cannot qualitatively bind my will.

Attached: index.jpg (224x224, 6K)

Compatibilist master race here. We're like centrists, but smart.

>how can I accept all the axioms that contradict free will without accepting that free will doesn't exist.

Intellectual giants, truly.

Based hegel putting the retards in this thread in their place
This

What are these axioms?

We live in a physical world which has been observed to operate on causality principles. Organisms derive their structure and complexity from within that world based on the observable.

Those aren't axioms but it's no matter. How does it contradict free will? Causality can happen as it does because we've made our decisions outside of time, and we're only watching things play out as we've willed them. I don't know how organisms deriving their complexity and structure from within our universe, which is a massive assumption and certainty not something which is self evident, is even relevant to the conversation.

Literally meaningless babble

>Free will is a popular idea because it implies the just world hypothesis.
That's a strange thing to lay at the feet of free will, considering determinism outright necessitates the just world hypothesis.

How so?

If anything, smug people like to disagree with determinism, because by denying it, they can claim responsibility for their achievements. If said achievements were the product of determinism, they'd have no value.

>Those aren't axioms but it's no matter. How does it contradict free will?
>>An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

>Causality can happen as it does because we've made our decisions outside of time, and we're only watching things play out as we've willed them.

Causality is the very thing that that gives rise to the decisions you make. Your neurology is entirely dependent on causes, every single atom that makes up the cells in your body is causal.

>I don't know how organisms deriving their complexity and structure from within our universe, which is a massive assumption and certainty not something which is self evident, is even relevant to the conversation.

So organisms are non-physical? They are uniquely non-causal despite all of their components within the observable clearly being dependent on a physical structure?

>the idea that anything is determined is bunk because it subsumes that anything could have been free
this is your brain on pseud

This.

I think free willies think there's some magic atom in your head that is beholden to the laws of physics.

Is unbeholden***

Fucking autocorrect nigrotronics

An axiom must be something that is self evident, otherwise any old assumption can be called an axiom and the term becomes meaningless. You say material causes are what informs decisions, I say it doesn't. Do you want to have an argument or do you just want to continue sharing opinions? I'm not terribly interested, I just wanted to point out that compatibilism isn't contradictory as you originally asserted.

I don't know why you're talking about organisms. You didn't answer me when I asked why it was relevant and now you're acting as if I'm debating you on it. You say something is non-causal but I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. What is non causal and why is it relevant?

>How so?
Because in a deterministic world what should happen is what can happen and vice versa, as an example, imagine we are some extra-universal observers outside the universe and who can somehow observe it but not affect it in doing so. We have been watching it from the beginning and now see that the universe is in phase 1,000,105 or whatever. What should happen next? Obviously phase 1,000,106. In a deterministic universe what is just is what is required by causal necessity, it's sort of like saying a coin flipped an infinite amount of times should produce at least one instance of heads, it's a matter of probability, except we're not dealing with escalating probability in a deterministic universe as everything is at 100% probability. If X then Y, but on a massive and subatomic scale spanning across everything. There's no such thing as injustice in that kind of system, only one phase incrementing to the next.

>If anything, smug people like to disagree with determinism, because by denying it, they can claim responsibility for their achievements. If said achievements were the product of determinism, they'd have no value.
That's nonsensical because free will necessitates the existence of luck. The very definition of anything in a deterministic system is 'earned' or 'deserving' in the most fundamental way possible. I'd say you're describing stupid people more than smug people.

You are right, only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can act freely under the Divine Providence of God

How can anyone say you have free will when biological needs exist. Maybe this is a surface level examination but someone who is starving or dehydrated would drink/eat unless he/she lacks the means to do so.

I can choose to die of starvation if I really want though

>An axiom must be something that is self evident, otherwise any old assumption can be called an axiom and the term becomes meaningless.

No, nothing is self-evident in an axiomatic sense. Axioms are something that we agree on in order to have a constructive conversation on the subject.
"The universe exists" is an axiom even though it isn't self-evident. The universe could be an illusion or a simulation, we can't conclusively prove that it is any of these things but we assume that it is real for the sake of the conversation.
Again, "An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." Taken to be true does not mean self-evident.

>You say material causes are what informs decisions, I say it doesn't.

Material causes make up your neurology. Your neurology is what gives rise to the function of consciousness and will, therefore your will isn't contra-causal. In order for your will to be free it needs to defy causality.

>I don't know why you're talking about organisms. You didn't answer me when I asked why it was relevant and now you're acting as if I'm debating you on it. You say something is non-causal but I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. What is non causal and why is it relevant?

Organisms are physical, they're not functional outside of their physical constraints. A turtle ceases to be a turtle when you take away the atoms that make up a turtle. A human ceases to be a human when you take away the atoms that make up a human. They're not non-causal, they're not entities that just will themselves into existence.

You could put yourself in a dangerous situation but I doubt you could stop eating.

okay I'm not doing this. You're not saying anything interesting to me.

Okay, but you are just proving that one of your urges is stronger than another, your urges are deterministic.

Yes, in deterministic world injustice can't exist because justice is illusory. Also, if all actions are deterministic, any action is about as moral as water freezing or a rock rolling down a hill. If everything is fated to be a certain way, what is there to be proud of? Do you boast when the morning sun casts a shadow of your figure?

In a world of free will, things are not certain, you can choose the consequences so to speak, so responsibility exists, and hence pride can be justified.

Not him, but you seem pretty ass blasted

That's not freedom, that's acting out God's will monergistically. Calvinists are basically material determinists but they worship God.

>what is there to be proud of?
Whatever you're determined to be proud of, obviously.

Of course, haha. Still illusory though if determinism is true.

What makes you think that? I'm not interested in bickering and he wants to talk about a dozen different things that are irrelevant to the original point I made. I mean, who wants to debate what axioms are with somebody who treats them like assumptions? I'm sure other people are into it, but not me.

Axioms ARE assumptions. They're not self-evident. They are base assumptions you make about because you can't have constructive conversations about anything without axioms.

>I don't have a rebuttal but I'm too immature to just not reply

>creating a false dichotomy
Even Einstein thought we should put criminals in jail if the universe was deterministic. You're making something like a categorical error, being deterministic doesn't factor into things really unless you somehow have all the knowledge of the universe including knowledge of your self's knowledge (Cantor's argument basically).

Is it so unbelievably that I didn't read the post because I'm not interested? All I wanted to do was point out that compatibilism wasn't "inherently contradictory" and he wants to debate determinism and axioms and organism and whatever. For some reason I have to be angry to not want to talk.

You're wrong, dude. This is from Anthony Flew's Dictionary of Philosophy.

Attached: 322.png (440x376, 74K)

>I just wanted to post my position without having to defend it
I mean why even post

no u

Attached: axiom.jpg (851x533, 160K)

I agree, justice system will still exist, I'm just saying a belief in determinism refutes any moral aspect. The practical aspect of locking up criminals will be unaffected by this.

Read you're own definition, dumbass. Especially the last sentence. Read it carefully. THAT WHICH COMMENDS ITSELF AS EVIDENT. That's what it means to be self evident you fucking twat.

axioms, at least the way they are used in philosophical discussions, are not self-evident, they are taken as self-evident or taken as true but that doesn't mean they actually are. That's an important distinction.

You don't understand what an axiom is. There is no axiom that is actually self-evident. State any axiom and I can pose a question that showcases that it isn't self-evident.

You're literally ignoring your own evidence.

>baby discovers hard determinism
Laplace's demon is just an axiom
Recent quantum physics hint that true randomness might actually exist

Attached: Laplace,_Pierre-Simon,_marquis_de.jpg (256x300, 14K)

>feeling emotion = free will
I can willfully do actions that will lead me to that emotion or i can willfully choose not to do actions that will lead me to that emotion.

I literally just explained to you why you're wrong. Axioms, as the term is described in the definition, and axiom, as the word from which it is derived from are not interchangeable, they mean different things. There are no truly self-evident axioms which is why the word nowadays is defined as an assertion that is "taken to be true".

>materialists calling other people smug or stupid
Why is materialism such a pleb filter?

My point
Your head

Retard

Randomness doesn't give you free will. If I throw a dice every time you make a decision it just makes your decision random.

A dice throw is not a truly random event
I am in the presence of brainlets, I shall go back to /sci/

that's where you're wrong kiddo
youtube.com/watch?v=8ak7tVjHtoA

Attached: orch1[1].jpg (768x526, 100K)

True randomness as we see in quantum physics refutes the idea of determinism, though

How would a truly random event add free will though? on second thought nevermind just go back to sci

Obviously, it's just to examplify the issue. Let's assume my dice is a true random dice, as in there is no way to determine which side it lands on. Let's call it a quantum dice. Even if I throw a quantum dice before every decision you make that decision won't be free, it will be undetermined and truly random, but it won't be free. For it to be free it can neither be truly random nor predetermined.

Well sure, but refuting hard determinism doesn't prove free will. Clearly the world is deterministic in some sense or there wouldn't be any replicability in science. Even if some things are truly random we would have to demonstrate that this also applies to the decision making of humans. And even if our decision making had some degree of randomness it still wouldn't make it free.

Except you can't because your urges are the result of prior conditions silly buns

The entire argument against free will is based on the idea of determinism

t. knows nothing about quantum physics beyond pop science youtube videos

in every free will thread
ironically like fucking clockwork

>urges = will
You really should read some Kant

Meant for

No it isn't. Hard determinism is simply the knockout hypothesis against free will, there are many other arguments you can make which don't require the world to be fully deterministic.

What does he say?

Hopefully this isn't a question of semantics. I view will as just another urge. For example, you are hungry and want to eat a donut, but you also want to not be fat so you can have more sex. You could say you are exercising willpower to refrain from eating the donut, when in actuality you are still a slave to your urges, you just so happen to value the urge to have sex over the urge to stuff your face with tasty donut goodness.

>semantics are not important
The distinction between will and urges has a long tradition in philosophy and you shouldn't just use them as synonyms, for the sake of your argument

So you disagree with my point? You're going to have to clarify how and why.

I'm not going to summerize Kant for you. Just read it yourself
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

of course free will doesn't exist
It doesn't exist because it can't exist because it's based on a flawed inaccurate notion that there even is some singular all encompassing "will" which for some reason can be in only one of two states
This is really one of the greatest false dilemmas ever perpetuated

There's a sadness to existence of this thread.

Prise is a sin. Determinism in general is also just a justification of all your sins, because you rid yourself of all responsibility.

someone hasn’t read Romans 9

I’ve never met a determinist who wasn’t a total loser desu
I think part of it is just relinquishing responsibility and is a coping mechanism

>Determinism in general is also just a justification of all your sins, because you rid yourself of all responsibility.
what about those Protestants(I think calvinists?) that maintain that the saved are predetermined but they still talk about sin

Just because you believe the future has been decided from the beginning doesn’t mean you should start purposely harming yourself through your decisions. If you knew the world was deterministic with absolute knowledge, would you really stop trying to better yourself? It’s not the view on determinism that’s the issue, it’s the character of the person.

Obviously choice is an illusion. But the brainlets in this thread havent taken the next step deeper: the chooser is the true illusion.

It doesn't matter what determinists are or how you would describe them. It has no bearing on whether the deterministic position is true.

What you are describing is fatalism, there are plenty of public intellectuals that are determinists and at least financially successful.

Just a coping tool for Westerners to make them feel good and in control of their lives.

ah! the shameful retreat

so getting involved in the debate you launched isn't as interesting as getting involved in the meta-discussion about your presumable anal-wreckage?

>Practical aspect
This implies that there's an intention behind our justice system and intention always implies free will. You just refuted yourself.
t. Brainlet
>determinism is truth because of determinism
Great argument, bud

Alexander the Great was a determinist.

>intention always implies free will
No it doesnt. An intention can easily be caused by prior events.

?

Intention does not imply free will; that intention is completely dependent upon cause on the effect. I see I'm wasting my time arguing with you, you fail to grasp a relatively easy to understand concept.

Ah I see. So that's why people make mistakes, so they can regret them afterwards. Thank you. I now see that nobody has ever done something bad for themselves despite being aware of it being bad for them.

Honestly you should fucking apologize for that statement, to about 20% of all people that have ever had to deal with abusive environments.

How does the particle appear in one place out of an infinite possible states? Multiverse theory is gay as fuck, so no.

>Material causes make up your neurology.

What makes you think so?

I apologize for misspelling "Epistemologically".

Free will does exist, for those who are free. The unfree are always saying that it doesn’t exist. Their not making metaphysical claims, their just confessing to their wretched condition.

explain it then good friend