Do you honestly believe you possess free will?

Do you really?
Maybe you replied to this post because seeing it made your subconscious react in a way, made you feel anger, frustration against this idea that you simply had to reply.
Was that free will?

no. thats a myth. take a look around and see how many of our fellow peons are breeding. tons of them. I'm sure its their first choice. to bring a leech into the world so you have to work harder and more hours. yez, we have free will.

The will splits consciousness when it is not necessary to. How was this done?

Are those Go pieces? Does Lost include Go?

Yes and yes, although only in episode 1

Is it insightful/interesting commentary on Go or just pop trash?

You come to a fork in the road.

One path is clear open fields of green, the other path is dark and overgrown with scary trees fencing you in overhead. Whichever choice you make, was it ever really yours to make?

Sorry, it's backgammon

youtube.com/watch?v=z4GTqgQqnBo

*destroys your children logic*

Attached: Gravity.jpg (3600x3206, 2.75M)

>Freewill? I can't believe in something so sophmoric. I believe in destiny

Attached: 85498758-muscular-man-with-leather-jacket-on-naked-torso-wearing-fedora-hat-isolated-on-white-backgr (866x1300, 113K)

Yes.

Lame!

Attached: png.png (1348x840, 185K)

I dont believe it, I know it Because i do.

Umm sweatie

Have sex

I believe in free will, but I suppose I don't have any choice in the matter, do I?

Attached: burroughs_edited.png (212x170, 39K)

Causality isn't the same as determinism.

>argues from moral perspective
The worst sin of humanity is the thought that its somehow objective in it of itself, life well may be, but your mechanical existence has to be predetermined which is proven literally by existence of mathemathics
saying you have "free will" is bullshit because "will" does not appear out of nowhere, it has to be honed and developed, which is ultimately developed by your enviroment and your genetics, neither of which you have control over, which completely defeats thesis of "free will"
Evil does not become inexcusable because existence of morality is predetermined also, thus is our reaction to that which we consider amoral or as you put it, evil, which in it of itself is a product of other mechanisms ( maybe child abuse etc. which is also determined by other factors ) etc. I don't have to go any further into this, if you aren't complete brainlet, you get my point

Yes

Attached: 1560717142393.jpg (828x1103, 115K)

I've said it before, and I'll say it before: determinism and free will are compatible.

How is it not?
How is saying that you have a fee choice not saying that the choice you make is not caused by anything?
If it is caused, than it is predetermined. If its not, you are rejecting causality.
How do you reconcile this?

No idea. But I doubt anyone uses it as often as they think they do.

Just because everything is caused by something that causality is deterministic does not mean the future can be predicted. The real determinism in our universe is statistical.

QFT is statistically deterministic with no local hidden variables, shown by the bell inequalities, meaning the future can only be statistically predicted and is truly random.

A free will is one that comes to be shaped such that the waves that crash against it are funneled through its caverns and excreted back with an uncanny force. A will that comes to react to and know itself, that not only understands its contingent nature but capitalizes on it. However, a big enough wave will always uproot the entire structure; we do not have the free will of a god, or absolute freedom.

Limited free will. You can't believe yourself to fly and start flying

yes the consequences of determinism are absurd, doesn't change the fact i believe it (determinism)
yes some prior movement controls me like a puppet master
yes the decision was already made
yes a man is no different from a rock
yes the self and our deliberations are illusions
i can still make sense of morality so idk where u got that one
love has changed meanings and many things are absurd
yes im more sympathetic towards bad people, they were doomed to be bad, it still makes sense why we treat them the way we do, but also we are doomed to treat the bad people badly.

arguing against against a belief because you can't comprehend the consequences is a bad practice.

also materialism > determinism

Attached: 1565975389781.png (624x455, 25K)

consciousness refutes determinism. don’t waste your time on brainlet sam harris philosophies. determinism makes sense from a scientific perspective only, which is a perspective that doesn’t take consciousness into account.

You realize that the alternatives to hard determinism (probablism/randomness) don't support 'free' or 'real' will either? It's a psychological conceit.

The concept of blame might change, but a murderer or otherwise 'evil' person still represents a danger and would be dealt with. They would still be responsible by locus of effect if not will. Personally, I think facing the facts about how people are shaped by their genetics and environment would lead to more effective crime prevention.

I understand why your notion of romantic love would be diminished, by why would attraction and long-term compatibility really be any less significant? It's still something wonderful to experience and preserve.

>determinism makes sense from a scientific perspective only

Quantum mechanics destroyed determinism 100 years ago.

>alternatives to hard determinism (probablism/randomness) don't support 'free' or 'real' will
That's only because you're presupposing consciousness as emergent from matter.

There are alternatives where consciousness is fundamental, not emergent from matter, and thus free will is not impossible.

Those spiritual/mystical 'alternatives' do not even have the beginnings of an empirical pathway of understanding. Also, regression would apply... We would have to ask what the nature of manifestation is in this fundamental realm, which leads back to randomness and determinism.

Ya

Yes, but a very limited one.

Only if you cherry pick an interpretation of it. There is multiple ones you know.
Also see Quantum Eraser.

>Those spiritual/mystical 'alternatives' do not even have the beginnings of an empirical pathway of understanding

Not all the worldviews that propose consciousness as fundamental are spiritual or mystical.

The fathers of quantum mechanics (Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger) thought that consciousness was fundamental. Von Neumann laid out a mathematical model that made consciousness and quantum equations compatible.

Quantum mechanics are fundamentally dualistic. The dualism can be resolved with the microscopic-macroscopic duality, but it raises the paradox of what collapsed the first macroscopic entity.

Randomness and determinism are the only options only in an emergence model, because those are the things that objects can do: act deterministically or randomly. And you assume your subjective experience to be no different from an object.

You are right. But those interpretations are counter-reactions. Determinism proposed something. It got blown out of the water. And then some ad-hoc fixes were made to save it, but it lost its purpose arguably.

What about the quantum eraser though?

>no free will cuz muh determinism
I hate this retarded topic. There's nothing to learn or discuss, and either way it changes literally nothing about the concept of choice in practice. Determinism is redundant nonsense leaned on by doomers to disassociate themselves from their poor choices.

Attached: pizzasquirrel.jpg (263x251, 44K)

There’s wiggle room. Life isn’t like clockwork, its a pathway. Sometimes narrow sometimes widened.

Attached: CE30BD9C-8BDF-411C-AA83-5B4DCF13B61F.png (1110x728, 204K)

when you move your fingers to type are you micromanaging the synapses necessary to contract muscles in tandem or are you relying on automated processes that occur from external brain signals?

What are the other options? Even in the spiritual realm what option is there besides randomness or determinism? Now I expect you to say "freewill", but what is that? Can you define it more than "god gives us magic powers"?

Nah senpai. Ever heard of electric universe theory?

No, quantum mechanics is fundamentally probabilistic.

The 'collapse' you're speaking of is a mathematical function, it is not known that it represents a real process. All apparent 'paradoxes' are only a lack of knowledge.

I'd be interested in hearing even the most nascent details of these other options. We can readily assume that the most fundamental state of existence is without cause itself, but the issue is that any variation occurring in that state (which must occur to produce the variation we observe -- even we don't observe the noumenal) reveals that randomness/determinism is an aspect of the nature of that state, even if the state itself is causeless. I suppose you're saying that variation is produced in some way we can't begin to imagine due to the limitations of our perception, but if you're going to rely upon negatives then it's fair for us to dismiss your perspective.

I'm not so sure. Ironically, I think understanding how completely we are phenotypically produced might lead us to be more cautious about what influences we expose ourselves to.

Yes.

It irrelevant

wrong

I don't understand the second sentence, can you explain or point me to some lit?

Yes. I have compatablist free will, not retarded libertarian free will.
If I want to make a post replying to you, and I wanted to want to make a post replying to you, then if I did otherwise than to reply to you, I wouldnt be free. But libertarian free will explictly implies I can do otherwise than what I desire, which isn't free will at all. Imagine if everything you did was completely incongruent with your desires. You would feel like you're completely unfree, like an abstract mind disconnected from their body, unable to impose their will.

I have a regular habit of blue balling myself because I can't bring myself to become a person who jerks off at mid day. I jerk it until I'm rock hard and then I just stop and let it die down. I have done this many, many times and I will continue to do so in the future. The reasons I do what I do is that I'm horny and need a break from studying, but I also look down on people who jerk off at the middle of the day and I wish to never be like them. If this doesn't showcase my free will, I don't know what else possibly could.

>I believe in destiny. Even if I make some kind of choice is because of destiny that I made that kind of decision.
Book for this feel?

>it's never the conscious, it's always the subconscious!
Pfft

A man is free if and only if he is temperate which is the case only if he resists the desire to watch porn too often.

HE'S FOUND THE SECRET! Destroy him before it spreads.

Reason gives expression to the laws of inevitability. Consciousness gives expression to the essence of freedom.

Freedom not limited by anything is the essence of life, in man's consciousness. Inevitability without content is man's reason in its three forms.

Freedom is the thing examined. Inevitability is what examines. Freedom is the content. Inevitability is the form.

It's only a hop and skip for you to arrive at the actually logical conclusion, which is that everything we do is always the result of some desire/impulse and it isn't possible for us to do otherwise. These impulses are shaped by the interaction between genes and environment, and so desire is no indication of will -- quite the opposite.

Funny, but it only means that you're finding some balance between competing desires.

It's no concern of mine whether my desires originate, only that my volitations are as congruent with my desires as is possible. This is the sensible way to understand the true meaning of free will.
Again, consider the opposite case. Suppose for any decision I've made, I could have done otherwise if the scene replayed, the intial conditions all reset. Let's say in this case, the decision is what baseball cap I want to purchase. Both a Chicago Cubs cap and a New York Yankees cap are available at the store. I prefer the Yankees, so I buy that.
Reset everything and replay. Instead of buying the Yankees cap, which I still prefer, I buy the Cubs cap, which I despise. Me failing to make my desires effective on my volitions would lead us to conclude that I did not exercise my will.
On the other hand, if you replayed the scene and every time I decided the same thing, despite libertarian free will being supposed to exist in this hypothetical, I would be truly exercising my will freely, because on every replay I will want the Yankees cap, and so if I am a rational actor, I will pick that cap every time.
Therefore my inability to choose otherwise is extraneous to the matter of free will, because a rational person who seeks to maximize their preferences would also lack the ability to choose otherwise, even if they "could" in some metaphysical sense.
So whether your desires are congruent with your volitions is the true test of free will.

Does it matter? As long as you're under the illusion, makes no difference.

Well I don't know what to say except read about QFT.

The bell inequalities show that there are no local hidden variables.
Further still there so reason to believe there is a wave function collapse. Decoherence sure, but no wave function collapse, as said.

With that said quantum physics is just probabilities. If you have a high degree of certainty of somethings momentum you can't know it's position. If you freeze something close to absolute zero then whatever you decide has no distinct position, and that is not just because it's hard to know, it is fundamental.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Is there any chance I’ll really understand any of this shit being a mathlet? I’d love to get into it, but I won’t have the time reading hard shit and learning math for years while I’m in college.

You don’t have a choice about your desires.

yeah

people who say free will doesn't exist failed somewhere in life and didn't do anything to change it

is that you argument?

explain how your will has a physical effect on the world, then collect your nobel prize.

Occam says yes

>explain how your will has a physical effect on the world
is that your argument?
i just opened my door and closed it

you are accountable for your own actions
you can change the world or at least try it if you will so
and by world I mean the reality that affects you

>i just opened my door and closed it
that was caused by your body moving

are you a believer if philosophical zombies or are you arguing for mind-body dualism?

>you can change the world or at least try it if you will so
>and by world I mean the reality that affects you
if will or thoughts can change the world that is not an argument, at least not a very strong one, for free will. That is rather an argument of telekinesis and similar phenomenon.

Any way if you are arguing your thoughts are outside your mind and somehow non-physical, which you have no argued for by the way if you are confused, then the effect they have on your mind to excite neurons and then release ATP in your muscles would be measurable so it would no longer be non-physical per definition.

There has never been any measurement that has shown a hint for this.

what are you even saying, i willed my body to move the door.
explain to me why free will doesn't exist.

If you mean your thoughts through cause and effect caused your body to move, then sure. But how is that different from a computer? If you can change your thoughts, except through deterministic means, is it still free will according to you?

>if will or thoughts can change the world that is not an argument, at least not a very strong one, for free will
maybe you should explain what you understand for free will then

and by free will maybe you should explain what you understand as FREE also
I understand as free something that is done without coercion

I mean being able to change ones will non-deterministically.
If the outcome is the same every time in a hypothetical universe or simulation then where is the free in free will?

not really you can act on one thing while thinking about something else.
i've given you my argument now give me yours.

What is that supposed to be an argument for?
A computer can also do several things at the same time.

Are you fine with calling a potentially deterministic system free will?

you said thoughts caused my body to move, i'm telling you you can think of anything you want while you open that door.
i've already told you why free will exists.
you still have written anything about why it doesn't, so stop being a piece of shit and tell me why you think it doesn't.

>If the outcome is the same every time
Then that's the will of every fucking being alive, what gives? How is that not free? If no one is forced to take a choice how is that not free will?
Maybe you're just a contrarian man
and yeah there will always someone that opposes the mainstream choice, it's normal and that's good
if there's no darkness there's no light

The only thing you've written I can see that talks about anything that I Caan possibly see as free will is if you will with free will.

Will is just conscious motivation and does not necessarily have anything to do with free will, unless that is the definition and then free will is meaningless since it is deterministic.
>you said thoughts caused my body to move, i'm telling you you can think of anything you want while you open that door.
>you said thoughts caused my body to move, i'm telling you you can think of anything you want while you open that door.
Thoughts can be a part of the cascade that in the end causes the body to move but any neural activity can cause the same, it neither had to be motivated, conscious or even take part in the brain.

Can you explain why one is free will and one is reflex? Because of conscious will?

There is no choice made it is an illusion if the outcome is the same every time.
If you can call a deterministic world with the illusion of choice is free will then yes, free will exists.

What is the meaning of saying there is a choice when no choice is made?

Do you believe in some sort of God of major power that controls everything? If no then how is this world deterministic?

The physical laws are strictly deterministic.

>Thoughts can be a part of the cascade that in the end causes the body to move but any neural activity can cause the same, it neither had to be motivated, conscious or even take part in the brain.
so you agree that thoughts and actions aren't directly correlated. stop playing word games like a fucking cunt.
>Can you explain why one is free will and one is reflex? Because of conscious will?
you can change your reflexes by acting in a way different to your natural reflex is. that's free will.

tell me why free will doesn't exist fuckface.