Free Will is absolutely retarded

>mfw a determinist I argued with said that we shouldn't hold criminals accountable for their crimes because they didn't choose to do them, their crimes were just a sum of their outside influences
If everything is a big butterfly effect, where is the origin?

Attached: 1574019228770.png (1080x1055, 772K)

>complains about other people being lazy
>too lazy/stupid to present his argument in a logically rigorous fashion
the absolute state of Yea Forums
fight me brainlets

I am not a determinist, I'm just saying that whether physics is deterministic or whether QM is actually stochastic (which I believe it is) this doesn't allow for free will.
If you want to be reductionist (which I do) then we reduce the human mind down to particles and their behavior in the brain. Whether the mechanics of these particles are deterministic or stochastic doesn't allow for free will in either case.

Not the guy but:
A choice means the Will, self , or soul, directing itself towards one thing instead of another. For instance, deciding to think about A instead of B. Now, you can say
>"But what you decide to think is influenced by external factors."
Which is true, but I think it's just common sense that the cognition or awareness is still the decider between the available options, but ah! You say how it chooses is pre-decided! Maybe so, but in that case, why must we think before action? Why think of what we're about to do if we have no choice?

>Everything you do is a choice
No.
>if you think otherwise you probably make poor choices
You are exactly right, and you somehow think that is an argument against what I said. People who "make good choices", think they made them themselves; not because they actually did, but because that's how people work. People who don't, don't. Not that the latter necessarily knew any better then the former, because it's ultimately, again, just how people work. Humans, being flawed creatures with limited perception, all work with the unconscious/intuitive belief of free will; even determinists. is very much correct: determinism is a cope. It's just a cope that happens to be true. It's a truth no human can ever recognize on an unconscious level, only intellectually.

Sex is boring

Question: why do people argue for determinism? Why does it matter? Will we live lives any differently under the shadow of determinism?

WOAH, a single word response followed by meaningless rambling about how you're right without any evidence or actual argumentation?
Guess I'm a determinism now, as was fated. TRUST THE FATE, BROTHER.

It's just masturbation, honestly.

People who are philosophically minded like to think about how things are, just for the sake of it.

Let's look at the definition you've provided. According to your post, a choice is some entity (will, soul etc)
>directing itself towards one thing instead of another
in other words
>choosing one thing instead of another
You have effective defined a "choice" as "choosing something"
Please come up with a less circular definition so that we may proceed anew.

"free" will is retarded, just as retarded as determinism is. any sensible person knows that we are limited and therefore have limited wills.

An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
I don't know how else to phrase it. It's not circular, it's rather simple. A choice is a choice, what's a choice? Deciding between two or more things. I don't understand what you're asking for.

So they have too much time on their hands?

We don't hold robots accountable for their malfunctions but we still scrap them nevertheless.
>the shadow of determinism?
How is it a shadow? I though it was supposedly a comforting cope like nearly everyone ITT keep saying?

You are assuming that the Universe is the equivalent of a giant Rube Goldberg machine and that everything necessarily follows its 'source'.
I see very little reason for this to be true. For example, on the Quantum level particles can act totally randomly, with no influence from the outside world. Now of course how these interact with the greater world is unknown, but at a root level we have unpredictability ingrained into the Universe.
Then factor in sapience and its ability to let humans act in irrational and obtuse ways, however that works, as again we don't really understand that either, and things get even more unfortunate for determinism in my view.

cont.
Alright, now I think I understand. A choice is self direction towards any variation or specific outcome, regardless of achievement or not.

How would YOU know?

Its a cope for those that support it, and a hell for those that don't.

Ask your mother

>it's rather simple. A choice is a choice
>I don't understand what you're asking for.
Fair enough. Suppose I tell someone that motor vehicles are powered by internal combustion, and they say: I don't believe you - prove it. I tell him
>internal combustion is just what we call the activity inside an internal combustion engine
This is not likely to be considered a satisfactory proof. Much better would be my description and explanation to them of the principles underlying the function of an internal combustion engine - the combustion of a fuel air mixture pushing pistons that are connected by a crankshaft, etc. More importantly, my explanation should allow that person to understand what distinguishes locomotion via internal combustion from other means of generating movement, such as an electric motor.
So, you could try to explain how one comes to identify a decision that is motivated by "free will" from a decision that is motivated by some other process (e.g. a machine learning algorithm choosing which direction to move toward)

youtube.com/watch?v=XkWgJimnz4g

>Quantum level particles can act totally randomly, with no influence from the outside world.
Please don't bring in your basic bitch, kurzgesagt video understanding of quantum mechanics into this. Of course, it seems random, empiricism has it's limits.
>Then factor in sapience and its ability to let humans act in irrational and obtuse ways
Humans act "irrational" and "obtuse" sometimes because you obviously don't know what may have caused them to act that way. But there is always a cause. Nobody just wakes up in the morning and becomes a mass murderer just because they willed it to be so.

No user, as I said I am NOT a determinist, however it is still unknown whether or not QM is truly stochastic or if it has underlying deterministic behavior.
Still, if we are being reductionist about the mind, then whether the pattern of particles moves deterministically or stochastically doesn't change the fact that we are not in control of the movement of these particles and thus do not have free will.

I do think that's better, but please my other post.
Let me address an interesting point you made
>Why think of what we're about to do if we have no choice?
I submit that our awareness of our own thoughts (which constitutes an essential part of being conscious, I think) does not necessitate what you claim it does. It could simply indicate that, unlike other apparent entities (like amoeba or robots) we experience what it is actually like to be alive.

Free will vs full determinism is a confusion of language within philosophical debate and amounts to a jack off session because it inherits no self awareness. Determinism describes the limits of reality (language and the Mental) whereas "free will" concerns the ability to abstract new signs and modulate a linguistic frame. Determinism is the agent unconsciously aware that he is pretending he doesn't exist as he creates his model of existence and is inherently paradoxical. Determinism is really just a thinly veiled older Idealism except with more confounding language.

Keep your 11th grade condescension to yourself. Know about what you are discussing before spouting bullshit please.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120516093015.htm
Here is a rather easy place to start. A team showed that there is a small amount of randomness inherent in the world or quantum phyics, and that this randomness can be amplified infinitely. Of course because this is a small study it doesn't disprove determinism all its own, but it puts a massive chip into it that later work can continue to break through.

*of quantum physics

cont
>Why think of what we're about to do if we have no choice?
I had another thought about this (this is not mean as a logical counterargument, just an observation). We seem to put ourselves in situations where we don't really have any choice about what's about to happen, simply for the pleasure and thrill of experiencing whatever's about to happen. A person getting on a roller coaster is one such example. I really think certain other activities, like the ski descent at the top of a lengthy climb up a mountain, also constitute such an example. Once a person begins skiing down, they really have no choice about what's going on - they simply have to be able to ski as well as it takes to make it down alive (which they really should be able to lol), and enjoy the ride down as they do.
Not really the same thing as what you're talking about, of course.

You are correct that non-determinism and free will are not interchangeable.

Will is a part of the soul it is part of the fabric of reality it is what causes change in consciousness

I think I understand better. Now, a decision made by free will and those made of instinct, what is the difference? Well, the entity which most people would identify themselves as, that is, a persons cognition or awareness, not their subconscious, detects or believes a result to be gained from certain actions, which it preforms in hope to acquire that effect or result. When the unconscious does this, it is instinct. Now, the cognition processes of detection and performance may indeed be be pre-determined, but I think possible to change, and the crux of our debate here is this:
>Does the self or awareness make decisions, or is it's decision making pre-determined by it's circumstances
And I think we should both agree, there's no concrete answer. Science just ain't able to answer this yet and maybe never will be. You can claim, for instance, in testing they found the brain plans to move the body before it can be mentally thought of, but then why think before committing an action? If your body already knows what to do...

I speculate this: It is limited and biased, but there is still choice. Not complete free will, but not complete fatalism. As the old proverb states, Can't change wind, can adjust sails. Indeed, like a vidja game Main character, can't decide which endings are available, but can still change the ending. Another thing. Determinism, to me, seems to be rather depressing, and I sometimes think used as reasoning to stay in bed longer. But hey, that's just a theory, a Yea Forums theory.

You're replying to two people, I'm It seems to me like the only evidence that any of us has for believing in our ability to choose different outcomes, is just the assumption that one has the ability to choose different outcomes. This assumption is premised on a feeling of being in control of certain actions, thoughts, etc. But I know that this feeling can entirely disappear under the right circumstances. When this happens, one will know longer feel that the assumption is justified.
The fact that we experience thought can be further broken down into two things: the fact that we experience things *at all*, much of them non-voluntarily, and the fact that the brain is an information processing entity not unlike an artificial neural network and so is in a constant state of perceiving and planning.

I can see from reading this thread that you are a materialist. It is hard to define "free" if we stay within materialism, as what it means is everything has to be traceable by physical causality - hence not "free" - in the first place. Here I want to remind you that we still don't have such absolute empirical knowledge of the world - if we agree that mental processes occur through a model of consciousness (with any number of supporting constructs, i.e subconsciousness) - then we are still far from analyzing these on the material level, it's quite a leap to make from looking at the super-structure of the organ.
I too believe every thought is materialized as it occurs, but if every thought also takes a dominant role in shaping the next one, so to speak, then rational and psychological structures have a lot more power in shaping the outcome than pure physical relations (if you have a power than can rapidly create and dissolve miniature PHYSICAL STRUCTURES by machinations which are anything but physical, doesn't that change the rules of matter itself? Can you look at it as a "free" material process?

The only soul that I have is Rubber Soul biatch

I have the free will to kindly say fuck off

As dumb as it sounds user that is the actual logical conclusion of determinism so it all becomes circular so at some point there would have to be an unmoved mover or else determinist would just say "lol you cant give me the origin of all things and determine how choice exist from that so i win"

Imagine unironically asking questions that can't be answered.

Hate to be the "middle ground" guy user but you poison the well pretty bad here with some false dichotomies
>If people have will, and this will is somehow not caused or influenced by anything, how could its decision-making not be 100% random? If it is influenced, then how free could it be?
an action can be influenced but still be a choice. A lot of "calculated risks" are like this you have a certain level of influence pulling to either side but a choice can still be made.The argument that no choice can ever be "made" due to external circumstances is dependent upon the presupposed claim that there would have to be some originating force that set in motion you choosing action A over action B. The problem with this is that unless you (or any other arguer for determinism as I know it) were to give some agreeable reasoning as to why that "original force" influenced you to make a choice then we would just be resigned to the randomness that you critique free will of "having"

Attached: Brook.gif (1920x1080, 505K)

>Of course, it seems random, empiricism has it's limits.
imagine unironically being more of a brainlet than kurzgesagt

By determinism I assume you mean lack of free will (as against determinism in the quantum sense).
Personally I don't think it changes anything but I argue for it because I believe it's obviously true.
You've also framed your question in a way that suggests free will is somehow the default position (when there is no reason it is). You could equally ask why people argue for free will. Would that change anything?

>why do people argue for determinism?
they don’t have a choice

The universe is everything
A determined will needs something determining it outside of it
There is nothing outside of the universe
Therefore, the universe has free will
we are part of the universe
Therefore, we have partially free will
Therefore, for every part of the universe where we are free, everyone else is constrained/determined by that part
and, vice versa, every part that we are not, we are constrained/determined by

You are contained within causality as a high-level product. By the same token your simple reductive mechanical view of things literally doesn't exist in reality. On the level of human senses it all appears consistent, but what cause due you have to believe in some underlying causality to begin with.

Therefore, space is continuous, for every part can be broken up into smaller parts
No two parts are equal, so they will have to be different
This difference is in their ability to control their determination of others
This difference is called "power"
Therefore, everything is effecting everything else, infinitely divisible, and related

free-will says you're making your choices and responsible for your intentions.

determinism says some mysterious, undetectable force is mind-controlling you into thinking you have free-will, and you should believe in this magical force because physicists wear lab coats and Sam Harris speaks very slowly.

>There is nothing outside of the universe
>Therefore, the universe has free will

Attached: 1572394823.jpg (480x360, 10K)

A hierarchy of "wills" can be created based on power
All acts of power are acts of creation
All creations are a harmonized complexity
Therefore, all creation can be ranked according to harmonized complexity
The universe has the largest possible complexity and highest possible harmony
Therefore, the universe is the best of all possible worlds
all worlds must be contained within this universe
Therefore, this is the only world, with their being no outside the world
so, space must both be finite but have no end
Therefore, space is endlessly recurring, so if you went far enough in one direction, you would return to the same spot you initially started from
time must both have a period but have no end
Therefore, time is eternally repeating, so if enough time passed, you would return back to the moment you started waiting

Morals are brainwashed into you

We feel as if it exists therefore it existes

A rule is determined outside the universe
There is no outside the universe
Therefore, the universe has no rules
Therefore, any rules concieved were created
Therefore, power rules

I agree. It seems like the assumption that it exists is necessary in order to function in the sort of day-to-day life most of us have to deal with. What do you think of?
Ted Chiang wrote about this
nature.com/articles/436150a

NIgga like how can free will not exist? Like ha ha either Do or Do not nigga, how hard can it be? Seriously, what matters is not free will, but rather if you, despite your views on it, try to make a better life for yourself. Many Fatalists don't ever try to change their lives because they feel they can't. It's as silly as believing in Karma.

Is there any bigger cope then Determinism?
>I can't change my life situation! I'm in charge of nothing!
>*uses this as excuse to browse image boards for days.*

>people unironically believe their choices are authored by themselves and aren't just an expression of predisposition + experience
ISHYGDDT

>free will does not fit into my materialistic worldview means it is not real even though it is obliviously real

>I wish someone would actually explain this fucking nebulous concept instead of tip-toeing around it with platitudes.

Sure. Free will is the singularity of information complexity. (Which is the same thing as the singularity of information entropy.)

> If people have will, and this will is somehow not caused or influenced by anything, how could its decision-making not be 100% random?

You're almost correct, but you haven't thought this thing through.

Consider a perfect coin flip that is 100% random. Yet the result is still only 1 bit of information: either it's heads or tails.

Consider a d20. It's still 100% random, and yet 20 times more informative than a coin: there are 20 possible results.

Continue this train of thought further until you get a die with an infinite number of faces, each face itself infinitely random, and you get free will.

>I base whats "real" on my subjective fefes
>also materialism is too restrictive and I just want to believe in woo-woo
damn Yea Forums really is full of absolute pseuds

except i don't have any idea what you are going to think as much you yourself know what you are going to think in the next second.
You are not the author, you just happen to be the first person witnessing this stream of consciousness.

Yeah, but it's still obvious that thinking influences the actions of the body, and that the cognition, though it is influenced and part of a larger system, is still a variable in that system, and does carry change from it. Such as, I agree that it may already be pre-determined what you're going to think and what you choose, but you still have to choose it. To claim that this faculty of cognition is unable to alter it's situation is a mistake, I feel. For instance, a being may be fated to think one way and decide such and such, but the decision was decided and fated to be in part because of the thinking and cognition faculty.

Basically, what I'm saying is this:
>tl;dr Maybe, but you should still try to manage your life and not just let yourself be tossed about randomly

Another way to explain what I'm saying. Like a series of cars, where one in the back bumps into one, which causes it to go forward and hit another, which hits another, so on. Just because the orignating force started the process does not remove the other cars still being part of the chain. So too, the mind may be determined by fate and thinks such and such, but the actions resulting from them still come from that mind, even if it be pre determined.