/lit/ - Literature

What do YOU think ? Do YOU know of any such books, fren ? Am I a frenchman or not?

>>14168521
>Which philosophers and books discuss free will?
I don't read philosophers.
>Is free will a thing?
Yes, obviously.

>>14168521
I want to talk about free will, but some force outside myself is forcing me not to.

>>14168521
What is free will?

>>14168534
No friend. I do not know of such books nor of your Frenchness.
I need a little push to start thinking about it, I'm not the brightest you see

>>14168521
It's kinda complicated. There are obviously forces (like biology, neuro-chemistry, our experiences) that influence us and our actions. It is difficult - if not impossible - to will something that goes against our nature. However within those parameters we do have the freedom to make our own choices.

>>14168612
P.S. i don't have any recs, sorry

>>14168612
So even if we have limitations it still counts as free will

>>14168621
In your opinion of course.
>>14168616
It's alright. Thanks for contributing

>>14168612
>However within those parameters we do have the freedom to make our own choices.
freedom from what? All the things that influence our decisions? I don’t see how the freedom can exist. You think that a decision is a choice because you sense multiple desires, not knowing which is the greatest until you actually make the decision. But at that time you pretend that “you” made the choice, for no other reason than that you were free to do it, or that “you” wanted it to be that way. Where is the freedom, exactly?

>>14168521
If you are truly free, then why are you not perfect? Do you not want to be perfect? But if you want to be perfect, then why do you not will it above all things, and attain that perfection?

>>14168684
What's that got to do with free will?

>>14168521
nice false dichotomy

>>14168692
If your will is free, and you know what is good for you, then why is it that you do not will what is good for you?

>>14168699
I'm not sure you understand what free will is

>>14168709
Then feel free to define it. If your description doesn’t distinguish between “will” and “free will,” then don’t bother.

>>14168717
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Will itself is basically desire.
Men can desire anything, doesn't mean they can have it even if they have free will.
Imo

>>14168799
>unimpeded
unimpeded by what? Other people? If I have desires within me, and my greatest desire at the moment is to take a nap, while I should be working on something else, then aren’t my desires themselves impediments? If you are truly unimpeded, then why can’t you choose the path that you know is best? See >>14168684
>>14168699
again. You can see the paths, and know what is good for you, yet you often choose the lesser path. Why do this if you are free? If you were able to stick out your hand and grab gold out of the ground, would you not take it? So why do you not use freedom to choose the best path?

>>14168699
That's not really what free will is. I can want something which is physically unattainable; I can want to be someone else for example. The fact that I cannot ever be someone else doesn't mean my will isn't free, it means that I cannot will what is unreal real. Free will isnt magic, it's a choice. Not being able to choose something impossible doesn't mean your will isn't free. It just means it isn't magic. The question of free will is about whether or not you're actually choosing A or B, or whether or not your choice was predetermined. Not about why you can't choose C.

Theses on Feuerbach by Karl Marx

I don't get why people struggle with free will, it doesn't even matter

>>14168849
You’re adding to my words. Out of the things that are possible, you know what is good for you. You may not be able to become wealthy by tomorrow, but you can certainly work instead of procrastinating. You may not be able to become a god, but you can abstain from cooming, yes? Surely this isn’t impossible or magic? Yet people do these things. Procrastination and addiction are rampant. So now, I will ask again, why do you not use your freedom to do what is good for you and avoid what is bad for you?

>>14168867
>adding to my words
No, I addressed your initial brainlet axiom. But since you want to add more words to it, I'll address those too.
>why not use your freedom to do what is best always at all times
For any number of reasons. I know having this chocolate isn't the most healthy thing to do but I like chocolate so I do it anyway. The question of free will, again, is whether or not my choice to have this chocolate was predetermined or not, by the myriad deterministic forces we theorize in the cosmos. The additional layer of goodness you're tossing on top of this is wholly outside the scope of the issue.

>>14168892
>The additional layer of goodness you're tossing on top of this is wholly outside the scope of the issue.
No because it reveals how enslaved we are to our desires. You know that you should not coom, and you may want to not coom, but at the same time, you desire to coom. Your rational desire is conflicting with the sensual. If your will is free, then why can’t you simply will to not coom? That is what it means to have a free will, yes? You can choose what you will? You can freely do what you think is best for you? So how do you explain the constant failure and sin of humanity? It seems as if we are slaves, not free. Sin is explained by the lack of freedom, not the presence of it!

>>14168699

Freedom of will is not freedom of action.

>>14168930
But you do what you will. If you control what you will, then you control what you do. Or do you mean to say that we sometimes do what we do not will? That seems absurd, especially from someone claiming that we are free.

>>14168927
>that is what it is to have free will, yes?
No. That's wrong, and I've explained why
>there is only one way to measure what is best for you
I know having a chocolate bar will make me less healthy, so it's bad by that metric.
But it might make me feel happier in the short term, so it's decent by a different metric. I may choose to eat the chocolate bar because I make a value judgement that the second metric is good enough. And yet again, this entire question is BEYOND the scope of the issue, which is--when I choose to eat it or not to eat it, regardless of my reasoning, was my choice predetermined or not? Whether or not it's a good choice has nothing to do with whether or not it was a choice at all.

You're an intellectual lightweight but then you just had to put yourself as Judeo-Christian acolyte as well so there's that. No more (you)s

Sartre literally said "You can do whatever the fuck you want, regardless of consequences"
So yeah, even if the aftermath sucks, you can do anything.

>>14168958
Why is the choice not predetermined? Are your value judgments not predetermined? How can you control the hunger for the chocolate, or the urge to coom? Your rational self always know that you should do something else, yet you succumb. Where is the freedom? Where is the choice? I do not see how you can maintain such a worldview and not see the incoherence of it. Are we slaves to our desires or not?

>>14168521
The World as Will and Representation
He talks about escaping (tricking) the world collective will with art and music and stuff

>>14168938

I don't think there is any meaningful connection between willing and doing, if any. Willing only goes against willing, doing against doing. I suppose the argument could be made from the outside-in, i.e. others' willing and doing superseding your own, but I find the willing-doing connection even more impassable from the inside-out.

>>14169013
Then why do we act? Why do we will?

>>14168982
There are so many flawed premises in what you're saying, you're equivocating free will with goodness of intention, and you're confounding the entire concoction with a layer of unrelated moral posteuring. The question of whether or not we are slaves to our desires has nothing to do with whether or not our choices are predetermined by empirical forces, and the only reason you're grafting these two things together into the Frankensteinish horror of a word stew that you are, is to preclude the question of free will with your own Juseo-Christian misgivings. I lied. You got one more (you).

>>14168823
Unimpeded by external factors.
Your first example was perfection.
While it is something you can desire, it's unattainable, not because of lack of free will.

Man can desire a number of things that are outside of his reach and willing enough is not enough to get them

>>14169033
See
>>14168849
This dudes already been btfo

>>14169028
>you're equivocating free will with goodness of intention
I’m only saying that a person who is free should do the thing he knows is best for him. St. Anselm gave a similar description, saying that free will is the ability to rectify yourself. You still have not explained why you do bad things when you are supposedly free to avoid them, and do better things. Your only excuse was that the lesser path was more appealing to you, but this only supports my premise that we are slaves to our desires, which we have no control over. Our wills are simply our strongest desires.
>The question of whether or not we are slaves to our desires has nothing to do with whether or not our choices are predetermined by empirical forces
Yes, it does. Our bodily desires are the result of biology, chemistry, and physics.

>>14169033
By perfection, I do not mean being a 10/10 Chad with a trillion dollars. I mean perfect righteousness, work ethic, honorable actions, etc. Is it possible to do this or not? Surely if everyone is free, then at least one person would never succumb to his animal desires and always do what he thinks is best for him?

>>14169061
I'm saying "best" does not always mean the exact same thing to every person in a given situation, which is where you and St Anselm need to re-examine your premises. You're now assuming that we don't have free will already, in order to ask the question about desire. Which isn't where this conversation started. And you're only pushing it there, again, to make sure your Judeo-Christian foundation isn't threatened by the initial question which I find tedious and baroque.

>>14169026

It's implicit, though not absolutely so, as far as I can tell. The eternal Subject and the eternal Present reflecting each other through Occasionalism, rather than cause and effect.

>>14169061
>>14169076
Also, I'll add: your desires are your will. Just because you regret it doesn't mean you didn't want it.

>>14169076
>I'm saying "best" does not always mean the exact same thing to every person in a given situation
Of course, and I ever said otherwise. But the fact is there are millions of guys out there are so desperately want to abstain from masturbation and porn, yet they cannot. Where is their free will? Why can’t they do what they think is best for them?

>>14169069
>perfect righteousness
See. There's your problem.
Man doesn't know perfection

>>14168655
i don't think i have freedom because of today world and civilization but a part of me thinks i will have full freedom if i was a primitive human or a wild animal, humans can be free FROM thing and FREE to do things but not now

>>14169096
You don’t have to know perfection. My point is that you can know what is good for you, or better, or what you imagine as perfect, yet you do what you know is bad instead. How can this be unless we are slaves to our desires?

>>14168537
>Yes, obviously.
How is it free? It seems to me that all our actions are guided by hierarchies of wanting, and these are mediated semiotically in relation with our social and material environment, so our will is never free from the culture we inhabit, the society and the material environment we interact with. On top of that, time is irreversible and we are constrained ever further. We are however free to act in accordance with those boundaries, not as an individual but as an extension of that all-encompassing organism. Now, is our freedom enhanced or constrained by not knowing the exact workings of that organism?

>>14169089
Again, there are many ways of making a value judgement. Best does not mean the same thing to everyone all the time in every situation, hence I may have more sugar because I like the way it tastes more than I care about the modicum of extra fat it will pack on my already frail frame. Thus, I always do what what is best for me as I judge it, and I always choose the highest path, because both of those are reckoned by me. Such is the freedom of my will. My reckoning changes constantly. My reckoning argues back and fourth and devalues or values short over long term at all times. My reckoning rues my past decisions and plans future ones only to be undone in a moment by? My own reckoning. It's always your choice to act on a desire, the desire to bust your nut or self flagellate to bring you closer to god are not different, and you will always do as you reckon best in the moment you are called on to do so. You want to know why you keep busting nuts?

You lack the intellectual fortitude to keep a consistent image of the good, and instead flail back and fourth between short and long term benefits bemoaning the curse of your God.

>>14169106
I'm done.
Read Plato or smth bro, I think you're confused

>>14169121
>I do what my body tells me to do therefore I have free will
No, you have a will.

>>14169101
Did you even read what the guy you’re responding to said

>>14169144
Bro you've been btfo so many times in this thread, read something other than pseuds' intellectual frameworks that crumble without presuming YHWH. Your initial conflation of free will and god intention remains entirely unfounded.

>>14169162
>Your initial conflation of free will and god intention remains entirely unfounded.
If you’re free to choose, and you have an idea of what is good for you, then why don’t you always choose what is good for you? Admit it plainly: we are not free to choose due to our desires which we have no control over. You see the food menu and think that you have a choice because the future is unknown to you. You’re stuck in the illusion and that’s why you can’t find the right words to defend yourself.

>>14169171
Start with my first post and read the next three our four again. I'm repeating myself at this point like you've been the entire thread. Good luck

The Foundation for Exploration is the number one most important book on this subject.

>>14169218
Describe the cases in which a human does not have free will. I don’t know what you mean by “free”

>>14169268
There's a post on a forum that I recognize is bait. I decide not to reply; so I don't reply. Was my choice to not reply predetermined by all of the physical and environmental factors which led the cosmos to the point of me sitting in front of the computer reading that post? As the world is governed by empirically rational and intelligible physical laws, which act in accordance with one another to produce the environments we inhabit, are we not also a product of those laws? If this is true, then all of the stimuli which led me to decide not to respond to the bait were determined regardless of my own individual agency; I was only ever going to take the bait.

Or, is my individual agency something which can act in defiance of, or against the natural empirical laws that create the environment in which I find myself? In this case, my will can be said to be "free." In the former, it is not free, it is determined. And I only feel as if it's free in the same illusory manner as the sky appears to be a solid blue firmament.

Whether or not it was good or bad to take the bait is an entirely separate question.

>>14169370
>Whether or not it was good or bad to take the bait is an entirely separate question.
But if you can act in defiance of, or against the natural empirical laws that create the environment in which you find yourself, then you could render the dangerous desires to be nothing. You could will that which you rationally desire, always. You could come to enjoy work just as much as the guilty pleasures that you could deny. But all of this isn’t the case. We’re always following our desires, whichever is the greatest. We are composed of things that have causes beyond ourselves. How can we neither be predetermined nor random?

>>14169389
You are presupposing a divine judiciary entity from which stems an absolute decree of what is good or bad in any given situation at all times, and then measuring one's choices against this. In reality, any number of factors may serve to entice one to reckon differently which outcome is more beneficial in any number of contexts.

Again, we're also not past free will yet. Everything you just posted assumes that free will exists. Why are you not convinced by the deterministic argument is it because you're presupposing god or do you have a different argument? But perhaps it's even less complicated to deal with your hand-waving. Try this:

I fail to see the distinction between desire and will. What is it?

Free will is not there, and neither is slavery. Dependence and independence are both false words. They should be dropped completely, they should not be used. It is interdependence. I exist in you, you exist in me. That is the way life is: we exist into each other, we people each other. The breath that was in me just a moment before has now moved and has gone into you. Just a moment before I could have said, "This is my breath" - but where is it now? Somebody else's heart is beating through it.

In your body the blood is flowing; just a few days ago it was flowing as juice in a tree. It became a fruit, now it is flowing in your body. Again you will fall to the earth - dust unto dust, and again a tree will arise; you will become fertilizer. And again a tree will become alive, and a fruit will come and your children's children will eat it. You have eaten your grandparents - you are eating them.

And this goes on and on. The whole past is eaten by the present. And the whole present will be eaten by the future. Life is interrelated, deeply interrelated. It is just like a net. You are just the crossing point of two threads. You are not; you are just a tie between two passing threads. When you understand that, you laugh, you really laugh! You have been carrying such burden.

That's why Jesus says, "Come follow me, my burden is light." Your burden is very heavy. Your burden is you. Jesus says, "My burden is light, it is weightless" - because when you are not, there is no weight, gravitation doesn't function then. You start to levitate. Wings grow out of you. You can fly.

Drop dichotomies: independence, dependence, they are interrelated. If you try to be independent, you will feel you are dependent. If you try to be independent, you will fail and you will be frustrated and you will feel that you are dependent. And both are wrong.

Just look within. You are not; just cosmic rays passing, creating a web, a pattern. A few days you are here and then you disappear, and then again you will be here - and disappear. Where do you come from? Where do you go again? Into the whole. You disappear to rest. Then again you are here.

Spring comes and trees start blooming, and birds start singing - a new life - and then it has gone, and everything is restful. Again it will come. Many, many times you have been here; many, many times you will be here. But once you understand that you are not, that the whole goes on playing through you, once you understand - then there is no need to be thrown again and again back into the body. There is no need. You have become alert, conscious. Now there is no need for any manifestation; you rest in the whole - this we have called moksha, nirvana. This we have called the ultimate freedom.

cont.

>>14169453
In the West, it is very difficult to understand this because whenever you talk about freedom you think of free will; and whenever the East talks about freedom it talks of being free of all free will. Freedom means to be free from you. In the West it means freedom from every barrier, limitation - but you remain, it is your freedom.

https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/freedom-independence-look-within-79fdffbc-77b?p=e93b22643dd9fa9446fdac62a5033d6a

>>14169459
What are you trying to sell me?

>>14169448
>You are presupposing a divine judiciary entity from which stems an absolute decree of what is good or bad in any given situation at all times, and then measuring one's choices against this
No. Even the atheist can rationally decide that something is best for him, and still succumb to desires that leave him worse off in the end. It doesn’t even matter that what he thinks is good, is actually good. The point is that he thinks it is good, and yet cannot use his supposed freedom to attain that path. His decision is ultimately based on whatever he desires the greatest in that moment.
>Everything you just posted assumes that free will exists
I’m only assuming its existence momentarily to disprove it by absurdity. People are supposedly free, yet they choose what they know is bad for them. Hence, we are not free.
>I fail to see the distinction between desire and will.
I would say that desires aren’t necessarily our will, but our will contains a desire. I might first have a will to do A, but then I sense a desire to do B. As the desire grows, later on, my will is to do B, but not A, though I might still desire A to some extent, still seeing some sort of benefits associated with doing A

>>14169489
You really just do not get it, do you?

>>14168521
luthor vs erasmus

>>14168521
Free will does not exist and I can prove it.

Our bodies (including brains) are made of physical matter and energy.
Physical matter and energy obey strict laws which govern their movement and state.
Therefore our bodies' and minds' actions are predetermined. Every particle in your brain and body reacts in a defined way to inputs of energy. For free will to affect your mind and/or body it would need to input energy for which there is no evidence.

Quantum fluctuations don't really matter at the macroscopic level and even if they did it would just make our actions random instead of predetermined which is not free will.

>>14168655
>freedom from what? All the things that influence our decisions? I don’t see how the freedom can exist.
Why not?
>You think that a decision is a choice because you sense multiple desires, not knowing which is the greatest until you actually make the decision.
The crux of the issue, I think, is this. You believe that people have no influence over their desires. That is where I disagree. Now, I think you are saying that because any possible action is the result of desire, we are totally controlled by the desires. I claim this. The person, the soul or self, your you, is the decider of which desires take hold and result in action. You're free to chose even that which you don't truly desire.
>But at that time you pretend that “you” made the choice for no other reason than that you were free to do it,
That is the freedom.
>or that “you” wanted it to be that way.
Even if I didn't.
>Where is the freedom, exactly?
In the choice made.
>>14168684
>"If free will is real, why can't I take off my own head and float upwards? Why can't I fly? Why isn't my imagination in control of reality?"
Perfection is a construct. No such thing really exists. It's subjective. If you're going to ask "Then why aren't you your own idea of perfection?" I answer; Some people already are. Other peoples idea of perfection is unattainable.
>>14168684
>>14168823
>>14168867
Some people do actually choose the higher path. None would ever come to 4chan. You ask why I decide the lesser path. I answer; Because I am free to do so. Why do you decide the lesser path? Because you are free to do so. It is easy. It is safe. That is why so many decide it.
>>14168927
How enslaved MOST are to desires. MOST. Not all.
>why can’t you simply will to not coom?
People do it all the time. Maybe YOU are just addicted to masterbation. Some people don't eat, are chaste, don't drink, ect ect. They can choose not too.
>>14168982
>Are your value judgments not predetermined?
Not to my knowledge.
> How can you control the hunger for the chocolate, or the urge to coom?
By doing anything else. By playing an instrument or writing or biting yourself or just re-directing your mind.
>>14169061
>I’m only saying that a person who is free should do the thing he knows is best for him.
Absolutely. 100% agree.
>this only supports my premise that we are slaves to our desires, which we have no control over.
I disagree. I believe a person does in fact control to an extent their desires. You can, for instance, start to enjoy something more or less depending on your attitude towards it.
>>14169069
Yes and people have done, currently do, and will do this type of life style. Look at Jesus.
>>14169489
>The point is that he thinks it is good, and yet cannot use his supposed freedom to attain that path. His decision is ultimately based on whatever he desires the greatest in that moment.
I disagree. A person CAN decide the better path. Nothing prevents them except their CHOICE not to.

>>14169603
Sounds like we should take everyone on death row off of death row and put them in comfy rooms where they're separate from society but also not punished because they're just victims of he cosmological determinism that made them do it. Also, sounds like we should get a supercomputer onto reading the cosmos so we can get a precrime unit up and running, eh anon?

>>14168684
t. Haven't attained perfection
Okay boomer

>>14169603
>Physical matter and energy obey strict laws which govern their movement and state.
You're not a physicist, are you? Maybe "laws" can apply to certain stuff, but the added "strict" just kills all credibility.

>>14169489
Help anon, I was prevented from doing what I want to do by doing what I wanted to do

Help

>>14169603
Nah bro too much randomness into play.
Can't rationalize to that extent

>>14169613
>I believe a person does in fact control to an extent their desires. You can, for instance, start to enjoy something more or less depending on your attitude towards it.
Ok, so then what prevents me from making myself hate doing something that I know is bad for me, and love doing that which is good for me? If I could actually do this then I would never procrastinate or fall to guilty pleasures

>>14169603
This is reductionist BS. For my post, I will assume that physicalism and physical determinism are true, like your post says.

Agential indeterminism: more than one course of action is possible for the agent.

Physical determinism: only one possible future sequence of events is possible.

Agential indeterminism is completely compatible with physical determinism. Agential indeterminism and physical determinism deal with two seperate domains; physical determinism is a thesis at the physical level and agential indeterminism is a thesis at the psychological level. Since they are two seperate domains, physical determinism does not pose a threat to free will, only agential determinism would—if it were proven. A higher level phenomenon, such as agents and their actions, can only be captured by higher level descriptions. Thus, higher level phenomenon are not reducible to lower level descriptions such as lower level talk of physical processes in the brain.

>>14168521
Galen Strawson

>>14169616
Your first point does not follow from mine. Just because they are not truly in control of their actions does not mean society wouldn't benefit by locking them up and punishing them as a deterrent.
Your second point is impossible because to compute the state of the universe would require a computer larger than the universe itself or at least so magnificently complex and large it couldn't exist. But I'm pretty sure it is technically impossible within the constraints of our universe.
>>14169635
I am an engineer. "Strict" in the sense that the particle cannot disobey it. If we had perfect scientific knowledge then we would know exactly what those strict laws were. All "exceptions" to the physical laws we have observed are due to our lack of knowledge and are not indicative that matter is non-deterministic. Gravity doesn't decide to turn off and a particle can't decide not to be influenced by it.
>>14169669
See the bottom of my post. Also foolish. "Randomness" in the true cosmic sense does not exist at the macroscopic level. Just systems which are so complex they appear random or mimic random distributions. The "random" fluctuation of particles in turbulent fluid flow is not random because each particle is responding to a specific force acting upon it. It is just that we lack the mathematics and technology to create an accurate model of the entire fluid. But for an individual molecule it is perfectly possible and that means it is theoretically possible to do the same for all of them. And theoretically is all we need to prove the behavior is deterministic.

>>14169693
This post is the height of foolishness. You are using circular logic. The entire discussion of free will as I have laid it out is concerned with the question of whether the psychological domain is controlled by the physical. My claim is the brain is physical and the brain's processes create our lived experience. These processes must be deterministic given our understanding of physics. You claim that "will" is a characteristic of agents and separate that from physical processes. However the psychological and physical realms are not necessarily separate and indeed cannot be as I showed in my post. Our brains are constructed of physical things. How could something which is non-deterministic arise from deterministic constituent parts? You presuppose that psychology is not physical when that is one of the central arguments of free will.
I do recognize that thought and concepts do not "exist" in the traditional physical sense while they do exist in some more abstract way. This does not mean that the mechanisms which give rise to those abstractions are not physical, and in fact it is easily shown that they are greatly influenced (and I would argue completely controlled) by the physical world.

>>14169957
>Randomness" in the true cosmic sense does not exist at the macroscopic level.
>It is just that we lack the mathematics and technology to create an accurate model of the entire fluid.
Positivist nonsense.
Get a grip

>>14169957
>I am an engineer
You didn't need to tell me that. Whenever you wind up with concerns beyond how to make it work for as cheaply as possible, the rest of us will be waiting.
>t. Architect.

>>14170044
He can't, anon. He's an engineer. Their world view precludes getting a grip on anything beyond positivist truisms, because they define the grip as the set of things upon which they already have a grip.

>>14168521
>don't turn to page 72
>close book
>read something else
There's your free will, loser.

>>14170044
>>14170060
>>14170073
Not that guy but those are a bunch of non-arguments

Limited free will. You can't will yourself to conjure up anything out of nowhere (i.e just because you think about flying, you won't just grow wings spontaneously)

>>14170092
Who said I was interested in spoonfeeding metaphysics to that faggot? I'd rather point and laugh than hold his hand all the way out of the undergrad STEM positivist starter pack with an essay on the problem of empiricism. You're damn right I didn't post an argument, I'm on the toilet at work not at home with nothing better to write

>>14170121
I wasn't talking to you specifically but mostly showing to whoever may read your post, that it doesn't have any substance whatsoever

>>14170073
>>14170044
Ok let's suppose some or all material movements in our world are random. That doesn't get you to free will. It is still easily shown that the physical state of our brain influences/controls our thoughts. Whether that state is random or determined makes no difference to the question of free will.
>>14170060
Respond to my actual points instead of attacking my profession.

>>14170085
Not. An. Option.

>>14170141
>respond to my drivel point by point.
No. I deal with you retards all day on a point by point basis. I just came here to laugh at you. Read the Problem of Empiricism, and then read the Tractatus cover to cover. If you don't level up with Wittgenstein what makes you think I can level you up on an anonymous imageboard
>>14170134
Ok boomer

>>14169957
>These processes must be deterministic given our understanding of physics.
This is why we don't use physics to explain the mind, imbecile. It's why we use psychology. You cannot explain human cognition and behaviour in purely physical terms because they are higher level phenomena.
>You claim that "will" is a characteristic of agents and separate that from physical processes. However the psychological and physical realms are not necessarily separate and indeed cannot be as I showed in my post. Our brains are constructed of physical things. How could something which is non-deterministic arise from deterministic constituent parts?
Agential indeterminism is an emergent phenomenon, imbecile. It is located at distinct level from physics. I'm not here to explain a STEMbug how lower level indeterminism and higher level determinism can coexist. We can see how lower level indeterminism (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) and higher level determinism (Newtonian mechanics) can coexist. I would love to explain further, but I have to go. However, if the thread is still up when I get back, I may type a longer response to your nonsense.

>Turn to the next page

Real life equivalent is wait for yourself to die, perhaps the next existence will be more *free*

>>14168521
I think being around long enough proves free will. People do crazy things. Even without a psychological reason to. If you want to attribute everything to brain chemicals, you would have to concede that they are so complicated that we cannot understand them, at least fully, just peruse the psychoanalytical tradition and see the limits of such a study. And even if it were possible to measure empirically and precisely and map out the brain with computer simulations 100%, it would still be those same chemicals doing it, and could you trust said chemicals?

>>14169957
>stemfag engineer enters the chat
>everything that we know and love is reducible to the absurd acts of chemicals, and there is therefore no intrinsic value in this material universe
Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals. All knowledge us ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?

>>14170235
>Chad layman mystic vs. Virgin engineer materialist

>>14170171
Ok.
>>14170178
>This is why we don't use physics to explain the mind, imbecile. It's why we use psychology.
Neuroscience exists. The workings of the mind are being investigated from both sides and both sides of this dichotomy and both can have valuable insights which are compatible with each other.
>You cannot explain human cognition and behaviour in purely physical terms because they are higher level phenomena.
Why not? What do you mean by "higher level?"
>Agential indeterminism is an emergent phenomenon, imbecile. It is located at distinct level from physics.
Says you. That is the exact thing I disagree with.
>We can see how lower level indeterminism (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) and higher level determinism (Newtonian mechanics) can coexist.
Yet the reverse is not true. The reason deterministic Newtonian mechanics can arise from (at the current level of understanding) random quantum fluctuations is because those quantum fluctuations are not fully random. Rather they are "random" in that they follow a given distribution pattern in a way we can statistically analyze but not successfully predict. Because these random fluctuations occur along that distribution and because there are so many of them, they behave deterministically (at least the vast vast majority of the time). Now, there is a technicality. The possibility exists that a billion quantum fluctuations could occur simultaneously such as to move an object or particle in a non-Newtonian way, and for that reason nothing physical can be said to be 100% deterministic. However this does not justify free will, only randomness. Moreover, in macroscopic physics such fluctuations have not been observed because the chances of such a thing occurring are so astronomically small such that, for all practical intents and purposes, we are living in a macroscopically deterministic world.
If we accept that, your premise does not necessarily follow. It can be possible for determinism (or at least deterministic behavior) to emerge from non-deterministic inputs while the reverse is not true. No matter how many deterministic reactions you add to a system or how you arrange them each constituent part obeys deterministic rules which, if known, allow their position and state to be calculated. At that point it becomes impossible to deny that, if all inputs are known, the calculation of the position of each particle does have a definite result for any given moment in time even if it is not possible to find that result. It is well known that there are equations with true results which are unprovable. Similarly, there may be no method to calculate the positions of particles in complicated systems like fluid dynamics or the neurons in your brain, but there is an answer to that calculation regardless which is the strict result of its inputs. This leaves no room for an abstract will to impose itself, unless we call this will the laws of physics.

Guys, metaphysics is completely compatible with determinism. No need to get your panties in a bunch like that lmao

>>14170361
>Because these random fluctuations occur along that distribution and because there are so many of them, they behave deterministically
I meant to say "deterministically on a macroscopic scale."

>>14170255
Never liked this meme.
No intrinsic value doesn't mean no value. Basic existentialism.
Of course I rely on the chemicals they are all I have and you too.
Yes we can never truly know anything for absolute certain.

It conflates determinism with nihilism and self defeat when this is not necessarily the case. Determinism is fully compatible with tons of philosophies.

>>14170255
>for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals
This is worded so poorly. This isn’t a matter of trust, as if chemicals in the brain would be deceptive. If there are chemicals in the brain, then obviously they are telling the truth. But if you’re right, then the non-chemical brain is telling that anon that his brain is chemical. Where is the hypocrisy again? I don’t see it

If we're going with:
Free = existence of more than one potential outcomes
and
Will = any action done by an agent based on their condition when making the decision (i.e. chosen by "them" as they exist at that time rather than something other than them)
then consider this question: If the totality of existence (so even if there are non physical factors those would be reset too) were to completely revert to how it was 10 minutes ago, would things (necessarily) play out the exact same way as last time?
If so, then we have no free will because the actions we do are the only ones that we could have ever done and thus our wills are not free.
If not, then what would cause the difference? We are the same as last time, yet our will chose differently, so we are not the reason our "will" was free to choose differently? If it from some source of randomness (ex: quantum level stuff if that is truly random) then the difference in action is not due to our will but something outside of our will.

Any answers to all this, because I'd be interested in being proven wrong but I don't see a way out of this myself. I used these definitions because they seem to me to capture what people intuitively think free will means, but I'm guessing some people won't agree with them but they would be arguing about something different than I am. Might be useful but that wouldn't disprove the argument itself.

>>14170815
The time-rewind argument is good. I hate when people define free will as the ability to have done otherwise than you did, or that there are multiple paths that are definitely possible futures. How could you do otherwise than you do without randomness?

>>14170361
Truly an imbecilic response. Neuroscience has yet to disprove agential indeterminism—if ever. You sound like every science worshipping STEMbug, you hope that one day neuroscience will finally confirm your intuition that free will is non-existent. Neuroscience can't tell us about human behaviour and cognition because they are higher level phenomena that must be explained using higher level descriptions, like psychological theories. You, again, seem to be conflating the higher level and lower level domains. An agent's cognition and behaviour is not reducible to lower level talk of physical processes in the brain. Because these two domains are seperate, physical determinism being true does not rule out agential indeterminism. Higher level indeterminism arises as an emergent by product of lower level determinism. Let's consider a deterministic system which is governed by laws. In this system, the initial state determines all subsequent states. In this system, the same macro state (psychological level state, for example) can be instantiated by different micro level states (microphysical level states, like particles and forces, for example). Take this graphic I have posted. The initial state (t=1), determines all subsequent states, as I described earlier. The dots represent the state of the system at a given time (t). If two dots land in the same cell, that means the same outcome was achieved on the macroscopic level. Now let's broaden things even more. Let's say at t=1, the 6 possible physical states correspond to only 2 possible psychological states—one on the left and one the right. Now, if we redescribe the system in these higher level terms, we actually end up with an indeterministic system. The next picture I am going to post shows the graphic of the indeterministic higher level system. The indeterminism is indicated by the branching. In conclusion, this shows that lower level determinism can give rise to emergent higher level indeterminism and that lower level determinism is compatible with higher level indeterminism. The opposite—higher level determinism with lower level indeterminism—is also compatible; however, that would take another post to describe. This shows that physical determinism in the universe is compatible with agential indeterminism.

>>14171121

>>14169674

> What prevents me from abstaining?

There could be plenty of reasons. But I believe that you really don't want to abstain. Plenty of people who want to abstain indeed do abstain. Some even if you seduce or entice them.

If you really want to abstain you would abstain. But you don't want it "in that moment", you only want it later on, in your moments of reflection.

>>14168521
>turns to page 57

>>14171423
Then how do I want to abstain?

>>14171133
>>14171121
Maybe I am not understanding you anon, but your argument doesn't make much sense. You say the system is deterministic, such that each position of the particle at future times is determined by its previous position (the starting position originally). However there are dots which change their position after starting from the same cell. If they have the same starting location/forces/etc. why would they begin to move differently? That doesn't seem to line up with what you were saying.

>>14171534
>>14171121
Also different micro level states emerging seemingly identically on a macroscopic level is not evidence of free will anyway and is something I acknowledged in my previous post.

>>14171534
>However there are dots which change their position after starting from the same cell. If they have the same starting location/forces/etc. why would they begin to move differently?
Yes, in the system those movements were predetermined by the initial position. The positions could be anywhere, it's just for demonstration purposes.
>>14171545
I was never trying to prove free will; I was merely proving that physical determinism and agential indeterminism are compatible. If I want to prove free will it take a couple long posts—which I don't have the time for because I'm going to sleep.

>>14168521
Free will is simply the desire for the good. Look into St. Thomas Aquinas, he has really good material on free will.

>>14168521
>>14168655
I think practicly we have no free will. But theoreticly we do. Since our perception of the natural world is necessarily though our own perception, the chemisty of the brain is technically something only seen through kantian glasses. we cannot know the true aspect of consiousness, only that it appers to be correlativey with those chemicals in the numinal world (a priori space and time and all that).

This is where theory (Absolute truth), is seperated from practice (observable tendency)

>>14168521
Free will is real
But our existence falls under soft-determinism

>>14170361
Based and coherent.

>>14168521
>modern neuroscience has proven
But it hasnt.

>>14171743
The conflation of will with goodness of intention is precisely what's got the Judeo-Christian materialist engineerfag so twisted up shitting all over this thread, though. Socrates said one should discern ones teachers like one's food, as both can poison you.

>>14169106
Perfection is a vague abstraction. Whatever can be imagined to be perfect can be imagined not to be, and no such case can be actualized without also being undermined in their ceaseless flaws and imperfections.

>>14171627
>Yes, in the system those movements were predetermined by the initial position. The positions could be anywhere, it's just for demonstration purposes.
But if they start in the same position and their movement follows deterministic rules they would follow the same path. If they start from the same conditions and move differently then their behavior is non-deterministic. So I still disagree that non-deterministic behavior can emerge from deterministic inputs.

>>14173489
Having free will and doing what you think is best for you are effectively the same thing.

>>14168938
How can you say that you do what you will? Can you say with certainty that you're not just willing what you do? I suspect will is just a comforting illusion, with far less actual control than it appears to us.

>>14174218
That is profoundly wrong

>>14174218
What if I sacrifice myself for the sake of someone else?
>hurr well in an abstract way you did it because it made you feel best to die in place of another
Oh okay so we agree that whatever we reckon is contextually dependent upon factors that don't adhere to a cosmic decree of right or wrong, which brings us back to square one: free will and doing what you think is best have nothing to do with one another.

Unless you start moving the goalposts on what sacrifice is, or what "best" means again. But then I pointed out that you are equivocating all of this shit like a full 24 hours ago.

>>14174213
>But if they start in the same position and their movement follows deterministic rules they would follow the same path.
You're still not getting it. The initial state is what determines the subsequent positions.
>If they start from the same conditions and move differently then their behavior is non-deterministic.
In the system, the condition of the corresponding dot is not specified. The conditions are different; otherwise we would not have different outcomes.

What would the world look like without free will?

What would the world look like without determinism?

>>14174728
Who would freely do what he thinks is bad for him? That isn’t freedom.

>>14168521
>Which philosophers and books discuss free will?
Eliezer Yudkowsky

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)

Jerusalem by Alan Moore goes pretty in-depth near the end.

>>14168521
Freewill is the ability to do differently.

this is something that really makes me think in terms of the simulation theory. if we are simulated or are in a simulation and it played out exactly the same as it would as in the original non-simulated world shit would suck. no free will then.

>>14175151
Literally gave you an example: what if I sacrifice myself for someone else? Was I not free to do that? Are you okay? Are you stupid?

>>14169107
it's apparently free, which is good enough for government work.

>>14168978
read Existentialism is a Humanism bro...

>>14175288
What about sacrificing yourself? It’s possible that you think it’s best for you. The implication is that we sometimes have free will, and sometimes do not.

>>14174734
Ok I think I understand. What you are saying is that if there were multiple rules governing the movements of the dots then they might match the movement of different sets of rules. Is that the case? If so I fail to see the relevance since there is no reason to assume different rules.
If you are saying different initial conditions result in different outcomes then that is determinism.
If you are saying multiple inputs in a deterministic system can have identical outputs then I agree but this makes the system no less deterministic.

>>14175625
>he bends the point around in exactly the way I specified three or four posts ago
It's all so tiring

>>14168521
Language games, the lot of it.

>>14168521
Is Free Will An Illusion?
http://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion