So, does free will really exist, or not?

File: 30 KB, 510x393, 4B831A31-DEA4-4D45-96C4F6F30777A4CF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 04:34:26 2018 No.11798019 [Reply] [Original]

So, does free will really exist, or not?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 04:43:19 2018 No.11798043 Yes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 04:44:42 2018 No.11798046 No

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 04:50:16 2018 No.11798057 Maybe

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 04:51:50 2018 No.11798058 Depends on definition

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 04:59:16 2018 No.11798082 Can you repeat the question?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:01:44 2018 No.11798084 >>11798019 Sam Harris is a tard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:02:45 2018 No.11798088 >>11798019 No - we have free choice, but not will. If I will myself to grow wings it will not happen, because will is limited.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:08:08 2018 No.11798095 File: 12 KB, 256x256, 228fa56cb439b55a9260aa5b9e49af43.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >there are people on this board right now who let a Sam Harris lecture convince them they have no free will

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:22:36 2018 No.11798126 >>11798095 A cat!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:29:40 2018 No.11798139 >>11798019 if free will doesn't exist then we are all completely fucked you better fucking believe in free will if you want to have any control over your life or the course of our planet

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:42:36 2018 No.11798168

>>11798019

How can it? We are the products of our programming and brainwashing. You can reduce a person's brain to a mathematical operation that turns inputs into outputs. If you put in the same stimulus to the same equation, you'll get broadly the same answer, accounting for minute quantum randomness.

If the brain isn't mathematical, it's magical. We simply lack full understanding of it's operations. Free will is nonsense.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:44:08 2018 No.11798174

>>11798088
free will is synonymous with free choice. if the concept of free will were supposed to mean the ability to grow wings on command then it wouldn't exist in the first place.

>>11798139
not behaving as if you had free will is impossible, so on a level that matters everyone believes in free will and they can't help it.

>>11798019
yes

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:46:06 2018 No.11798176

>>11798019
No
>>11798043
No
>>11798046
Red pilled

>>11798057
D O U B T

>>11798084
>>11798095
He is right though

>>11798088
No free choice

>>11798139
Just because you don't want to believe in something doesn't make it false. This is self-dilusion.
>>11798168
This

Even if hypothetically there was magic in the form of a soul (very unlikely as brain damage can change our behavior/"soul") we still don't have free will. If religion is true your soul dictates what you do as your soul is in essence you. You designed and crrated your soul? Not you, god. You don't have free will as you can't engineer your own self with or without religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:47:46 2018 No.11798183 We have will but we don’t get to decide what we will, we’re not unmoved movers. The idea of human decision making standing outside of causality is nonsense. Compatibilists are just insincere moralists who try to save the noble lie.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:51:54 2018 No.11798195
File: 61 KB, 904x613, ugly-incel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>P1. In order for a given state of affairs deterministically to cause a human action, the causal efficacy of that state of affairs would have to derive exclusively from characteristics of that state of affairs.
>P2. A given state of affairs has no meaning in itself.
>P3. If a given state of affairs has no meaning in itself, then its meaning must be conferred upon it by the person experiencing it.
>>C1. The meaning of a given state of affairs must be conferred upon it by the person experiencing it (modus ponens, P2, P3).
>P4. The meaning of the state of affairs is the source of its power to motivate (or cause) the action.
>P5. If the meaning of the state of affairs is the source of its power to motivate (or cause) the action, then in the case of human action, the causal efficacy of the state of affairs does not derive exclusively from characteristics of that state of affairs.
>>C2. In the case of human action, the causal efficacy of the state of affairs does not derive exclusively from characteristics of that state of affairs (modus ponens, P4, P5).
>>C3. No given state of affairs can deterministically cause a human action (modus tollens, P1, C3).
>P6. If no given state of affairs can deterministically cause a human action, then one's actions are free.
>>C4. Human beings are inescapably free (modus ponens, C3, P6).

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 05:56:55 2018 No.11798208

Our lives keep repeating over and over in a cycle. You have made this thread for the thousandth time except you don't remember. You were destined to make this thread as I was to reply to it right now. Perhaps little divergences happen which alter our lives by 0.0000001% compared to our past lives but that's it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:07:33 2018 No.11798228 >my experiences of freewill are an illusion >my experiences of being told that freewill is an illusion are 100% not themselves illusions

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:07:44 2018 No.11798229 absolutely not >>11798168 basically this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:08:55 2018 No.11798233 >>11798183 Causality doesn't real. A determinist universe can't exist, as something can't come from nothing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:11:23 2018 No.11798237 >>11798176 >You designed and crrated your soul? Not you, god. Pretty sure God is capable of creating a soul and granting it freewill. Aquinas is quite clear on that

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:14:45 2018 No.11798244 File: 56 KB, 645x773, brainlet+1491287171858.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11798088

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:15:50 2018 No.11798249 File: 44 KB, 1034x900, brainlet+1512816905691.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11798176 > If religion is true your soul dictates what you do as your soul is in essence you. You designed and crrated your soul? Not you, god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:16:49 2018 No.11798251 >>11798019 It depends on how you define "free will". If you define it as something physically impossible, then hey, look, it doesn't exist!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:17:28 2018 No.11798253 >>11798195 this is pretty fucking based bro nice

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:22:45 2018 No.11798258

I completely understand the rational materialist arguments in all their complexity as to why free will *shouldn't* exist

but even despite that it is fucking incomprehensible to me how you could actually believe that as to me free will is just so completely fucking self evident as existing as to not need some complicated rationale to justify

please someone else read Rupert Sheldrake besides me for fucks sake, his book Science Set Free. Please fucking read it someone

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:25:50 2018 No.11798265
File: 3.05 MB, 1800x1322, Jean-Léon_Gérôme_-_Diogenes_-_Walters_37131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11798019
What do you think? Did you decide to start this thread, you dingdong? Why did you ask a philosophical question on a literature board? You still act like you have free will, don't you? Stop asking metaphysical questions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:27:31 2018 No.11798268 >>11798258 Funny things happen once you start assuming determinist materialism is 100% correct and ignoring all the contrary evidence

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:37:17 2018 No.11798294
File: 226 KB, 1924x1040, 25931_ghost_in_the_shell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11798265
>What do you think?
I am not exactly great at that thing, thinking. I prefer to let more creative&knowledgeable people answer the question in topic, since my own divagation is pretty inconclusive and meritless.
> Did you decide to start this thread, you dingdong?
That's the real question. Did I? Or did I merely believe I've decided to do just that?
>Why did you ask a philosophical question on a literature board?
/His/ is a shithole, I don't even do /b/, I'd have to try hard to make it fit /tg/, and you seem to discuss stuff like that here day in day out.
>You still act like you have free will, don't you?
I do, but is there anything more to that than just an act?
>Stop asking metaphysical questions.
Ok :C

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:38:10 2018 No.11798295 Of course we have free will. We have no choice

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:43:05 2018 No.11798303

>>11798268
you putting the word determinist in there is fucking blowing my mind right now

i never realized that to be 100% materialist in your belief is to also believe that the entire universe is completely already written, the big bang was just the setting off of a extremely long set of 3 dimension atomic dominoes, and that your entire life has already been decided for you and you are just watching your life go by

fucking mind blowing that anyone could seriously believe that.

i guess thats just a testament to what type of beliefs humans are capable of and yet sustain feelings of such confidence and superiority

i believe if determinism was more commonly realized as being a mandatory concordant to materialism, it would begin to cast some fucking doubt onto materialism

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:50:18 2018 No.11798330 File: 296 KB, 1920x1080, Laughing-Tom-Cruise-Meme-06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11798303 >typing out this shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:51:21 2018 No.11798335 >>11798019 Define free will first, free from what? Otherwise you get nonsensical rambling like >>11798168

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:52:41 2018 No.11798338 >>11798233 >>Causality doesn't real. A determinist universe can't exist, as something can't come from nothing. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:55:19 2018 No.11798346 >>11798338 Have you seen any ex nihilo creation recently?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:55:51 2018 No.11798347

>>11798195
>>C3...(modus, tollens,P1,C2)* right?

P4 is an assumption, and where reasoning between free will splits, if im not wrong. Why would the meaning derived from experiencing a state of affairs, be the source of/cause the action?? Isnt that where reductionism splits, please enlighten me

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:56:03 2018 No.11798348 >>11798019 >really exist Everything really exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 06:57:27 2018 No.11798352 >>11798228 doesnt prove shit that free will is not an illusion

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:01:14 2018 No.11798360 define exist

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:01:35 2018 No.11798362

>>11798303
Not sure if ironic, but not having free will doesnt mean that the unconscious mind (materialist whatev) does not have its own situation bound reactions, and then there's factors outside of all human minds that influence a cause. then there is quantum

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:06:02 2018 No.11798378

>>11798346
*points to everything in existence*
Yeah, possibly. You're trying to prove the biggest negative there can be, can't you at least appreciate that fact? Everything you observe that comes from something came from something else that came from something and so forth, there's no evidence to think this process is infinite. Or have you observed any infinities lately?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:13:34 2018 No.11798413

>>11798347
If my post lacked any meaning from your point of view then you wouldn't have been motivated to respond to it.
I know what you mean, but Sartre has a completely different starting point (phenomenology) than your typical reductionists, so I doubt there would even be enough common ground to have a fruitful discussion starting at the disagreement about P4.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:13:45 2018 No.11798414 >>11798378 You've grasped my point perfectly. Either causality doesn't real, or there is infinite regress, or there can be ex nihilo creation.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:21:08 2018 No.11798432

>>11798414
Yes, and my point is we haven't conclusive evidence for any of them. Just as I've never seen something from nothing, the somethings I've seen produce something must have come from I know not where, fundamentally. These are gaps in human knowledge, not to be spoken of with total surety.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:22:25 2018 No.11798435 >>11798346 https://youtu.be/_w5JqQLqqTc?t=10s

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:30:59 2018 No.11798458

>>11798432
>not to be spoken of with total surety.
Of course. But from where we stand right now, it seems ex nihilo and infinite regress are logically impossible, while Hume has shown there are problems with how we as humans understand causality. So I'm leaning that way, open to new findings of course. If causal relations don't work the way we think they do, then the arguments against freewill are no longer valid. QED

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:32:56 2018 No.11798466 >>11798019 How do you even question something so obvious as free will ?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:34:40 2018 No.11798475

>>11798458
>Of course. But from where we stand right now, it seems ex nihilo and infinite regress are logically impossible
Some might argue the otherwise incompleteness of our logical system is precisely what logically necessitates the existence of god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:38:14 2018 No.11798486 >>11798475 Yep I agree, didn't want to be the first to go there. If there is then Aquinas has shown we do have freewill, so either works for me

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:41:08 2018 No.11798493

>>11798466
because folks think that free will can't exist if it can't be explained by science and our current scientific understanding of reality can't explain free will

pretty fucking stupid if you ask me. backwards way of doing logic.

it's also based on the supposition that science has explained everything immaterial away forever

guess what. it hasn't. not even fucking close.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:41:49 2018 No.11798495 >lawyering up some semantics game to "prove" a concept which is fundamentally beyong the human grasp woah

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:43:13 2018 No.11798500 nope

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:55:14 2018 No.11798525

>>11798294
Well, that's an honest answer. But think just one more question ahead. You have the answer to the question "Does free will exist?". What do you do now? Do you behave the same way? Do you end your life? Do you give up on your beliefs and wander the world? It just gets harder after getting the answer to that question, even if it comes up. More questions can always be asked, little children do that, it takes no effort. We always believe in something, even the extreme skeptic who says "We can know nothing" claims that he knows that we can know nothing so he's a hypocrite.

Just pick a system of ethics that doesn't bind you to conformity too much but also doesn't make everyone hate you (it takes practice) and then do what you find meaningful, be it browsing 4chan, dipping your nuts in warm water, working hard, slacking off, you get the gist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 07:56:07 2018 No.11798528 File: 77 KB, 372x300, wojaksaijinbrain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11798208

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:12:48 2018 No.11798587 File: 144 KB, 624x423, lead.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11798019 >but they still COULD have CHOSEN not to commit crimes!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:15:56 2018 No.11798598 >>11798493 It's actually the complete opposite, they think free will can't exist because it CAN be explained by science

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:40:06 2018 No.11798687 File: 99 KB, 1650x1275, pchart1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11798587 >they could have chosen to be pirates

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:41:40 2018 No.11798690 >>11798687 Do you think lead/crime is an accidental correlation?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:42:09 2018 No.11798691

Markets manufacture intelligence. renaissance rationalization and capitalism took off and created a self-perpetuating highly effective fascist prison-mind-state which is not bound to any territory but rather to amorphous deterrotorialized capital constantly altering reality retroactively to give a sense of time or progression since its inception. Kant's Causal Conception of Autonomy is a myth

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:43:19 2018 No.11798694 No, there are social, biological, and cultural forces that shape the decisions you make, none of which you have control over.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:43:34 2018 No.11798696 >>11798168 >You can reduce a person's brain to a mathematical operation that turns inputs into outputs Imagine believing this

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:45:03 2018 No.11798699 >>11798019 I have free will. No one else does, tho.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:45:47 2018 No.11798701 >>11798019 No it does not. But what does that change?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:47:06 2018 No.11798704 >>11798691 >skidlididlididlididlididlididli

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:57:03 2018 No.11798740
File: 194 KB, 640x800, 1536964355104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>you were determined to talk about the alternative to determinism
>You were determined to be uncertain about which possibility holds true
kek
no
determinism is for brainlets, the very fact that we talk about free will and know what it means and how it feels proves its real
fully deterministic beings would just be on autopilot all the time not realizing there are other possibilities (think NPCs)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:57:52 2018 No.11798744 >dude free will doesn't real it's just neurons in ur brain

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 08:58:25 2018 No.11798749 >>11798740 You do realize that your thoughts are part of determinism as well, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:01:03 2018 No.11798766 >>11798195 Thanks, I was under the impression sartre was worthwhile. thanks for saving me like 50 hours of my life.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:02:09 2018 No.11798773

>>11798493
a bunch of scientistic reddit faggots is not "folk". regular folk is okay with neuroscientific prediction https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714001462

>>11798587
free will != choices not being influenced. not a single person ever thought they were equal, because if you're mentally capable of pondering the question of free will then you also must be aware that human choices have external influences

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:04:23 2018 No.11798788

>>11798749
full determinism would make thinking impossible;
authentic thought requires some deliberation, not only on what thoughts you focus on but also what you choose to entertain and give credence to

why/how would determinism ever come up with its own negation as a thought?

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:08:50 2018 No.11798809

>>11798788
>full determinism would make thinking impossible
What the fuck are you even talking about
Determinism means that everything which occurs is predetermined by the actions that come before it. The thoughts you have are influenced by what you observe and experience. Your choice of what thought to focus on is an influenced decision. Your deliberation on a thought is an influenced decision.
The concept of free will is a fabricated concept created to explain reality from the human perspective.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:12:51 2018 No.11798827

>>11798809
Influence is not a strong enough word to imply hard-determinism that you're seeking. So the fact that external stimuli 'influence' you, doesn't mean they determine your choices and thoughts completely in every way possible.

>The concept of free will is a fabricated concept created to explain reality from the human perspective.
What's fabricated about it? Without free-will thinking is impossible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:14:49 2018 No.11798838 File: 110 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Well, that depends. How do you define free? How do you define will? How do you define exists? Am I an intellectual yet?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:16:20 2018 No.11798845 >>11798827 Fine, pretend I said determine. That is what I meant. Every thought is dependent on an observation of the world, and is thus determined by that. >without free will thinking is impossible Explain your thinking on this.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:22:51 2018 No.11798875

>>11798838
Those are all valid questions though. When you have multiple philosophical traditions interacting they're bound to end up talking beyond eachother unless they've made sure they're using the same language.

Do we have free will? If free means free to do anything, no, if free means free to do what you will, then yes. Exist? If you're talking phenomenologically about free will then the question quickly becomes more neuanced than if you're purely empirical ect.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:25:31 2018 No.11798885
File: 42 KB, 512x512, cropped-hermit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11798845
>Every thought is dependent on an observation of the world, and is thus determined by that.
Even if this dependency was true (which I reject) it still doesn't mean that what follows from these observations is fully determined in every possible way.
If this were true, most of math/logic and all of metaphysics would be utterly impossible. But that's not the case.

>Explain your thinking on this.
To think is to deliberate, to stand back and observe possibilities manifesting in your mind's eye and then focusing, filtering, rejecting, reifying, zooming in, zooming out on different thought-spaces; the act of thinking is the act of deliberating between possibilities, it implies an active will, it is carried out by you. This process is free insofar as one has freed himself from mental impediments, vices and weaknesses. Everyone has free-will, at least in principle as a possibility, but it's not active in everyone in actuality.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:40:20 2018 No.11798953

>>11798885
> (which I reject)
Name one thought which may be removed from the world
> it still doesn't mean that what follows from these observations is fully determined in every possible way.
It say it does. Look I can say things without backing them up too.
>If this were true, most of math/logic and all of metaphysics would be utterly impossible.
More assumptions which you do not elaborate on. These are all fabrications made through the observation of the world through the human perspective. The world and the framework in which humanity perceives it are determined, thus these concepts are determined as well.

>the act of thinking is the act of deliberating between possibilities
Yes
>it implies an active will, it is carried out by you.
When you are hit you will flinch. When you are hungry you will want food. When you observe you will think. Thought is a reaction.
>This process is free insofar as one has freed himself from mental impediments, vices and weaknesses.
There is no reason to isolate only these things as what impedes 'free' will.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:46:40 2018 No.11798984

>>11798885
>If this were true, most of math/logic and all of metaphysics would be utterly impossible.

Why though? What makes it impossible.

>Everyone has free-will, at least in principle as a possibility, but it's not active in everyone in actuality.

This makes sense, you become more free the more you practice thinking.

I'm not the anon you replied to.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:54:44 2018 No.11799024

>>11798953
>Name one thought which may be removed from the world
neither determinism nor free-will are empirical/observable thoughts. Determinism is a fabricated extrapolation we project on phenomena because we see B conjoined to A so often, but that doesn't mean there is some objective force called "determinism" operating behind the scenes, and even if it is, it would be invisible and not observable.
Repeated conjunction of phenomena is not "determinism", not even in a probabilistic sense.
There are plenty of thoughts that do not depend on the facts of observable reality, for example the interior angle of circles is 360degrees, the interior angle of a triangle is 180degrees, this is true as a matter of principle and it can't be refuted by going around and measuring circles/triangles and making an "empirical" argument against the logic of it.

>When you are hit you will flinch. When you are hungry you will want food. When you observe you will think. Thought is a reaction.
Yes some behaviors are 'involuntary' but that doesn't mean all are. The very fact that we can distinguish between voluntary/automatic actions and involuntary actions suggests this distinction is real and not just imaginary. Just like the presence of "heat" implies the reality of "cold", the existence of "up" implies a "down" the fact that we can identify obviously involuntary actions suggests there is an opposite dimension in the other direction, namely free-will.

>There is no reason to isolate only these things as what impedes 'free' will.
Those are the major impediments to free-will.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:54:55 2018 No.11799025 >he thinks he's an uncaused cause

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 09:59:32 2018 No.11799049

>>11798984
>Why though? What makes it impossible.
Because the truths of math/logic/metaphysics are not dependent on the empirical "facts" of whatever world you happen to inhabit.
They are not derived through empirical observations, they precede and supersede empiricism.

Mathematicians, for the most part, operate in the realm of pure intellect. The discovery of infinitesimal calculus was not a matter of exploring the function of matter or space as it actually exists, but exploring the principles behind and above matter and space as such.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 10:03:17 2018 No.11799074 File: 87 KB, 278x324, 1534654605609.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11799025 >he doesn't realize he's made in the image of God, granting him a freedom (and responsibility) unlike any animal in existence

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 10:08:22 2018 No.11799105 File: 939 KB, 500x281, tumblr_o52squxnO71uqrdeoo1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Will exists, and you can make it more or less free by your actions. You will spend the majority of your life a slave to destiny regardless though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 10:10:26 2018 No.11799114 >>11798019 It doesn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 10:22:34 2018 No.11799189 >>11799114 You say that as if anything matters, the fact that it doesn't matter doesn't matter.

Anonymous Mon Sep 17 10:26:00 2018 No.11799203

>>11799049
>They are not derived through empirical observations, they precede and supersede empiricism.

Yes, it is like that now, but didn't it start by abstracting real world objects into idealized ones? Mathematicians observed the physical world and noticed certain phenomena fit into similar patterns and can be defined as variations. Later, they developed a system of axioms which can provide them tools to construct these patterns without contradictions. I see what you mean, but I think it's not easy to completely cut off formal language, mathematics, from observations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 17 10:28:46 2018 No.11799212 This thread was moved to >>>/his/5344335

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature