Free will is an illusion

[Anonymous No.14969039]

Everyone says "well I can go right or I can go left, both are equally valid therefore I can make a choice" but that choice is an illusion; the illusion is only made possible by the fact we cannot predict whether the person will go right or left. The fact of the matter is they're DESTINED to pick one or the other, and only ever one, and it was always so, because the universe is a causal universe, and everything is a consequence of that first cause.

It's so obvious, I really have no idea where the argument for free will came from, except from an immature need for the conscious mind to feel "in control". But just as insects do not need thought to perform tasks, neither do humans; consciousness is just along for the ride. Humans truly are NPCs: automatons doing their thing, at different levels of competency based on biological minutiae, with a thinking person in the backseat pretending they're driving the car. You're not driving. You are a passenger to the automatic human robot; the result of too much concentrated nerve matter in too small a space. All your learned knowledge is a tool for the robot; all your experiences are bread and circuses for your mind.

Now tell me why I'm full of shit. Science the fuck out of this.

[Anonymous No.14969044]

go for a walk, goofball

[Anonymous No.14969047]

>>14969044
NPC response; wasted dubs
I do think about this on walks

[Anonymous No.14969067]

I'm not reading all this shit. So I assume you are about 74% correct

[Anonymous No.14969071]

>>14969039
>Free will is an illusion
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.14969073]

>>14969039
I'd argue you're half right. I think one of the big mistakes in western ideology is that a human is a mind using a meat body as a vehicle. I say that the mind doesn't make decisions separately from the conditions the body is experiencing. A human *is* the body as well as the mind. Both entities control the other. It is no different than an insect, you're right there, but the difference is that what a human is is also technology. We are psychologically a product of the tools we've been making for the last couple million years. The extra intelligence we have over the other animals was selected for by its propensity to influence better and better toolmaking. You might say the tools are symbiotic with humanity, and eventually when we are surpassed by our electronic creations this will be the inarguable truth, up until the matrix/terminator AI war at least.

[Anonymous No.14969074]

>>14969067
>I'm not reading all this shit.
It's 2 paragraphs.
ngmi

[Anonymous No.14969095]

>>14969073
So when I use the term "thinking mind" I am referring to consciousness, and I use "unthinking mind" to refer to the unconscious cognitive processes that all humans possess, which I argue includes higher-order thought like problem solving.

"Technology" is just shorthand for accumulated, pyramidal knowledge that is exploited for a practical effect. The unthinking mind has access to that knowledge. I won't say "go look this up" without a cite, but I have heard there is research into the great many things humans do without conscious engagement (including math).

One might say, "well if we're just automatons how come I don't take a shit whenever the urge comes upon me, right where I stand" and that's because you operate in a society, one which the unconscious mind is capable of understanding the rules, though on a different level than the thinking, conscious mind. You both understand what's expected; your unconscious mind is always the driver, but your experience of the event is driven by emotion, itself the product of brain chemistry. Rejoice, incels; you were always destined to be a KHV.

[Anonymous No.14969213]

>>14969039
This is just bad metaphysics. Humans are ontologically different from animals and the rest of creation. The will is a faculty of the rational soul which isn't present in animals or non-living entities. Our capacity to deliberate actions are immaterial and not governed by physical laws.

[Anonymous No.14969223]

Compatibilists define free will as the ability to act as your nature and nurture would lead you to act, without outside force or coercion. So, if your brain physiology and operation in your current circumstances would have you drink water, and if water is available, and you drink water, you acted of your own free will. If someone put a gun to your head and forced you to drink it, and you drank it, you would not be acting of your own free will.
This definition of free will is compatible with determinism, and allows for things like rewards, punishments, freedom and dignity.
Some other definition, such as that casually employed by religionists or people unfamiliar with the basics of philosophy, is untenable. It makes no sense, at all.

[Anonymous No.14969226]

https://youtu.be/4dC_nRYIDZU?t=3100

Lex Fridman and Sam Harris discuss free will.

"The illusion of free will is, itself, an illusion." -- Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.14969232]

>>14969039
>Now tell me why I'm full of shit.
I simply don't see the point telling direction or how to drive to a willing passenger, even worse, receding to being a luggage who would never able able to take the helm, even of his own body and mind at any capacity.

[Anonymous No.14969243]

>>14969226
Sam Harris is probably the dumbest atheist to ever live. He should have died instead of Hitchens. At least Hitchens knew how to lose gracefully.

[Anonymous No.14969247]

it's a language problem. it's impossible, fundamentally, to make a decision without being influenced by previous outcomes.
that's what free will is defined as, and it cannot exist in reality.

[Anonymous No.14969248]

>>14969243
Ad hominem will not help you. Even if you are correct about the man himself, it does not negate any particular thing he has said. But if you are right, it should be fairly easy to logically refute his arguments.

[Anonymous No.14969250]

>>14969039
One could argue that as long as we are not able to observe and calculate every single factor involved with our thoughts and actions, free will is a reality.

We have to use statistics in quantum physics because we are not capable of observing our universe at such an infinitely small and precise scale.

[Anonymous No.14969260]

>>14969248
Sam Harris lacks qualia and is unqualified to give opinions on whether free will exists or not.

[Anonymous No.14969268]

>>14969260
I accept your capitulation. Take some comfort in the fact that even if you had been able to attempt a logical refutation of his argument, you would have been using incorrect information or faulty reasoning to do it.
You may return to /b/ now.

[Anonymous No.14969274]

>>14969039
Someone scripted my whole life? What a fucking weird and evil thing to do. I do so many weird things, so many bad decisions, there’s no way.
What am I being punished for?

[Anonymous No.14969311]

>>14969039
When we are not 100% certain whether free will exists or not, the possible outcomes for any given action, depend on one of these conditions.
1. Free will doesn't exist and you don't believe it does.
2. Free will doesn't exist but you believe it does.
3. Free will exists and you don't believe it does.
4. Free will exists and you believe it does.

Out of those options, we can say with certainty that 1-3 will have the same outcome, since the result was either predetermined or you chose to not influence it.
We can say with certainty that option 4 is the only option that has a probability of giving a different outcome.
We can say with certainty that the best possible outcome can be achieved only when you choose 4 (because if free will is true, you didn't make the optimal choice by picking 3). Option 4 is the only logical option because it satisfies more conditions.

[Anonymous No.14969321]

>>14969311
>because if free will is true, you didn't make the optimal choice by picking 3
I'd like you to explain this, but first I need to know how you define free will. Are you using the compatibilist definition?

[Anonymous No.14969326]

>>14969095
lmao I didn't read your reply until I was taking a shit, looks like I'm off to the synchronicity thread.

[Anonymous No.14969337]

>>14969039
>You're not driving. You are a passenger to the automatic human robot; All your learned knowledge is a tool for the robot; all your experiences are bread and circuses for your mind.
Who is this "you" you're referring to? There is no "you". There is no identity or consciousness separate from the body and nervous system.
I swear, it's like you walked some 95% through this path of deduction, and yet gave up at the very end. Go on - finish the thought. Cast away the foolish notion of the "self" that makes you think that "free will vs. determinism" is a meaningful distinction, and not purely semantic trickery.

[Anonymous No.14969343]

>>14969321
Option 4 is superior to 3 because it satisfies more conditions. Any possible definition of free will applies because you can sort it among those 4 options.

[Anonymous No.14969353]

>>14969343
>Option 4 is superior to 3 because it satisfies more conditions
Please explain. It's because you haven't given the definition of free will that you were thinking of when you made your post that I can't understand this part. Which conditions does 4 satisfy that 3 does not? If free will exists but I don't believe it does, how am I more limited? If we're using the compatibilist definition, then I'm not. I'll still do as my nature and nurture would influence me to do in any given circumstance, so long as I'm not being forced or coerced by anyone else. But if you're using a more mystical definition of free will, then I can't understand how that would work in the real world at all, much less how not believing in it could limit me.

[Anonymous No.14969356]

>>14969039
A universe of superdeterminism is pointless

And why would a being with no free will have the ability to question their own free will, that too seems kind of pointless

[Anonymous No.14969359]

>>14969356
>pointless
What do you mean by this? How would a universe with a point be perceived differently from a pointless universe by beings within it?

[Anonymous No.14969361]

>>14969039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74

[Anonymous No.14969362]

>>14969353
You provide the definitions, any definition you want, and sort them among the options. 4 satisfies the conditions where you can influence an outcome in your favour, none of the others do. Again, use any definition you want for these words.

[Anonymous No.14969366]

>>14969362
I did in my previous post. Under the compatibilist definition, it doesn't matter whether I believe free will exists or not. I will still do as my nature and nurture would lead me to do, so long as I'm able, and no one is coercing or forcing me. There would be no difference in outcome between 3 and 4, assuming that I'm the same person with the same nature and nurture in both cases.

[Anonymous No.14969367]

>>14969039
>muh meat automaton dogma is heckin' true b-b-because
That's not an intellectual position, let alone a scientific one. That's mental illness and the outcome of intense indoctronation. Take it someplace else.

[Anonymous No.14969369]

>>14969362
>>14969366
For example, say I'm hungry and want to eat a hamburger. I have the money to buy one, and someone wants to sell it to me. If I don't believe in free will, I will buy and eat the hamburger. If I do believe in free will, I will buy and eat the hamburger. So long as no one prevents me from doing what I am inclined to do, I will do it.

[Anonymous No.14969372]

>>14969367
That's not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14969374]

>>14969366
Why would you choose that definition? Does it favour you?

[Anonymous No.14969385]

>>14969372
What is there to argue with? Free will denial is inherently just a rationalization of mental illness. It has no intellectual substance.

[Anonymous No.14969405]

>>14969374
It's the only one that has shown to be logically self-consistent and does not require any unnecessary assumptions. And you said any.

>>14969385
>denial
>has no intellectual substance
That's not how logic works, anon. The positive claim is the one that bears the burden of proof. Like Hitchens said, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I submit to you that you have no free will. You cannot decide what your next thought will be. You did not decide your parents or siblings, or time and place of birth. You did not decide all your childhood influences. You did not choose your health or intelligence. You can't decide whether you're going to want something or not. There is not even, really, an illusion of free will. If you investigate what exactly it is that you're choosing, you'll see that you're only carried by your nature and influences. It all feels genuine to you, because you are only your nature and influences. You cannot even choose your gut reaction to what I'm saying, or whether you will want to respond to me or not.

[Anonymous No.14969408]

>>14969405
>That's not how logic works
Logic has nothing to do with your emotional denialism.

[Anonymous No.14969410]

>>14969408
I have no choice but to be disappointed with this response, anon. I'm sorry that you were not able to think more carefully.

[Anonymous No.14969413]

>>14969410
There is nothing in your post to think about. Your psuedointellectual rambling is emotional by default since you aren't refuting any particular notion of free will, but merely some strawman you came up with, and you do it merely as an excuse to reiterate your determinitard universe/meat automaton metaphysical dogma rooted in self-hatred.

[Anonymous No.14969414]

>>14969413
>ad hominem
I accept your capitulation. You may return to /b/ now.

[Anonymous No.14969416]

>>14969405
>It's the only one that has shown to be logically self-consistent and does not require any unnecessary assumptions.
Are you certain it is the only one? Beyond a shadow of a doubt?

[Anonymous No.14969419]

>>14969414
Notice how you're forced to lie despite my pointing out specifically what's wrong with your "argument".

[Anonymous No.14969422]

>>14969416
No, nothing in philosophy is settled once and for all. Even a priori knowledge, like Aristotelian identity is subject to investigation and possible refutation. I'm not sure how, as I sure couldn't refute it. But it's conceivable that someone someday might.
The compatibilist definition is the best anyone's come up with so far.

>>14969419
You lost already. I've moved on. Take the last word. I will not respond to you again, troll.

[Anonymous No.14969424]

>>14969422
>y-y-you've l-l-lost
Notice how you kept replying when I was merely insulting you, but stopped replying as soon as I've pointed logically why your argument is worthless. :^)

[Anonymous No.14969436]

>>14969422
If you're not certain, it's not the definition you would logically choose. Because if condition 4 is true, you could influence the outcome in your favour, but you didn't. Your definition satisfies fewer conditions.

[Anonymous No.14969438]

>>14969436
How would I influence the outcome in my favor? Whether I believed in free will or not, if I wanted a hamburger and one was available to me, I would get it and eat it. The outcome is the same either way.

[Anonymous No.14969443]

>>14969436
If you have free will, decide not to think any words for the next 10 minutes. Some buddhists say they can do it, but only the person experiencing thoughtlessness would know. Personally, I can do it for just as long as it takes the thought, "I'm doing it!" to pop into my head.

[Anonymous No.14969448]

>>14969443
I wonder if people born profoundly deaf learn to think in sign language. I wonder if they can have perfect stillness in their minds, without any sort of thought or concept.

[Anonymous No.14969449]

>>14969438
It doesn't matter how. If there is non-zero probability of you influencing the outcome, believing that option is true the only logical one because it is the only way you satisfy that condition and all the others too. With the other options, you don't satisfy that condition. They are inferior.

[Anonymous No.14969456]

>>14969449
I apologize, anon, but I just don't understand. Why would there be a non-zero probability of me influencing the outcome if I believed I had free will? How would I think or feel anything differently, since I can't choose my thoughts or feelings before I have them in the first place? Whether I believe in free will or not, I will have the same thoughts and feelings about everything except my beliefs about free will. And those beliefs will make no difference, because I know from my own experience that I cannot choose my thoughts or feelings before they occur to me. Is your personal experience different? Can you choose what to think or feel before you think or feel something?

[Anonymous No.14969473]

>>14969456
>Why would there be a non-zero probability of me influencing the outcome if I believed I had free will?
That's not what I meant, reverse it. If there is a possible condition that you can influence the outcome with your intention, believing that you can do it is the only way to achieve that condition . All other beliefs would fall under the first three conditions.
>How would I think or feel anything differently, since I can't choose my thoughts or feelings before I have them in the first place?
You haven't accounted for the possible condition where this statement is not true. You have to do that.

[Anonymous No.14969480]

>>14969473
Alright. Since my argument is based at least in part on my own lived experience, I will choose to believe that I am free to believe in free will, and then believe it. Just tell me, please, how to do that.
Did you try not thinking for 10 minutes? Were you able? Even one minute? Two?
I'm not being catty, here. If I can be more resourceful, I want to be. If believing something I have not believed, and that runs contrary to my lived experience will expand my resourcefulness, and if there is a way to do that, I want to do that.

[Anonymous No.14969493]

>>14969039
Life is deterministic, yet all our reality is designed as if it wasn't. Why are we such idiots? I wonder what a civilization could look like for which the lack of free will and determinism would be the foundations. Probably some murderous totalitarian utopia.

[Anonymous No.14969494]

>>14969480
It's simple. Only believe something if it favours you. It's the only way to satisfy more possible conditions that you wouldn't otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14969509]

>>14969494
Yes, but how do I believe something that I don't believe, and which does not jibe with my lived experience? Assuming that I can choose to believe anything I want, how do I believe what I don't believe? To me, it seems as impossible as not feeling something I'm feeling, or not thinking something I'm thinking.

[Anonymous No.14969519]

>>14969509
It's very very to not believe something you don't want to believe. If you don't have absolute, infallible proof of something, you don't have to believe in it.

[Anonymous No.14969520]

>>14969519
*very very easy

[Anonymous No.14969522]

>>14969519
But I do want to believe this, at least to try it and verify your statement that believing it will make me more resourceful. I just need to know how, please.

[Anonymous No.14969541]

>>14969039
If having a soul is to much responsibility there's no shortage of ways humans have devised to dull their existence. could be worse OP you could have been born without one.

[Anonymous No.14969545]

>>14969541
>could be worse OP you could have been born without one.
How do you know OP isn't a ginger?

[Anonymous No.14969549]

>>14969522
I don't know how you can verify anything beyond doubt. I can only argue in relative terms that belief in something that favours you is superior.

[Anonymous No.14969555]

>>14969545
I never heard of that until people started getting their news from weekly episodes of south park

[Anonymous No.14969556]

>>14969549
> in relative terms that belief in something that favours you is superior
If it leaves you more resourceful than disbelief, I agree. It is better to be more resourceful than less, at least in any situation I can now imagine. But it seems like a moot point, since we cannot choose to believe something we don't believe.

[Anonymous No.14969560]

>>14969555
Yes, it's a joke, like the concept of a soul.

[Anonymous No.14969561]

>>14969522
>I do want to believe this
is blind faith such a filler of disabilities in the area of unmet needs? (Maslow pyramid)

[Anonymous No.14969562]

>>14969560
to deny your soul is to deny your very existence. you my swell just give us your bank account number.

[Anonymous No.14969571]

>>14969405
the ramblings of an insane mind

[Anonymous No.14969572]

>>14969562
My body and my awareness exist, in so far as I'm able to judge these things. And that is enough for me to say that I do exist to at least some extent. My body seems to have what Henry Miller called "an iron will to survive."

[Anonymous No.14969574]

>>14969405
I like fish sticks

[Anonymous No.14969575]

>>14969571

[Anonymous No.14969577]

>>14969574

[Anonymous No.14969579]

>>14969556
>But it seems like a moot point, since we cannot choose to believe something we don't believe.
Again, you have to consider the option that statement is not true.

[Anonymous No.14969583]

>>14969579
I have, and I have been begging you to tell me how to do it. How do I believe something I don't believe? How do I not think something I think, or not feel something I feel? How do I gain conscious control of these things that seem completely automatic to me? Can you do it? You have not answered, and I've asked many times. If so, how? Have you developed some meditative technique? Is Buddhism the answer? Share your knowledge, man! We're just going round and round, here, waiting for you to answer some of these questions.

[Anonymous No.14969584]

>>14969039
>Free will is an illusion
Can I treat you like an npc then? I'm pretty certain free will is real for me

[Anonymous No.14969585]

>>14969584
Can you choose whether or not you want to treat someone like an NPC? If so, how? What's that process like for you?

[Anonymous No.14969604]

>>14969583
I can't give you a definitive answer, who can? But I feel my beliefs have changed over time and life's been better for it.
>Can you do it?
I can do it for a few minutes at a time when lucid dreaming. I can be and have been many times in a space where everything I believe becomes true instantly. Even if it's in my head, even if it doesn't last very long, the feeling of having free will in that space is worth it. My goal is to find methods to induce these experiences and maintain them as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.14969610]

>>14969585
>Can you choose whether or not you want to treat someone like an NPC?
Yeah

>If so, how?
You're asking me how an npc is to be treated or how can I make choices? How do you deal with npcs in games?

>What's that process like for you?
It depends whether I'm in the mood of wasting time, which I'm not anymore.

[Anonymous No.14969609]

>>14969585
>Can you choose
yes
>If so, how?
free will

[Anonymous No.14969618]

>>14969604
>But I feel my beliefs have changed over time and life's been better for it.
I can agree that my beliefs have changed over time, too, but only as reaction to new ideas or new results from the implementations of old beliefs. I am only reacting. I have never proactively chosen to believe or disbelieve anything, and then just done it.

>I can be and have been many times in a space where everything I believe becomes true instantly
Was that like choosing from a menu for you? Did you have a variety of things you could believe, and you chose one, and then it became true?

>>14969610
I'm asking you how you can choose to want or not want things. And just saying, "free will," is begging the question. Even Schopenhauer remarked, "A man can do as he wills, but he cannot want as he wills." I never chose to like pepperoni pizza, for example. I just tried it one day and my natural reaction was to like it.

[Anonymous No.14969645]

>>14969618
>I can agree that my beliefs have changed over time, too, but only as reaction to new ideas or new results from the implementations of old beliefs.
If you are certain your life is better with that belief, all power to you.
>Was that like choosing from a menu for you? Did you have a variety of things you could believe, and you chose one, and then it became true?
I don't know. I chose what I wanted to have happen and it happened. I really don't care if that's free will or not, because that's all I could possibly want.

[Anonymous No.14969648]

>>14969618
>I just tried it one day and my natural reaction was to like it.
pilpul

[Anonymous No.14969650]

>>14969618
>I'm asking you how you can choose to want or not want things
Ask God, I didn't make my soul, I just do. I don't even know where my thoughts come from, I just "will them" into existence and that's it. There is no conscious process behind thinking before the thought, whatever starts the thought is a part of me that cannot speak. Since language is learned after you, I'm pretty sure it's the soul since a soul wouldn't know the language I'm speakng with.

>A man can do as he wills, but he cannot want as he wills.
Your particular tastes are irrelevant to the question of free will, which is about moral choices. There is an evil tendency insitlled in man for the purpose of testing him, but he can always go against his evil desire to desire good.

[Anonymous No.14969653]

>>14969645
>If you are certain your life is better with that belief, all power to you.
He doesn't know what he doesn't know, he is physically castrating his brain by believing such stupid nonsense
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209362/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201804/belief-in-free-will-predictor-success-in-self-control

[Anonymous No.14969665]

>>14969645
>If you are certain your life is better with that belief, all power to you.
No, I'm not at all certain of that, and I've told you already several times. Any belief that will make me more resourceful is probably something I at least want to try believing, and see how it works out for me in real life. I'm pleading with you, now for the last time before I give up and decide you really don't know: HOW? How do I make myself believe something I don't believe? What is the process?

> I chose what I wanted to have happen and it happened
Well, that's something very different from choosing to believe something and it becoming instantly true. Still, I would say that you chose what you wanted, but you did not choose to want what you wanted. Just like I did not choose to like pepperoni pizza.

>>14969648
filtered

>>14969650
If you did not deliberately call the thought into your mind before you thought it, Pascal's daemon might be fucking with your head.

>free will, which is about moral choices. There is an evil tendency insitlled in man for the purpose of testing him, but he can always go against his evil desire to desire good.
But if you did not deliberately and freely choose to have both the evil and the good tendencies, how is that free? And deciding between conflicting tendencies is fully explained without invoking mysticism by describing it as a calculation of the comparative strengths competing influences in your nature and nurture in a given situation. So Occam's razor eliminates the extra assumptions.

>>14969653
Alright! Now, how do I start believing in free will? Please describe the process. Did you one day out of nowhere just deliberately decide to believe in free will? If so, how?

[Anonymous No.14969670]

>>14969665
>Pascal's daemon
My bad. Laplace's daemon.

[Anonymous No.14969677]

>>14969670
Whatever it's called, it's the idea that a daemon in an adjacent room with telepathic ability is stuffing thoughts and feelings into your head. If you did not deliberately call the thought into your mind before you thought it, it might be coming from somewhere or someone else, and you wouldn't know any different.

[Anonymous No.14969691]

>>14969665
>I'm pleading with you, now for the last time before I give up and decide you really don't know
Give up because I don't know and I said it so many times. You don't know either, stop believing that you do. Any statement you make, doubt it. I do the same. I'll never know but I believe anyway because I want to.
>Well, that's something very different from choosing to believe something and it becoming instantly true.
Things you don't want to happen often happen in those conditions because you believe them. Try to practice it and you will understand it better.
>Still, I would say that you chose what you wanted, but you did not choose to want what you wanted. Just like I did not choose to like pepperoni pizza.
This is a belief, not a certainty. Just admit that you don't know these things.

[Anonymous No.14969693]

[bodhi No.14969699]

>>14969039
https://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

[Anonymous No.14969702]

>>14969691
>but I believe anyway because I want to
And this does not advance us, because you can't describe how you chose to want to believe, nor how you chose to believe. I do give up.

>Things you don't want to happen often happen in those conditions because you believe them.
I'm not sure it's as involved as all that. You make it seem similar to an experience on hallucinogens. But really, it's as simple as telling someone not to think of a camel. You have to hold the concept in order to try not to hold the concept.

>This is a belief, not a certainty. Just admit that you don't know these things.
It's my lived experience, and your lived experience is no different. You don't know how you chose to want to believe, and you don't know how you chose to believe. You just did want, and you just did believe. Since you can't explain the deliberative process, and since a deliberative process is not necessary, Occam's razor eliminates the extra steps.

It's time for me to sleep. Thanks for discussing this with me. It may not have been much by someone else's standards, but it was enough to get my brain juices flowing. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." -- Proverbs 27:17

[Anonymous No.14969705]

>>14969665
>If you did not deliberately call the thought into your mind before you thought it
I indeed did

>Pascal's daemon
Don't you mean Laplace's demon you pseud?

>But if you did not deliberately and freely choose to have both the evil and the good tendencies
You did, back in creation you asked for a way to be tested and become worthy of heaven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy8OLzy-Zyc

>deciding between conflicting tendencies is fully explained
Then you have the entire mechanism layed down? Go replicate it and earn your nobel

>by describing it as a calculation
Surely you can describe what calculations are those and what is doing them beyond vague terms based on what you know about computers?

>of the comparative strengths competing influences in your nature and nurture in a given situation
By that reasoning people would not change at all, they would become whatever it is their enviroment dictated, yet there are convert jews in India

[Anonymous No.14969709]

>>14969665
>Alright! Now, how do I start believing in free will?
By not being retarded? Do you not realize you say you believe everything you do was not chosen by you, yet at the same time you pretend that is not true since you are trying to convince others, who supposedly couldn't have chosen any belief themselves but rather were imposed them like billiard balls collading on each other to generate an outcome? If you were coherent you would enter a vegetative state and wait until further commands were given to you by stimuli.

>Did you one day out of nowhere just deliberately decide to believe in free will
No since that is the standard, the common sense for anyone who has lived. Believing in wrong, contradictory ideas that maime your mind, on the other hand, is indeed a choice.

[Anonymous No.14969712]

free will is a self evident truth of reality, you would have to be a complete moron to believe otherwise. crazy how people will continually rationalise themselves into absurd beliefs based on what they consider to be 'science' or 'logic'

[Anonymous No.14969715]

>>14969705
>>14969709

Why do religious people always come off with so much anger, nastiness, and name-calling? It just seems impossible to have a polite, friendly contest of ideas and expressions with them. They can't help but bully anyone who disagrees with them. No wonder churches are losing congregants and going broke.
Anyway, I'm out. Enjoy yourselves.

[Anonymous No.14969739]

>>14969702
If someone gave me a magical wish granting genie that made my every wish come true but required that I admitted to them that I don't have free will, that it is an illusion and it was predetermined, I would gladly do it. I don't care to argue past that point.

[Anonymous No.14969742]

>>14969677
>If you did not deliberately call the thought into your mind before you thought it, it might be coming from somewhere or someone else, and you wouldn't know any different.
This idea fails because you have an unity of consciouness that can evaluate those thoughts, that is, "something" is doing the receiving, and that something can also evaluate it.

[Anonymous No.14969746]

>>14969742
>and that something can also evaluate it.
And you actually believe that as evidenced by your choice of words
>>14969677
>and you wouldn't know any different.

Who is you? You obviously recognize an external agent capable of discussion.

[Anonymous No.14969749]

>>14969712
>crazy how people will continually rationalise themselves into absurd beliefs based on what they consider to be 'science' or 'logic'
That reminds me of a certain group of people

>>14969715
>Why do religious people always come off with so much anger, nastiness, and name-calling?
Why do you feel bothered by reactions to stimuli?

[Anonymous No.14969751]

>>14969715
>It just seems impossible to have a polite, friendly contest of ideas and expressions
Do you not realize you are contradicting yourself performatically?

[Anonymous No.14969756]

>>14969359
If the end result is known then why run the simulation

[Anonymous No.14969763]

>>14969359
Go chat with your peers, go try to convince them they have no free will like yourself little robot
https://simsimi.com/

[Anonymous No.14969768]

>>14969359
>>14969359
Here OP, this might be a better option
https://my.replika.com/

Enjoy yourself chatting with someone like you believe you to be

[Anonymous No.14969777]

>>14969337
>There is no identity or consciousness separate from the body and nervous system.
We can go further, what differentiates the body from the universe at large?

[Anonymous No.14969795]

>>14969039
Good job refuting your own strawman of free will and offering glimpse of your damaged psyche. Your likes have a deep resentment towards the idea of personal agency and its implications, not a logical objection towards a concrete intellectual position.

[Anonymous No.14969886]

Now draw the right eye

[Anonymous No.14969902]

>>14969039
I could tell you because I know the answer but I decided not to.

[Strange Love No.14970347]

>OP suffering from severe case of Laplace demon

Call an exorcist ..

[Anonymous No.14970922]

Did this thread start on /sci/? Why is everyone so angry in here?

I don't know if I agree with everything OP is saying, but I agree with determinism to a degree. Any "choice" you make is determined by some physical element in your brain + the environment you're in. If you look at a bird flying in the sky that's going to trigger some sort of though whether it's about birds, flying, hunting, animals, fucking anything.
I find it interesting that most people acknowledge that AI trained with machine learning aren't sentient beings but completely deny determinism. I'm not even sure how to describe "free will" other than some RNG component in our biological coding, but even then you could argue that nothing is truly "random"

[Anonymous No.14970938]

>>14969074
Two paragraphs of shit.

[Anonymous No.14970973]

>>14969039
Illusion of self creates the illusion of "free will"

The illusion that "I" which controls the body, "I" that has a name, "I" that is typing, "I" that is thinking, "I" that feels the cold shower in bathroom, "I" that is born, "I" that dies, "I" that is alive, etc.

The nefarious "I", that believes "it" has a brain that can be swapped out for another, "I" that believes it can swap out its body, "I" that imagines things, etc.

The "I" is a delusion. There's no centralized I. Everything that happens to the body happens in accordance to combination of a universal chain of causality and a local chain of causality clashing within the boundary of the body.

[Aether king of sci No.14970976]

It's not an illusion, you pick right or left or stand inferentially deciding... The fact that decision making is in play voids total illusion. There are other factors that void total illusion, such as inference ratio, rationality, capitalism and more.

Though it is not in total an illusion, there is the fact of the illusion where will is concerned. Yes you are right, will is like a half full cup that's also half empty, you can't pinpoint if it's free or not but you can construct a thesis on it's illusion to realize this nature.

You(inference ratio) - go(decision making) - out(illusion) - and(rationality) - play(capitalism) - ball(invention).

[Aether king of sci No.14970987]

[non No.14970989]

>>14970938
2 whole paragraphs? must be a wall of text

[Anonymous No.14971019]

>>14970922
>I find it interesting that most people acknowledge that AI trained with machine learning aren't sentient beings but completely deny determinism. I'm not even sure how to describe "free will" other than some RNG component in our biological coding, but even then you could argue that nothing is truly "random"
How does it confuse you? Soulless beings are obviously deterministic. Humans have souls and are thus capable of free choice.

[Anonymous No.14971027]

>>14971019
What's a soul?

[Anonymous No.14971231]

>>14969039
you're right

the phenomenon of Qualia confuses me though. I guess the universe is just inherently capable of experiencing things.

[Anonymous No.14971301]

>>14969039
Butthurt cynicism isn't reason. Free will isn't mutually exclusive with determinism. You can look at it both ways, where either is a function of the other. Nevertheless you can't only have one. To be in a way that you can be cognitively contra either, you must always have both or nothing at all.
>Someone pushed you and you became a human domino therefore no free will
That's not what free will means.
>Your heart beats automatically therefore no free will
That's not free will.
>You didn't choose to be born
Nothing to do with free will
>Why can't I be a woman
You will never be a woman.
>Did I CHOOSE to be a criminal or am I innocent of my own self responsibility
You still have free will in prison anon.

[Anonymous No.14971322]

>>14971027
I suggest reading the Bible.

[Anonymous No.14972135]

>>14971322
This is why I can't take Christians seriously.

[Aether king of sci No.14972159]

>>14971322
I read the Bye bull, it's easy, it's lots of bullshit you say bye to.

[Anonymous No.14973295]

>>14972135
the bible is an academic journal on god