Do you believe in determinism Jow Forums...

Do you believe in determinism Jow Forums? That even your motivation is just a random fluctuation in dopamine that you can't control, and your industriousness is just a function of your current serotonin levels?

Attached: 1562336175781.jpg (602x597, 67K)

No.

Yes but good luck getting anyone else to admit that they aren't in control of themselves.

Who is this beautiful woman?

Dopamine and serotonin are absolutely linked to human behaviour. Further, all human action has a direct and unchangeable link to certain physical phenomena (almost universally represented within the brain).

The issue arises when people begin to believe (as a result of a flawed and entirely ungrounded metaphysic) that because a certain thing, from one aspect, occurs alongside (or even simply is) a certain mental function, the "physical" is the ultimate determinant of the "mental", and that the "mental" is even "nothing but" the "physical".

There is absolutely no reason to believe this, yet we almost all universally do so because to deny this would be to deny things very dear to our understanding of metaphysics, which is painful to us.

What I mean to say is that physical determinism is literally nothing but an embodiment of cope.

>What I mean to say is that physical determinism is literally nothing but an embodiment of cope.
It's literally the other way around. You are coping if you think you are in control of yourself and your own thoughts.

To elaborate a little bit, the entire notion rests on a metaphysical notion that time is inherent and that there is nothing to being other than the movement of physical objects throughout time, which interact in certain ways and by certain laws in order to cause all that is possible. Our lives were begun by this process, and our consciousness is certain physical things reacting with other certain physical things and "sending a signal". There is nothing beyond time and space, and time and space are the bedrock of all possible existence - further, material within time and space exists outside of us and continues in some certain manner even when it does not interact with any "signal-giving" physical matter.

This metaphysical system has been with us in some form or another for a very long time (thousands of years, but only becoming absolutely dominant in the last 300 years). It's never particularly been expounded, and it's entirely inconsistent.

It's probably the result of trying to describe metaphysics using the words through which we interact with our environment (and [or including] with other people). They're entirely unfit when unexamined.

I didn't say that I believe in some sort of absolute free will (I don't think the notion makes particular sense), but that doesn't mean that I believe that the behavior of people behavior is governed by the brain.

If you can actually think about this issue, you'll realize where your error lies when you use the proposition "i exist" to arrive at the proposition "i do not exist".

As Schopenhauer said:
>A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.
Even when you think you're making a rational, free will decision, the biases and presumptions and behavioral and environmental inputs that are all coalescing to give the illusion of "deciding" are all predetermined.
There isn't a single credible philosophical account of free will.

You're only getting schopenhaur half right. His point is that man has a limited range of free will. You have the ability to make decisions, but the number of choices you can come to is finite and defined semi-deterministically.
Neither extreme is wholly right, and reality is a difficult to navigate melange of the two concepts.

I believe that the best way to get rich is to buy some crypto currency then sell it in a few years and do nothing for the rest of my life except play vidya, fap and eat fast food.

But the weighing of factors that influence which decision we make, that appears to us to be the exercise of free will, is in fact a weighing of things that we are already preinclined to attribute certain value to.
What we perceive as "freely" making decisions is just our brain reconciling various biases and inputs which are already deterministically established.
I think this sort of discussion gets too bogged down in semantics to be particularly meaningful, in any case.

The best way to reconcile the entire free will debate is that man has no freedom to choose his nature, yet has a nature nonetheless. If you will, he is a perfection automaton that uses what is available to him.
The free will debate ultimately reduces to the question of whether or not man can choose his own nature.

I like to settle on the fact that even if the universe is purely deterministic, it's so complex that humans, in their limited capacity, can completely subscribe to the idea of free will and function as if it exists.

>I think this sort of discussion gets too bogged down in semantics to be particularly meaningful, in any case.
This.
Pragmatically, we experience free will (or the illusion there of). The phenomenon is real enough that it persists no matter how hard you shill determinism. That's what's important IMO. Either it's real or it's a completely persistent illusion, making it real in the pragmatic sense.

The only thing you ever experience is making choices. Rejecting that subjective reality based on models of how rocks interact that you made up within that subjective reality that you reject makes no sense. What's "control" or "will" when stripped of any practical context? The formation of life defined the system you claim determines everything life does. None of it makes sense because you're assuming your constructed models represent objective reality accurately but they don't. You have absolutely no idea.

>there is nothing to being other than the movement of physical objects through time

What else could there possibly be?

How can you not understand that this is something only a brainwashed person would say? Physical objects don't even objectively exist and neither does the arrow of time.The phenomena we perceive as physical objects moving through time and space can be conceived as aspects of a universal field but that's also a made up story to help us conceptualize things we have almost no grasp on.

This is the most realistic answer. Our subjective experience is one of 'choice' because we have less than perfect understanding of the determinants of our behavior. This blank space which we pour ourselves into feels like 'choosing' but from an outside perspective, it just an automaton running a heuristics program, reconciling the utility values of various inbuilt drives, motivations, proclivities, priorities and acting upon the one with the highest perceived utility at any given moment in time.

Dopamine is the neurotransmitter of drive, motivation, future modeling and salience, and people with a sensitized/upregulated dopaminergic system are better at modeling future situations and their potential rewards. That's why they engage in complex motivated behavior with long-term payoffs. But ultimately people 'exerting their will' in this manner are still doing the same thing that a slob or a cumbrain are doing - running a heuristic function on their perceived possibility space and going with the option that has highest perceived utility. Cumbrains' modeling software is just less robust is all.

>we cant even grasp it man
>but trust me like theres other shit I know dude

Lol physical is a definition we apply to certain things given their properties. To say it objectively doesnt exist is completely retarded because that word we apply to things that exist. You're saying something along the lines of "dude bachelors aren't even objectively unmarried"

Lay off the weed and get a job.

If I pull that off I'm going to dedicate myself to drawing the best porn.

You're willfully misreading to protect your fragile dogmatic worldview..
>What else could there possibly be [than the movement of physical objects through time]?
Physical objects are not baseline reality. Your question is retarded on every level, all it does is show how conditioned you are by atheist religious dogma.

Lmao fucking atheists. Free will exists. Imagine believing that it doesn't. Just because you lack will, user doesnt mean others do. You're just weak. Learn how to cope without resorting to these theories.

Ouch...

Jordana Peterson

I'd just like to add how simplistic and fundamental free will is in regards to our aggregate conception of reality.
>don't get off couch
>get off couch
>don't wave
>wave
Choice implies free will, and dogmatic abstraction is a mental illness.

>everything obeys the laws of physics except the atoms in my brain because reasons

sounds like you're the one coping here buddy

We don't know what physics is really describing, all observations would look the same if for example the entire back history of the universe from your perspective was rewritten every time you make a choice. Subjective experience which we know exists because we're experiencing it can't be derived from physical models.

>t. mentally ill abstraction poster
Free will is a divine gift from God to man. Spiritual and psychological warfare exist as a means to subvert free will. In spite of this, you are capable of exerting force in discord relative to these abstractions. In fact, the very idea of abstraction implies free will. Now choose whether or not to reply and prove my point, please.

Okay what is baseline reality and how did you arrive at that knowledge?

Choice implies will. Nobody is saying there is no will, the question is whether it's free.

Will is free will. Now its a semantic abstraction. You just can't stop.

Not this thread again

>argumentum ad ignorantiam/hurr what are words and meanings and do our eyes even real sophistry brainlet

>literal religion brainlet

Attached: 128891063975.png (471x354, 231K)

Imagine thinking the universe was created out of literally nothing.

I don't know but even physics says physical objects aren't it. Atoms are a result of a long chain of interactions between the fundamental forces which are explained in terms of universal fields like I already mentioned. Most physicists agree they will find out there's one underlying field that explains all the forces but that still doesn't really explain anything fundamental, all you've done is describe a few observations in more detail with a relatively accurate but made up story. If at any point you stop and say "what could possibly be more" you've conditioned yourself to only be able to think in these terms. It says nothing about the fundamental nature of reality/the mind of God. When you make a model and proclaim it to encompass everything you've made an image of God which leads you away from the real image of God that's with you in every moment.

>what are words and meanings
You clearly don't know since you confuse words and concepts with reality so easily. These are things people figured out thousands of years ago but we're now regressing through conditioning ourselves with our own bullshit. There were stone age people that believed the lights in the sky were animals being chased by hunters that still had a better grasp on reality than you do.

all that word salad to say absolutely nothing, sophistry isn't wisdom dumbass

Attached: 1332512047941.png (441x411, 76K)

So what, specifically, was fallacious about his argument? What about that paragraph are you describing as 'word salad'?

Attached: 1566526721147.jpg (770x470, 153K)

bump for justice

It doesn't matter, our baseline level is that we believe we have control and freewill, I will follow my instincts.

Not necessarily determinism, there might very well be components of complete randomness. That doesn't change the conclusion that free will is an illusion, though.

Determinism is 100% copelet metaphysics.