Free will doesn't exist

Attached: free.gif (450x256, 3.31M)

i think i messed that up lol

you can't influence a deterministic system though?

What do you mean by this?

It was my free will to read this post.
Quantums are random and statistical by their very nature, this reflects macroscopically, therefore it is impossible to predict the state of the universe some time in the future even if you have the initial conditions.

To cut a long story short, this means that free will can exist because complete pre-determination is impossible.

Lmao no. Free will only exists to those whom think

So basically what you're saying is that we should have 3rd impact

>>
i'm so bored to explain to you why this is wrong, i hoping french user will tho

>He watches his shows that Offer nothing but the constant Stimulation Of flashing colours and pseudointellectual platitudes. their cliche nihilistic messages help put out the fuse of his existential anxiety.
So, much like reading Jow Forums

You've summed it up exactly in your last question.

ill just give you this, your post proves to me that you have never experimented with brain chemical altering substances. only then will you realize free will is an illusion. you wouldn't have the motivation to even fart without the proper brain neurochemistry, let alone read this thread. the only reason you read this is because your neurotransmitters fire up in different parts of your brain stimulating your curiosity. Determinism exists not as an 1 way river but as a cyclical paradox as we the observers acknowledge it but can't influence it.

Being a part of the system (which you are), you can't, and the system being the universe, or the multiverse or the multi multiverse, etc.

ITT people argue themselves out of agency. Yes good goy.

Jow Forums is nihilistic?
I wouldn't say so

"freedom" and "will" are entirely subjective man-made concepts

technically you cant possibly be free, or you'd be omnipotent god

Maybe you should first define "free will". Then we can talk.

Attached: 7 of 9 cheese cake.gif (334x251, 2.39M)

Spinoza might help you with this:
sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/corr/corr60.htm

"I say that a thing is free, which exists and acts solely by the necessity of its own nature. Thus also God understands Himself and all things freely, because it follows solely from the necessity of His nature, that He should understand all things. You see I do not place freedom in free decision, but in free necessity. However, let us descend to created things, which are all determined by external causes to exist and operate in a given determinate manner. In order that this may be clearly understood, let us conceive a very simple thing. For instance, a stone receives from the impulsion of an external cause, a certain quantity of motion, by virtue of which it continues to move after the impulsion given by the external cause has ceased. The permanence of the stone's motion is constrained, not necessary, because it must be defined by the impulsion of an external cause. What is true of the stone is true of any individual, however complicated its nature, or varied its functions, inasmuch as every individual thing is necessarily determined by some external cause to exist and operate in a fixed and determinate manner.

Further conceive, I beg, that a stone, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavouring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavour and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined. (…)"

Also: plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Attached: what do you mean by this.gif (450x256, 3.66M)

"Thus an infant believes that it desires milk freely; an angry child thinks he wishes freely for vengeance, a timid child thinks he wishes freely to run away. Again, a drunken man thinks, that from the free decision of his mind he speaks words, which afterwards, when sober, he would like to have left unsaid. So the delirious, the garrulous, and others of the same sort think that they act from the free decision of their mind, not that they are carried away by impulse. As this misconception is innate in all men, it is not easily conquered. For, although experience abundantly shows, that men can do anything rather than check their desires, and that very often, when a prey to conflicting emotions, they see the better course and follow the worse, they yet believe themselves to be free; because in some cases their desire for a thing is slight, and can easily be overruled by the recollection of something else, which is frequently present in the mind.

I have thus, if I mistake not, sufficiently explained my opinion regarding free and constrained necessity, and also regarding so-called human freedom: from what I have said you will easily be able to reply to your friend's objections. For when he says, with Descartes, that he who is constrained by no external cause is free, if by being constrained he means acting against one's will, I grant that we are in some cases quite unrestrained, and in this respect possess free will. But if by constrained he means acting necessarily, although not against one's will (as I have explained above), I deny that we are in any instance free."

Nobody's forcing you to do anything, but the fact of the matter is that every decision you make is affected by things happening around you and what you've already experienced. Your actions then affect future actions. In a sense, everything is already per-determined.

If you hear this, we just want you to wake up. Please wake up. We dont want to lose you. Please get better.

Actually wrong. It’s God’s omniscience, along with his omnipotence, that results in the absence of free will. If God knows all, then he knows which shoes you’ll choose today. Were you free to choose your shoes, though? Well as free as a programmed robot

Yeah.

>Sculpture Roman
>Négre de sables
C'est comment, Le baguette éducation Pierre?

Attached: IMG_0914.jpg (677x583, 101K)

Attached: hear this.gif (256x256, 3.3M)

god or not, its all subjective and always constrained simply by biological needs and laws of physics

Attached: anthonyTCK.jpg (1200x1500, 263K)

He's saying that if YOU are completely free, you'd be an omnipotent God. The example you brought shows that you aren't free in the presence of an EXTERNAL omnipotent God because the omnipotent God can do whatever the hell he wants with you since he's omnipotent which shows that the God itself is actually free. If the God lacks total freedom then he is by definition NOT Omnipotent.

Just because God knows which shoes you’re gonna put on doesn’t mean you do. You’re then one deciding which one you want. You have to grasp that God does not operate in the temporal realm. God is outside time. Think about it in therms of a plain. God sees/is that plain. Creation is like a line on that plain. God can see the whole line. We being in that line only see our current place in it and can read in some part what happend in the past but have no way of knowing the future. God knows. He saw the crucifiction when he created the first nebulae.
You’re arguing because God knows a thing then that thing need not exist because God knows it. Even if God knows it,you do not. And the choice of which shoe you gonna pick is not known to you until you make it. Hence the free will to pick it.

You make decisions based on needs, knowledge, experiences, intuition (abstract thinking), EQ and open-mindedness.

The more you developed your cognitive functions and abilities mentioned above, the more possibilities you see.
An inbalace/underdevelopment leads to less consciousness/awareness, but you won't even realize how conscious you are unless you ever experienced a more conscious state

I've never seen so many contradictions in one post. How are you free to make a choice (which you will) when it is already bound to happen?

Attached: 1518116721361.jpg (450x370, 16K)

A glass of beer for this gentleman.

no proofs just meme thought experiments

a-are you okay?

Ill take it a step further - is there a possibility of building such a machine with simulated free will that it will genuinely believe it possesses free will and has rights that on par with humans. Is it moral to kill such a machine? If the machine genuinely believes it has free will despite it being formed by quantum computer circuits why should people think they have free will despite being formed by years of growing connections in the brain influenced by outside forces?

Goodness gracious, I'd really hate being religious... look at the amount of mental gymnastics you're going through just to supposedly refute such a simple argument, only to end up contradicting youself.

Free will can exist, but the vast majority of humans never achieve that level of development.

Irrelevant. No one will ever live their life as if free will doesn't exist.

>You make decisions based on needs, knowledge, experiences, intuition (abstract thinking), EQ and open-mindedness.

True, but did you in your life decide upon all the factors which shaped your needs, knowledge, intuition, eq and open-mindedness? You never chose what family you were born into, the type of parenting you would receive by your parents (and neither did they from their parents, and them from theirs, etc.), the experiences you'd share in, any childhood trauma, etc. These would all produce the mind (and subsequently the qualities you listed above) you have today, in a physical way. Your brain is physically shaped by the experiences you share in, it doesn't exist separate from the world as it may be intuitive to think.

And I do not think your second point is valid. I think it takes much more to see that you do not truly have free will. It is intuitive to think that you have it and counter-intuitive to think that it doesn't exist.

Free will exists, you are free to do whatever the fuck you want, fuck these rigorist and arbitrary traditions as well as authoritarianism, embrace freedom.

Koko, a gorilla that has learned sign language can interact with her keeper in about 200 words. She can state sentences and reply to questions. Do you know what separates Koko from people? Koko is unable to ask questions.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ihC6QHS_m0

'Belief' requires consciousness and it is impossible for us to know how this stuff works. It comes down to the absolute fundamental question of existence.

Creating A.I. that processes things similar to us?
Apparently our processing is flawed and biased - A.I. relies on equations and it would be easier to make its processing far superior to us than build in the 'randomness' factor of humans.

We got the issue of individuality. Everything we think is subjective, including morality. An A.I. would be purely logical.

The processing of the outter world is a completely different subject

Romans 9: 17-
for the Writing saith to Pharaoh -- 'For this very thing I did raise thee up, that I might shew in thee My power, and that My name might be declared in all the land;'
so, then, to whom He willeth, He doth kindness, and to whom He willeth, He doth harden.
Thou wilt say, then, to me, 'Why yet doth He find fault? for His counsel who hath resisted?'
nay, but, O man, who art thou that art answering again to God? shall the thing formed say to Him who did form it, Why me didst thou make thus?hath not the potter authority over the clay, out of the same lump to make the one vessel to honour, and the one to dishonour?
And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,
and that He might make known the riches of His glory on vessels of kindness, that He before prepared for glory, whom also He did call -- us --not only out of Jews, but also out of nations,

Bible supports no free will as as even God has to sit back and wait for you decision if your will is free. Which he does not because God tells the end from the beggining.
Isaiah 46:10

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Living "free" is not a matter of breaking chains, but finding the ones worth wearing.

if you want to live free kys.

The Bible is fiction though, so it's not really a good point of reference.

i disagree in your belief that it is fiction, i believe it is real, and lets face it, none of us knows for a fact if God exists or not

i only have my faith

In a practical sense, free will is manifested by ignorance of the future. This is the illusion of free will of action and consequence.
However, there is a higher conception of free will; the ability to imagine the future and an extension of the present. This is not bound by action and consequence in any material or temporal manner. This is the absolute free will of choice.

>hurr durr you aren't omnipotent therefore you aren't free
The argument is free WILL you fucking hornswoggles. No shit you aren't an omnipotent god, therefore you aren't "free" but let me posit you something:
So let's say you go to a gloryhole. You pop a Viagra to get good and hard, and shove your dick in. Now, do you know if the mouth on the other side belongs to a man, or a woman? You don't. So if it belongs to a dude, that's gay bro. But you say to yourself "wait, I'm not gay. I wouldn't like something like that." THATS you exercising your free will: by being able to mentally separate your mental faculties from your present circumstances, and you realize you are more than the sum of your actions and the circumstances that surround them.
So let's say you go to the gloryhole, pop the Viagra, and are just about to shove it in Schroedinger's hole, but then decide.... Ehhh, not worth the herpes. So you turn around and walk away. That ALSO is exercising free will, by taking the third (or illogical) option. Rationally, it would be very silly to do such a thing, since you have already committed so many resources to do this act (making time, finding a good gloryhole, driving there, taking the pill), that to NOT shove in would be a massive waste of all that effort, which consequentialists would say you have to do.
Free will is the ability to change your mind independently of available information and variables, and do something unrelated in context.
Free will is the ability to get a gloryhole bj from someone of unknown chromosomes and not feel bad about it.

The perception of the outter world*

I think of 'needs' in an instinctive way.
We got a basic software we are born with to develop and survive.
Your development would be dependent on how much your needs (bonding, safety, ...) are met.
You copy behavior of others and try different things yourself to develop behavior that matches your needs.

This creates experiences you can rely on.
Knowledge would be more theoretically gathered

This man gives the best examples. I like ur ense of humour.

Attached: 1523424680348.jpg (960x640, 65K)

What you did yesterday you did out of free choice, just because someone knows what choice you made doesn't make it any less free.
Tomorrow you will make choices out of free will, just because someone knows what choice you will make doesn't make it less free.

I think puberty does a huge part for our open-mindedness. The 'new' instinctive needs and libido seem to force us into way more independent development

I would love to hear other theories about the development of individuals.

Thanks mate, you Australians shitpost a lot, but it's often funny and you seem like a good guy. I will always advocate for the supremacy of free will over the defeatist, consequentialist cuckolded mindset of people who would think to squander their greatest gift.

libertarian free will is false for the simple reason that all things are caused by other things.

It's confirmed fictional. The Genesis narratives are adapted from Sumerian myths, but not closely enough that they could be considered non-fiction if those Sumerian myths aren't fictional. Similarly, you have narratives like the Exodus, which isn't supported by any evidence and also contains mythic elements (Moses secreted away in a basket = Sargon of Akkad's origin) and has a clear moment of authorship following the Babylonian Exile. Add to this basic inaccuracies such as the statement of Yeshua's hometown being Nazareth, which was not established until after his supposed existence.

Spinoza was a Kike and was furthering kikish goals by denying free will and effectively claiming that the Goy are cattle.

Prove we don't have free will.
Also if we don't have free will what the fuck does that change? It is like saying everything in the universe is traveling a trillion mph in the same direction or there are a bunch of invisible Hitlers around you that go away when you look at them, but you also can't feel them or sense them in any way, or that someone discovered that everything in the universe is splunge. It doesn't change anything and may as well not exist.

Three possibilities:
1) Souls exist, they are not defined by natural laws or divine laws, therefore you have free will.
2) Souls exist, they are defined by natural laws or divine laws, therefore you don't have free will.
3) You are comprised of only atoms. Every single atom is subject to natural laws from the beginning of time. Whether subatomic substances are random, it doesn't change the fact that you are subject to them. You are a robot build with carbon. But your consciousness can't understand it, you can only know the fact. So, it doesn't change your day to day life.

Pick one.

Define free will

I was arguing about free will in a sense of making decisions based on your individual capability according to the instinctive needs.

Somebody with an IQ of 180 (abstract problem solving) sees more possibilities than a person with an IQ of 70.
Knowledge and other factors influence your decision making, which comes off as 'free will'.

do new borns have the free will to reject food/milk or is their need of survival too strong?
Their free will or decision making seems to be non-existent.

2.
however free will is not coherent as a concept free of action and consequence. free will clearly does not mean free action. what it means is freedom of morality.
i argue that morality is a natural law in the universe, and freedom of morality is not bound by action and consequence on the spacetime plane. it is ruled by a higher plane of existence.

Therefore, free will would require perfection - knowledge of all possibilities without restriction of natural laws and not to face any consequences.

if free will doesnt exist then Free-er Will does exist and people who dont try to properly exercise that free-er will get what they deserve

I Cry into the abyss because i choose to cry, i was not doomed to

Free will absolutely exists as it is a gift from God in His unconditional love for us.

If determinism is true then the determanist has not “discovered” anything. Their “discovery” itself is just a predetermined chemical reaction in their brains, or just fundamentally materialistic physics. By what basis can the determinist claim to have ownership for his "discoverery" of determinism since he is simply just a totality of causal interactions across space-time? By what basis should he or anyone care about his worldview? It's just meaningless causal interactions that he somehow claims ownership. This worldview is simply the tired nihilism that mankind has fought against for millenia, rehashed over and over and over again. Our children will be discussing this same garbage on an interplanetary Mongolian yak breeding website.

Everything that is going to happen will happen, no matter what. You can't change fate and neither you can tell what it will be which creates the illusion of free will. Everything you see, hear and experience shapes who you are and the choices you are going to make. And I think this is why equality is total bs. Although I don't deny that I FEEL myself steering at the helm through life's possibilities but there is always a single outcome. The concept of free will is there to make us feel accountable for our actions. This is a paradox because the lesson comes after the test.

No, free will is just what it says. Specifically that your desire to act or your thoughts (leading to that desire) can't be influenced entirely (the definition doesn't exclude being influenced partly) by anything. That's all.
Now, I don't know about morality. If I pay person-A to kill person-B, the murder wouldn't happen without me. But, me and person-A BOTH are going to jail. Humanity has already made that decision regardless of the state of the reality regarding free will.

What about the trolley problem? Would you pull the lever not to kill 5 people but only 1?

What does that question have to do with free will?

(I probably would though knowing myself.)

You would be responsible for killing that one person. Perhaps that one person was worth more than the other 5 combined. If you didnt pull it you would not be responsible for death of any person. What made you pull the lever - youre free will or the value system you have adapted in the past?
Theres a entertaining episode of "mindfield" on this subject made by "vsauce" (Michael stevens) also hemade an episode regarding freedom of choice.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 330K)

Indeed, the fight of religion and rationality. The reason church is blamed for stopping our development in science, philosophy, etc. for hundreds of years

Your blind belief makes you ignorant and following it without striving for critical questions is exactly what jesus has been warning us about

You are not telling me anything knew or interesting here.
I would be absolutely responsible. I am fine with that. As I said, knowing myself, I would pull the lever. That means, I would think that I had no time to properly establish if that one person is more valuable than the five people over there, so screw him.
To answer your question: since I don't know whether I have free will or not, I cannot answer your question honestly.

I respect that you are humble and dont come to conclusions so easy. watch mindfield if you havent already. I would be reluctant to pull the lever. I dont want to kill that one person. I wouldnt want him to die by my hand.
Have you watched no country for old men? It plays with idea of determinants that make it so that people come at circumstances where they are in the right place and right time to be killed by a hitman who kills everyone he deems as witnesses.

This is one of the most iconic scenes on the subject. The hitman believes is a predetermined fate. Thats why he doesnt toss the coin and ask what is under it (by that the choice of cashier can influence fate ) but rather asks prior to tossing the coin for the chance to be solely on theoutcome of the coin.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=OLCL6OYbSTw

I haven't watched "no country for old men". Sounds interesting though.

Im sorry i disremembered. It is vice versa. The hitman tosses the coin first. Then the chnace of being either dead or alive is on the hands of cashier. If he would ask what the outcome will be and then toss it, the fate would not be in the hands of the cashier but in the coin itself. Damn i messed that up so bad. A brilliant movie, nonetheless.

>Specifically that your desire to act or your thoughts can't be influenced entirely by anything
i think it is self evident that this is not the case in a purely material context.
whether "will" is bound by materialism is what the argument naturally moves towards.

I think there is a possibility of creating a machine with as much free will as humans or any other beings (no free will). And I do not think it would be moral to kill such a machine if, when talking about it's mind, it is indistinguishable from any other beings, for which it would be said that it is immoral to kill them.

But it is a machine nonetheless. So why not cease it? And if this machine thinks the same way humans do would it be correct to say theiyre equal? And if theyre equal and i am willing to kill the machine part, why not kill a human being then?

So why do you think she's not able to ask questions?

Gorillas obviously do not have the capacity to process language as we do, they had not (yet) evolved to do so.

She'd been taught as much words as her brain will allow, and she's communicated as much as her brain will allow - due to where gorillas are evolutionarily in respect with communication.

Sbaboabfiwjd eiwnsjaonddnwo

>you’re wrong

It is a question of whether only humans are capable of being aware of some purpose and using free will to guide ones actions. If animals act because of instincts but humans because of some free will and pupose, then it can be reasonable to say we are created by a creatormof some sorts. That we are unique.

I'd not call it a machine, unless you want to call yourself a biological machine ignorant of it's constituent mechanisms.

If you think it's moral to kill a being, whose mind is indistinguishable from a human mind, then that is your opinion.

>Free will doesn't exist.
Yes it does. Its constrained by negative consequences (law) and my personal ability,but other than that, I can pretty much do and think anything.

practically you cant prove it

There is the big question whether it could be actually possible to recreate a human thought process in a machine.
Like this guy said >We got the issue of individuality. Everything we think is subjective, including morality. An A.I. would be purely logical.

>free will

We don't have it. We weren't created.

I believe living beings have different levels of conscience, with humans having the highest level, but none of us have free will.

Maybe we are those machines. Made fromthe image of our creator. Seems familiar. Elon musk says its very possible that we are living in a simulation. Do gta 5 npcs have free will? What about games that will come out 20 years after this, 50 years?

>Free will doesn't exist.
If this statement is true; There can be no outcry if someone attacks and injures you. They have no free will.

What do you think about nature vs nurture?

What dictates/ is the base our will then? Asking unironically.

Meant for you