How to spot a brainlet

>almost 4 minutes of complete nonsense
tl;dw
the bible says god gave us free will. nothing will change this fact

>It's complete nonsense because the bible says god gave us free will, nothing will change this fact
k

>Thanks for stating that you are the monsters.
Yeah, of course we are. Anarchy is basically just egoism. I don't want your best interests, I want my own. That's simple, and you should expect it.

Who forced me to call you a faggot OP?
You are a faggot OP.

A man with free will is one that acts irrationally and against his own well being
t. pain in my liver but I refuse to get help out of spite

the cause-and-effect chain that was set in motion with the creation of the universe forced you to do so.

Attached: le serious cat.jpg (1172x1646, 125K)

How does this affect how I choose to react in any given situation? I have two options and i choose one. Or because there are infinite universes in which all options are chosen there is not actual free will. Cool cool, tell me more.

>I have two options and i choose one.
prove to me that you could have "chosen" the other option.

only one outcome was possible and it's the one that actually happened. since any action can only happen exactly one time (if you repeat the 'experiment' the time and position of atoms in the universe are different, so it is not the exact same 'experiment', just a close approximation of the original 'experiment') and we can only observe exactly one outcome (the one that happened), what makes you think that any other outcome would have been possible given the circumstances? you are believing in things that can not be observed or measured and can not logically exist, in other words you are believing in fairy tales.

Attached: le serious cat..jpg (255x302, 21K)

>makes a thread with an eye catching unrelated image because he's too stupid to make it interesting enough with just text

Someone skipped their RELIABILITY class from statistics 101.

>what makes you think that any other outcome would have been possible given the circumstances?
The fact that I don't always bother calling OP a faggot when he tries to attach the concept of free will wrongly to some other concept of things happening as they happen yet being unable to convey this concept differently.

You just have brain problems, there's no outside ghost making you do this stupid shit.

i explained it as simple as it could be explained and you still do not understand.

where is the absolute and undeniable proof that you could have "chosen" any other action than calling op a faggot?

youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

In my mind faggot. I was debating, should I call OP a faggot or keep scrolling. Go back in time and CT scan my brain and see exactly what was going through my head. Until then take my word for it, that I considered both options, and because of hate for your redditness, I wanted to call you out, faggot.

>people replying angrily because they're too dumb to understand simple cause and effect logic

Attached: 1474638955463.jpg (236x350, 11K)

There are certain things that happen in life that a person really can't control, some people blame god or the universe but there is something there that fucks with people more than others, doesn't need a reason, it seems irrational because humans aren't intelligent/haven't progressed enough as a species to understand certain things that happen to us.

>In my mind faggot.
so you agree that there is absolutely no hard evidence of the possibility that you could have "chosen" otherwise?

your perception of free will is nothing but an illusion

Attached: logic.jpg (580x580, 47K)

Not him but you considering both options doesn't mean you chose to consider both options.

>he's never read Dostoyevsky
Free will is the ability to ignore logic and whats beneficial for the sake of free will. When man can predict my outcome using graphs and calculators I'll capitulate free will but that simply isn't possible because not all humans make decisions based on logic and you may call it a brain problem but it's the ability to choose freely. Surely you shouldn't act against logic at every turn because that's predictable but choose freely when to do so.

So thoughts in one's head are actually fake. Interesting. This means our conciousness is imagined. And if we dive deeper, our reality could be all made up. Thanks OP, I'll sleep on it and tell you more when I reach the bottom of this.

>you considering both options doesn't mean you chose to consider both options.
???
It didn't feel like someone forced me to consider them. Maybe I did them subconcious, but if you look at what I wrote above, it seems like this concious/subconcious is non-existant. So yeah, no free will it is bois.

Odins beard just shut up and post the name you pretentious faggots

while true, that isn't the point i'm trying to make. my point is that we can only observe the result that actually happened. there is no hard evidence that anything else could have happened given the starting situation.

i'm not op and you are dumb as fuck. i've explained it like i've would have explained it to a pre-schooler, but apparently that was too much for you.
watch the video i've linked if you want an in-depth explanation of why free will can not possibly exist.

>according to the naturalistic worldview

Nothing in OP refers to naturalistic worldview and how is it tied to free will. Even if you were granted that in naturalistic worldview the concept of free will not being coherent, then it still would not have anything to do with whether it is coherent in other worldviews, unless you want to claim that only naturalistic worldview exist.

Also whether other worldviews are coherent or true is irelevant as the point of discussion is whether free-will is coherent in these worldviews.

it's dumb to worry about these things.

Attached: illusionism-free-will.png (550x287, 17K)

Is this the /determinism/ thread?

>determinism
>personal responsibility
pick one and only one

I know, responsibility is not a thing.

ok i'm going to rob my local bank and shoot everyone inside and now i'm not responsible

Elaborate further than that?

Exactly, your consciousness figured (for some reason) that that was the best outcome possible.

if you are not in control of your actions than you cannot be held responsible for what happens as a result of your actions that you didn't choose to do, anyway.

consciousness is predicated on the idea of free will you baiting retard

you are correct, but the people that will punish you with a death sentence are also not responsible for their actions, so don't complain when that happens.

But other people don't choose whether they hold that person responsible for his/her actions either, it's outside their choice.

They either do or don't depending upon factors beside their control.

The scenario doesn't really change that much.

Let's say the universe is indeterministic at the most basic level. And let's say that each individual choice you have plays a role in developing what choices you will make in the future. A bad man will 'probably' choose an evil act given his past habits. However the microstructure of the universe works in such a way any particular action didn't necessarily have to occur.

So while a bad man has made thousands of evil choices to become the evil person he was today, it is also true to say that he 'could have acted otherwise'. The perception that we 'could always act otherwise' is in some sense true if the universe is indeterministic at the microlevel. And determinists are just wrong to think this results in choices being 'random'---no, the choices become probabilities that dynamically change as you make new choices. Not random, but not metahphysicallu necessary either.

Determinism not a philosophy of life its the psysics that effect everything. A uncomfortable truth

No it's not. Being conscious is knowing of what you did and what happens around you, but it has no say in what you do. You will pick your actions based on the best logical solution (that your subconscious figures to be the best solution anyway) and then you'll become aware of it usually 0.5 seconds after the fact. (in a study by Benjamin Libet, in what he called the backward referral hypothesis).
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2942748/
This is a good read.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_cases

Hard determinism and physics are fundamentally at oddshehe because of the uncertainty principle. As well as the scientific implications of not knowing the exact speed or position of anything, the philosophical implications of this are that we as humans with brains will never know any information with 100% certainty of its truth, which, of course we have "known" for several thousand years. Not to mention that we don't understand either the discipline of physics or philosophy with 100% certainty anyway, we will never know if anything we believe is True or not, so we must ultimately choose what makes us most comfortable.

But my personal identity is my conscious and unconcious working together. Am "I" free is the question. My subconscious is part of what I consider "me" so I don't care if my concious mind just narrates as my Self is still free.

Determinism isn't real, but neither is free will.
We have no free will (for the reasons already discussed) but there's too many random factors acting up with our neurons to say anything is "determined" either. I call for a stance that says everything is determined to be random: "Random Determinism".

"Chaotic Determinism" had a nice ring to it.

>being a slave to logic
Man has to act in accordance to the laws of nature for his decisions to be predicted. If logic is subjective than he chose freely based on his own thought he detertimed not a force in the universe. If you go against logic are you determined for anything?

>random factors

Which factors and how did you determine that they are random?

You brainlets are confusing determinism with fatalism

Would you mind distinguishing between these two for us uneducated philistines?

If your decisions are predicted by outside factors than your fate can be determined using a calculator and a graph.

determinism is causal and fatalism is not.

Attached: Determinism vs Fatalsim.png (600x1972, 100K)

Theoretically yes, if you knew all the information you need, but there may be random factors (or maybe we just don't know their patterns yet) that partially determine the functionality of our brains.

So where are anons confusing determinism and fatalism?

No. Philosophers who are not specialists in action theory often see libertines and determinist debate about the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) and confuse the libertines arguments about PAP with fatalism.

Fatalism isn't a well defined term. It can mean when gods interfere or reflect a certain emotional state of depression. Certain kinds of fatalist scenarios can also be examples situations where there isn't an alternate possibility. And in others, you can be truly free up until Zeus decide to fuck your shit up.

Yeah I wasn't being literal when I said just a calculator and a graph. I'm also assuming we're able to get all the variables which won't be possible for a very long time.

Yeah i feel we had a pretty good distinction here.

this but completely and literally unironically
all arguments for determinism and against free will tie into the phenomenon of hindsight in one way or the other being applied to reality

Can one of you determinstfags stop ignoring me and argue my points.

I guess you can apply that to all arguments of Einstein, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer then.

>Not dependent on causality
Sure, doesn't say much.
>The future is "fated" or destined
This can be functionally the same as a causally determined future.
>We are fated regardless of what we think, say, or do
You could say you're fated to think what you think etc.
>Often leads to defeatist attitudes, as what we think of do doesn't matter to the fated future.
>We are powerless to affect our future
You could say that affecting your future is your fate. The Greeks didn't think it was no big deal if someone did something amazing or that it could've happened without that person.
>Often a religious idea of being fated by a deity
This is just pointing at the originators of fate who obviously believed that god or gods made everything. Irrelevant point.
>No logical evidence for fatalism
Fatalism and determinism are practically the same thing, for the reasons I've listed.

[Transcendetals your path]
1) Causation is a presupposition of our dealing with the natural world
2) We are not capable of imagining our willing as being subject to causal laws. It is conceptually impossible.
3) Knowledge of how the world really is...all we can know is that we can't know it.

Attached: 220px-Kant_gemaelde_3.jpg (220x287, 13K)

What, do you think the 20 IQ animal did stupid, illogical shit(even for his species) because he willed himself to be a fuckin' moron? People's brain chemistry can be such a way that they do illogical shit and ignore what's right, there's no reason to jump the gun and call that free will.

i'm summoning the hive mind

which one of these makes the most sense?

Attached: meaning.png (500x666, 259K)

that is what my post said yes

Most animals don't have free will because they choose the most logical path they determined, they aren't capable of higher thought like us. Logic is subjective you may see something as illogical but they might see it as the most rational thought someone has ever held. If you have the ability to identify logic and beat your head into a rock you're truly a free person. One who can't be determined by the laws of nature truly holds free will.

>Yeah, of course we are. Anarchy is basically just egoism. I don't want your best interests, I want my own. That's simple, and you should expect it.
Or we can just work together and stop shooting each other up in order to get what we both want.

That's an option too

Not sure what you're trying to get to. Are you trying to assume that in determinism people have to act according to their own well-being? If so why would you make such an assumtion?

You can also say that you desire to spite others is bigger than your desire to get your liver pain fixed. I mean it's like the most obvious thing to say and it's not even sole response you might pick.

I'm not sure what you think logic is, but it's not much more than a system that helps you to arrive to conclusions from assumtions, you put input and it gives you what the output might be, it's not some universal lifestyle as it doesn't tell you pretty much anything without assumtions or a starting point.

Not sure what logic has exactly to do with determinism/free will to begin with. It seems like such a nonsequitor to me.

Pretty sure it's possible to come up with supernatural deterministic systems as well, not everything even needs to be naturalistic and abiding naturalistic laws in order for determinsm to be true.

I'm not sure logic really is subjective, not at least in the most colloquial sense. The subjective part is how we are using logic and whether the logic we're using is correct. Do not forget that logical arguments have to be both sound and valid. Soundness is usually the most suspect to corruption, but I would assume it's possible to even object to some people's logic validity as well.

either absurdism or atheist exitentialism

source is ruslana from hegre art

When you add more moving parts to a machine you give it new ways to fuck up and break down.

> If you have the ability to identify logic and beat your head into a rock
You could do blood tests, EEGs and MRIs on the people who would do such a thing while seeming capable of logical thought and see that their bodies and brains are different from other people's.

Example:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016503270900490X
individuals who self-harm have naturally lower levels of endogenous opioids (endorphins) than the rest of the population

I'm only here for the pic. Who's got a source?

It was posted LITERALLY two posts above yours you STUPID retard.
Fucking moron can't even do a ctrl+f or something.

No need to be mean. He couldn't have acted otherwise.

It's not his fault that he's stupid.

>why don't we just all hold hands and work together bruh

Attached: drugs dragon.jpg (450x2200, 281K)

Being mean shows I'm dissatisfied and wouldn't like him to do it again, though.

you got your priorities straight at least
for some reason, it only turned up results the second time I reverse searched, so we got lucky

>thinks probability is a thing and that the universe isn't deterministic

Logic to me is the most rational decision you're capable of assuming. If logic is subjective then you wouldn't be able to prove determism in any way and you could argue your logical subjectivity is free will. I don't believe everyone is capable of going against their logic to to truly become free because if you follow logic you're simply proving determinism and how your every action is not of will but of outside factors. The process of logic is subjective because obviously not everyone is going to rationalize things the same way but they may come to the same conclusion. I think in only the most basic and lower forms of thinking may two people rationalize something in a similar way but if you ignore logic you're capable of spitting on the face of determinism as every man should.

They're doing so following a rational thought process which could've been determined at birth if we had the ability to hold the variables and put them in the logic calculator. I should've added when a sound man with no woes or chemical imbalances beats his head into a brick wall he's truly a hero of free will.

Based psychological determinism poster.

>no chemical imbalance
There is no baseline chemical balance, every person is different in that regard, only some people don't manifest apparent and obvious disorders.This means that it could very well be that this man is still doing what the chemicals in his brain compel him to do, it just didn't seem obvious to himself or others beforehand because he wasn't so fucked up before.

It can /seem/ like someone is just exerting free will by defying logic but the fact is that you see crazy shit like that because people are all different, not because we're free from the chain of causality.

Rational decision is pretty loaded term, since what is being considered rational depends hugely. You can take it in variety of ways with which I might agree, but in likelyhood wouldn't align to with how I see rationality as a concept.

It's kind of hard to prove determinsm as it's generally interpreted as the hypothesis that everything obides set of rules that cannot be deviated from, meaning in order to actually prove determinsm you'd pretty much have to explain and describe every single possible law and account for pretty much every knowed phenomena at the time, it goes way beyond how humans think and operate, it's a beat on whole entire level.

It really seems like you think that free will is "not acting completely rational", which seems so narrow minded. Much of our mentality is shrouded from our conscience, so the fact that we as humans aren't fully aware of how we personaly derive the conclusions we come to doesn't seem to come to the service of free will at all. At this point it should be pretty evident that our interspection is pretty poor judge of our mental state.

If you're capable of see logic and understanding it and actively seek to dismantle it then you can't be determined by outside factors. This is my conclusion, if you can't be determined in a logical manner then you cannot be predicted as determinism would imply. If you cannot be predicted by these outside factors then determinism holds no merit. I'm going to show you when I beat my head into a rock on live stream one day and die knowing I was free. While you'll say it was a product of my inability of will and chemicals, I'll die knowing I was truly free and not determined by calculators.

I agree, we're not capable of holding all the variables yet and determinism may be true. This free will arguement honestly reminds me a lot of the God arguement with things we've simply haven't found all the variables to. I'd just rather die knowing I was free than be a slave to outside factors.

Dude, I honestly think what you're saying is righteous, despite the disagreements. I only take fault with the premise that you need libertarian free will to be free in a personal and meaningful sense. Though, if this guides your spirit then ride the fuck on that train, don't let me or anyone else tell you otherwise.

Thanks, I honestly get a lot of my inspiration from Notes From the Underground. It has an interesting take on free will, almost absurdist like in the sense that though it may be a fruitless cause, you have to try and fight for it no matter what. I relate this to an absurdist because though finding meaning may be fruitless, you must try and fight like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill. I guess you can say I got inspiration from Camus as well.

I can offer the same concession. We aren't knowledgeable enough to yet confirm whether humans do possess the ability of free will, however, I don't see a reason as to why to assume that we do have free will and models without free will make much more sense to me than ones without and whether we think or believe that we have free will has no bearing to whether we do or do not have free will.

The issue I have is that I haven't really heard that much in credit or explanation of free will, it's more of an argument from ignorance. "Well, we don't really know, but I like the idea". The most I could cobble up is "Humans aren't perfectly rational and can do things that are irrational and that's free will", which to me really isn't what free will entails, it's about the ability of living beings being in control of their destiny and having ability to go to different directions.

The most coherent view I kind of subscribe to is that while humans do have choice and they make choices, but the fact of the matter is that they can only choose one thing and what they choose is outside of their control.

When I try to break up to what makes a person make a decision I could come up with pretty much 3 factors at most. It's a bit too reductionist, but I'm trying to make it as simple on purpose.

1. Their "biology" - Who they are/were born as. Their personality, traits, genes, whatever.

2. Their upbringing - Their values, upbringing, peers, whatever.

3. The moment - How exactly is the situation aligned to influence the person's decision, up to every potentionally every single atom accountable.

And in either of them I really seem to find lack in where would the person's choice come into the equation.

Person has no control over who they are born as, it's just who they are. There is no will in that process. Person doesn't really have control over their enviroment either, it's like a flwoing rives, it just takes them further and further up. Finally, the moment. It's not something you really control/influence, it just happenes. It's rather similar to the upbringing one, but it's meant to describe that potentially slightly different enviroment that makes someone choose strawberry icecream over vanilla one if possibly asked a minute later.

>why don't we just all hold hands and work together bruh
Sure. Is that not the purpose of society?

The ability to hold irrationality over reasoning to me is free will. Arguing without all the variables could be held on the same level of ignorance as free will. If you're not rational and can't be determined by factors in a reasonable sense then don't you control your destiny? I don't know if you personally have free will, as I don't believe every human does I don't believe it's innate in everyone but do believe it can be achieved. The issue I have is determism assumes you choose based on factors outside of your will, but if this were true then your choices are in a way already made and thus could be calculated. Calculations assume logic and for logic to work you have to abide by it and I think you're capable of overcoming logic with enough thought.

Considering what people do to me that sure as fuck doesn't look like it.

>implying it's not chemicals that control your every movement
Allow me to vent: lions attack the weakest prey - however - they are not conscious of their actions, but do it out of their instincts. Humans have a high enough iq to be conscious of their means, but have no control over it. See, consciousness isn't exclusive to humans - Dolphins, monkeys, black people, have shown signs of intelligence.
Look at it this way. Throughout human primordial, every society has had 2 groups: the wise, and the un-wise. 80% of society will become the un-wise, and work for the wise man. There will always be workers, and hirers. No matter what the tenets are, things always break down into order; even with anarchy. Anarchists are in themselves the government of themselves, and do the means necessary to survive - once again, breaking down to order.

A person usually chooses the most logical decision based on their biology, environment and the moment. The logicical decision would be to choose the decision that benefits them the most but as we can see through history this is not always the case. Humans can be irrational working outside of outside factors but I think this ability truly comes from within, which I would label free will.

Everything a human does is justified. You may not find it logical to steal, but to another person, this is a means of wealth.
In hindsight, historical leaders may have done bad things, but at the time, they thought it was e most logical. If you break it down to the most basics, the most logical thing to do is to feel pleasure, and disregard others. However, humans are social creatures, and at the idea of becoming outcasts, they would rather not. This is why human behaviour adapts with society, and humans have no control over it. As for the people who are anti-social, they were simply raised/born that way

So many things in that post

>the ability to hold irrationality over reasoning to me is free will

You're basically saying that not knowing why we do some things is free will? Wouldn't that be just ignorance? And by your reasoning the people with worse introspection then have bigger/stronger free will?

It's such a weird perception of what free will entails.

>Arguing without all the variables could be held on the same level of ignorance as free will

That's why I am trying to explain models and reasoning as to how I derived to the possible conclusion.

>If you're not rational and can't be determined by factors in a reasonable sense then don't you control your destiny

Can you provide an example of an unreasoable action?

>I don't know if you personally have free will, as I don't believe every human does I don't believe it's innate in everyone but do believe it can be achieved.

According to what you've wrote people who do either conventionally insane things or aren't aware of what they're doing have free will while people who actually have decent introspection and understand why they behave in a way they do and try to adjust into society don't have free will.

>The issue I have is determism assumes you choose based on factors outside of your will

Possibly, makes sense to me.

>but if this were true then your choices are in a way already made and thus could be calculated

That'd make sense.

>Calculations assume logic and for logic to work you have to abide by it and I think you're capable of overcoming logic with enough thought.

Let's try giving some examples to see an action/scenario that cannot be explained in determinism.