Do you believe in free will?

The whole determinism vs free will debate is a waste of time. I hate it. I'm either free or I think I am but I'm really not, there is no way to test or verify and talking about it will never reach a conclusion.

Can we talk about solving the problem of male genital mutilation or something?

The free will vs determinism paradox is the one of the biggest reasons why I became an atheist at like 8 and a believer at 28.

If you can resolve the paradox you realize what all the great religions are saying as well as why Christ is necessarily the redemptive force in creation.

I get where you're coming from, but there's a big fucking difference between being swept away in the mindset of "nothing I do matters" and not believing in free will. Almost everything that we decide to do, whether it be career-wise, or what to get at the store, is all a product of external factors that have pushed us to make those decisions. Everything that has happened to us through the course of our lives have molded us into who we are and will continue to mold us until we're dead. That's not a bad thing though, because although this might imply that our lives are, in a way, "pre-destined" (which they kinda are) that doesn't prevent us from making the decisions that will most benefit ourselves and how we grow. It's only that those decisions have come about because of how life was experienced through us in the first place

Free will is a joke. The brain is a physical thing affected by the same forces as every other physical thing. Put down the Bible, pick up Spinoza's "Ethics".

Those two things are actually related. People who mutilate their sons do so because a chain of earlier causes compels them to do it. Break the chain and you prevent the mutilation. Sometimes all it takes is challenging people's preconceptions.

Realizing that free will is bullshit also puts into perspective how fucked male genital mutilation is. People act like you can use your free will to choose to be fine with being circumcised. But actually you can't.

Attached: 87586476474.png (807x631, 332K)

can you write anything coherent?

anyway,
>yesterday, I choose cereal 1 instead of cereal 2 for dinner
-if determinism tru: unbroken causal chain of events means there is 1 possible timeline where choosing cereal 2 would result in violating physical laws
-if nondeterminism tru: the gorillions of atoms that make up you and everything you interact with act randomly and make me pick cereal 1. to "freely" choose cereal 2, I would need to manually control the trajectory of all these atoms individually. no free will still

>People who don't believe in free will are defeatists

Both false and irrelevant.

Attached: einstein333.jpg (850x400, 68K)

>Free will vs determinism has nothing to do with theoretical physics my boi.
Are you saying philosophy is unaffected by the laws of the world we live in?

It does not make a very large difference in ones own dicisions. But given that u know things just go the way they do how can u blame someone for an action and maintain regular human customs. If you give up on free will you have given up on morality. things aren't good or bad because your opinions of those thing arn't logical ( lets assume that's a thing) they are simply the only possiblity. If you see someone who thinks that are something but you disagree why do you have any reason to believe that you are what u think you are ( assuming things can exist). The no freewill thing throws everything in the dumpster. I don't know if i explained my perspective very well. To some it up you can't feel mad or dissappointed in people because that's the only way things could be then i just basically spouted jiberish. Try to think about this for a long while and don't let it fuck u up.

Think of a movie. Any movie will do. Let it settle in your brain until you're fixed on it.

This is as free a choice as you get. I'm an anonymous person on the internet, you have tons of movies to choose from and nothing bad happens to you if you pick one thing over another. You have no stakes here, it's the least impactful and most free choice you'll ever make.

So first, there's all the movies you don't know about that you couldn't have picked; not just ones you haven't seen but ones you don't even know exist. This is a vast number of choices you just didn't have the freedom to make.

But then the movie you did pick; you probably didn't pick Gone with the Wind, right? Or if you did, you didn't pick Casablanca or Citizen Kane; why not? Why did that first movie come to mind and stick in there when there were plenty of other examples of movies you know other than the movie you picked? Well if you think back on the experience of picking it out, you'll probably notice that a movie, or a few movies, just occurred to you for you to pick. If you didn't choose Casablanca, it's just because it didn't occur to you to think of it.

So how free were you to pick the movies that you know of but which didn't occur to you? Not at all. Why didn't they occur to you? You have no idea.

And among the choices you had, why did you pick what you picked out of them? You'll probably have some kind of story for why that movie, maybe that you watched it recently, but even in that instance you don't know why that made you pick that movie. Why not the other way around; "Eh, I just saw it, I'll pick something older to seem more hip."

If you inspect your own subjective experience closely enough, the idea of free will vanishes. Free will would suggest that you choose your thoughts before you think them, which of course you can't. Thoughts just arise in consciousness, and the consciousness merely observes them as they arise.

Attached: Annex - Grant, Cary (I Was a Male War Bride)_01.jpg (1399x2111, 564K)

Why couldn't something happen for no reason?

>People act like you can use your free will to choose to be fine with being circumcised.

I wish it was that easy to be fine with not having a big tidd chubby 5'1" gf with my powers of (((free will)))

>If you give up on free will you have given up on morality.

I don't agree. You can still contend an action is moral or immoral, regardless of whether a person actually could have done otherwise. The compatibilists already believe this (although I think they're wrong and compatibilism is bullshit, but it is the prevailing view among academic philosophers).

To be clear--I think compatibilists are right about the idea that one could contend something is right or wrong even if the person who did it couldn't have done otherwise. I just think they're wrong about the fact that someone who couldn't have done otherwise still somehow had something worth calling "free will" anyway.

Isn't it contradictory to think that there was a first action if everything has a cause

Actions and reason are kinda interchangeable in that regard. Actions caused by actions caused by reasons caused by reasons, there's not really a difference

Also if determinism tru: I can predict lottery numbers.

Known unknowns preclude your sarcastic attempt at an argument, fag. muh physical law is an abstract model that wouldnt mean anything here. Learn to communicate

This position (that free will isn't a thing whether determinism is true or not) is called hard incompatibilism.

>Also if determinism tru: I can predict lottery numbers.

I don't see your reasoning here.

This is why I hate philosophy threads on r9k because there's always some chode gobbling sophist like this

Not unless the universe is cyclical, meaning every action WOULD result from a cause, but that's not really a widely held belief anyway.

>Free will would suggest that you choose your thoughts before you think them, which of course you can't.

You can choose your thoughts before you think them. If you act in a particular way for any set period of time you will be inclined to think that way. If you behave poorly you will think poor thoughts. If you think in a good way, your thoughts will naturally be "good". Free will isnt about knowledge, its about understanding your own perception. Picking a movie to think of, and neglecting other movies because you dont know of them doesnt mean you are dammed to only think of the ones you know exist. If one were to have seen every movie in the world, what would cause them to choose one over another? perhaps one they watched recently like you said, but their free will causes them to think of one over another. If you think of killing cats for a long time, you will think of killing cats when you see one. If you think of adopting stray cats or actively do adopt cats, you will be more inclined to think of rescuing them.

Your actions cause your thoughts to change. The more you act in a particular manner the more inclined you are to think as such.

all things have reason. If you were in a car accident at no fault of your own, there is someone that was at fault. But perhaps the accident was caused by a squirrel. The squirrel would be responsible. Perhaps that squirrel fell off a power line because it dropped a nut. You could blame the nut. All things have cause and effect. And each cause is caused by another cause. But it is your choice to place the blame on one thing or another.
thats a bad analogy. Imma roll with it.

the initial action has a cause as well. whether it be a thought or an active choice that was made. There is a reason for the choice to be made, and there is a reason for the thought that caused the choice. The thought could have been caused by a previous experience, or a snap judgement in the moment.

Which laws retardo? A little over a century ago the laws we knew made space flight impossible. Do you think there are no conflicting ideas today even at the scale of particle physics?

The argument here is about what you believe in. Do you see any equations?

>if determinism true, I can predict lottery numbers
assuming determinism is true (I don't think it is) there isn't enough computing power in this universe to accurately predict those numbers
see Laplace's demon

The only sensible definition of free will is do we have the ability to make choices. The answer is clearly no. Everything I have ever done is a result of my genetics responding to the stimuli around me. I did not chose my genetics, I did not choose the stimuli around me. Even if I was gifted something spooky like a soul, I did not choose my soul. Free will is completely nonsensical. It is inconceivable. This truth is the ultimate red pill, and leads to max compassion and understanding toward others.

Attached: EA80D7AD-F3D9-4A61-8655-0B57BCCF0E8C.jpg (1020x680, 124K)

I don't know anything about compatabalists i'll read up on it after words, so i am being true to my prior post. I thing that i'm torn about in regard to morality is what reason does one have to believe that there view on what is right and wrong are valueble when they see others around them and think thoses peoples view are incorrect. If those people are doing the only thing they can and are wrong and i'm doing the only thing i can and i'm right what reason do i have to think that my views are better than theirs or more ethical.

That would be a convenient excuse. It would tell me theres little reason to value a deterministic worldview though.

there is a difference. One may have the rationale to think of a certain thing, but it is the choice to either adhere to the preconception or to disregard it. I was molested and raped as a child(true story) I could fully manifest my gay tendencies and be a homosexual. I choose not to, despite thinking about dicks alot. Its likely the very same reason I am caused to be sexual repressive, but also choose to express heterosexual desires, But its also the same reason that I am ashamed of my sexual behaviors, but again still engage in sexual activity.

All actions, or lack of actions are caused by a reason and rationale that can be adhered to or disregarded. My free will allows me to choose what to act on. I choose not to be gay, or to be submissive. Because of my molestation i also choose not to trust people. All actions cause thought, and all thought causes action.

Attached: end it.jpg (600x483, 161K)

>my genetics isnt me
Woo doggy you should start a church with all those ramblings

your actions and thoughts are 100% the result of neurons in your brain
those neurons are subject to physical laws
do you have the power to violate or change physical laws?

It's too convenient to take that hypothesis seriously

You have the power to type stupid shit on a keyboard. Is English your second language?

legit this. my sentiments exactly.

genetics are certainly a cause for certain actions. however, even though you are predisposed to particular behaviors, you can disregard them. Easier said than done, but you dont necessarily need to suggest that your conscious mind and your thoughts are effected directly from your DNA.

if you can think and be self aware of your genetics you can still choose not to hold yourself to certain genetic predispositions.

It was destined for me to write this particular comment at this very moment on Jow Forums because of the initial state of the universe which was put up by the creators some 678654 gorillion years ago. God bless the creators and their wicked sense of humor!

nice argument retard
orgigami

This is a simplified understanding of the topic, so keep that in mind. Basically, compatibilists are determinists. But they believe that people have something worth calling "free will". It's not the kind of free will that means you can do otherwise of your own volition. It just means that you acted "out of your own free will" if you did what you wanted to at a given time. There's sometimes a little more to it than that and there are different types of compatibilists, but that's the gist of it.

no hes got a point.

If one lacks a balance of their brain chemistry, they may seek out stimulus unknowingly to stimulate certain chemical receptors in the brain. however, if one were to have a completely balanced brain chemistry what causes them to act in one way or another?

That's making the assumption that the universe has been around for ever and for something to be around time has to exist. Now what is the reason for time.

Attached: 1539200351162.jpg (274x361, 26K)

This is a simplified understanding of the topic, so keep that in mind. Basically, compatibilists are determinists. But they believe that people have something worth calling "free will". It's not the kind of free will that means you can do otherwise of your own volition. It just means that you acted "out of your own free will" if you did what you wanted to at a given time. There's sometimes a little more to it than that and there are different types of compatibilists, but that's the gist of it.

When a compatibilist says "I believe in free will!", he's basically saying that if you want the chocolate cake bad enough, and there's nothing stopping you from eating it, there's no way you can choose not to eat it. You will eat that chocolate cake. You must eat the chocolate cake. But it's still meaningful to say that you did so out of your own free will.

Attached: COMPATIBILISM-soonish.png (684x1601, 180K)

There is no point, if you had sufficient data, sufficient understanding of physics and sufficient computational power you could predict which lotto numbers will get "randomly" generated. It'd be difficult but there's no reason to believe that there's some cutoff point of complexity where things go from the simple determinism of cause-and-effect and suddenly become truly random and unpredictable, it's far more likely that the only difference is our ability to comprehend the data involved.

We can predict simple and complex things with data, calculation and understanding of the rules. Why should we believe that this truth very conveniently stops right at the level of human cognition? Especially when we have neurological testing results which strongly suggest otherwise?

So if you're primed to think a certain way, you'll think that way, and that proves that free will exists? I could've put a picture from a movie that people actually know (nobody's seen I Was a Male War Bride) and that would've primed you to think of the movie I posted, but you wouldn't have picked the material I primed you with. You would just be suggested in a certain direction. That's less free than the choice you made. Same thing with training yourself over time to think in one way; the fact that you can prime yourself to think a certain way effectively doesn't suggest your will is free, it suggests your will and thoughts are highly contingent on previous causes.

>but their free will causes them to think of one over another.

You're really missing the point here. You're inserting free will into what you should properly consider an area of ignorance; you don't know why one thought rose over the other, so you say it's free will, even though the language you're using is self-contradictory. If it's your own free will to choose one movie of the options presented by your brain, why phrase it as "their free will causes them" rather than "they freely picked?"

Attached: 1353986592562.jpg (960x638, 63K)

Saying physical law over and over isnt an argument. Go find someone who just repeats bible verses to argue with, more your speed

Does the future already exist? Wouldn't that imply determinism and the absense of free will?

Huh, something got cocked up there. Oh well.

>if one were to have a completely balanced brain chemistry what causes them to act in one way or another?
their genetics, their environment (e.g. social norms)

If there was another you in another universe that was exactly like our universe in every way, do you think THAT "you" would have given in to those gay tendencies or would you have made the exact same decisions you made in this universe?

You'd make the same decisions, because that version of you would have been exposed to the exact same environment and same genetics that caused you to make the choices you made. How one reasons is based on external actions out of their control, thus ones decisions and REASONING are actions in themselves

okO2a80l

Attached: b8.jpg (500x501, 16K)

Your brain chemistry is constantly changing. If it weren't, it would cease to function.

Einstein thought so.

despite you telling me to think of a movie, i chose not to think of one.

check fucking mate.

Yeah, I predict that after this post I'll make another and it will be quads.

Come on lucky 7.

Do you feel like you're in charge?

Attached: 1353987007670.jpg (244x327, 25K)

That the opposite of what I am saying. I am say all the the illusion of me is, is my physical makeup. Everything I do is simply a result of my physical makeup reacting to external stimuli. Ive controlled neither of those factors. If "I" was born with LeBron James' genes, and had his exact same upbringing, I would BE LeBron. I would live his life EXACTLY the same way LeBron lives his. Where is the freedom in that?

>Does the future already exist?
not necessarily
>Wouldn't that imply determinism
yes
>and the absense of free will?
determinism isn't required for the refutation of free will
see No way to know if determinism is true or false, but it looks like it isn't

Your environment actually causes changes in your brain chemistry. That's how your brain responds to external stimuli, like a potential threat, or something funny, or the weather being cold, and so on. Physical and chemical reactions occur in your brain when you see, hear, smell, or touch things.

I'm not debating that. That doesn't help the case of free will, though

>even though you are predisposed to particular behaviors, you can disregard them
Your impulse control, AKA you're ability to "control" particular behaviors, is entirely genetic. I happen to have very good impulse control. I am a huge food lover, however am I good at keeping a strict diet. Some of this is genetic, some of this was my upbring - but that is IT. There is no other spooky 3rd factor. That is all we as individuals are. If "I" was born as Larry the Cable Guy, with his exact genetics and upbringing, "my" impulse control to not pound cheeseburgers everyday suddenly would not be so great. It is really an undeniable fact. We do not control this ship, our brains (which we did not design) react to what is happening around us (which we can not control). Quite an amazing illusion though, free will, isn't it?

>if we had this and that and reality was different and this happened, then determinism would be verifiably true!

That isnt convincing. There are unpredictable behaviors of particles and we certainly cant predict human output very well. You would do well to read more books on physics. To the point of free will, you either believe in it or not. People used to think demons controlled them. Its much more about philosophical world views than calculations lmao

No. Free will is an illusion. Brains / consciousness are amazing but not any different than any other natural system.
Each firing neuron is like a water molecule in a waterfall. With enough information you could predict every output of a brain, but our own weak self contained senses never will so we simply perceive choice.
I did choose to make this post. But the universe doesn't care. It is another frame of reference thing. Like, yes, morality seems real to us, but the universe doesn't have morals.
It does not matter at the end of the day. We gotta focus on our own frame.

Quantum uncertainty only apply at the quantum level.

ITT: Brain dead materialists.

What are you implying? Elaborate.

10/10 argument. Would change view again.

It's funny how we both got double dubs, and the first set of repeating digits (11) was the difference between our post numbers.

Materialism cannot explain consciousness. Nearly all evidence points to consciousness being fundamental. It is classic human arrogance to think our perceptions of the world is objective reality for what it is

Oops. I should have said 22, not 11.

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 41K)

How is that relevant to the free will debate?

Told you all materialists were brain-dead...
I KID I KID

>if I was someone else I wouldnt be me
>therefore, I cannot make choices

A lot of people itt are jumping outside the scope of human perception. Its irrational. You could be a rock too, or air.

You dont need to control everything to have free will. It doesnt even matter if you effectively act on impulse 100% of the time. You are the actor. You can take a shower at 7 or at 10.

I struggle to see how you can dismiss identity to the point of saying my physical makeup but still create a barrier between you and the outside world. You need to have a starting point for your argument, and genetics doesnt say much unless you know which genes youre talking about

>You can take a shower at 7 or at 10.
no, you will only pick one of these options
see

Oh it is not necessarily. It just astounded me seeing nearly 100% of free will skeptics ITT attacking the concept of free will from a physicalist perspective.
My personal belief is that free will is likely connected to consciousness (which is fundamental), and that is why it feels so damn bloody intuitive to us. Now, once we know more about consciousness that could be debunked, but from what I have gathered that is the general sense I get.

>You are the actor. You can take a shower at 7 or at 10.

You're begging the question re: determinism being false.

If determinism is true, then of 7, 10, or neither, only one is a real possibility.

Spirituality isnt independent of perception

You don't get it yet. Even if you controlled every atom it would not be free will. Still determined, predictable outcomes.

>You can take a shower at 7 or at 10
The illusion of that choice is VERY real. However, in reality, there is only one choice - it is the one you would make every time. If you "chose" 7, that was the only choice you could possibly have made under those conditions. We can rewind the tape infinite times - you will always chose to shower at 7.
And that is not to say you do not have valid reasons to shower at 7. Perhaps you have work extra early that morning, and you would like to get to be earlier than usual. It makes sense to shower at 7 under those circumstances. The point is your brain will reach that conclusion every time under those conditions.

According to you, sure. But thats high level theory and not related to free will. You wouldnt experience multiple realities if they existed.

free willers are brainlets.

I am not sure what you are getting at with this. Care to elaborate?

The idea that determinism isn't relevant to free will is pretty counterintuitive. Dennett is one philosopher who holds that view but there are many others who disagree.

>You wouldnt experience multiple realities if they existed.
yes, and?
my personal belief is that determinism is wrong, and that your life is the consequence of trillions of probabilistic dice rolls
you're still not in control of your life under these conditions

We may or may not have free will but it doesn't matter. Discussing it is a waste of time, because you will never know. Discussing shitting dick nipple furry porn is more tangible.

NPCs are Determined PCs are Free Willed

Jayden Smith Is An NPC, Stop Posting on Jow Forums Jayden

You dont seem to have your life in control. Pity!

>we can rewind the tape
Nope. Also, maybe the illusion is what you believe, think about that.

Decision making processes dont have to exist exclusively in random, multiverse systems to be considered part of reality. Your argument is fine In the general sense, but it does not take away responsibility for someones actions. Some choices can be evaluated as right or wrong for the results we want in society

*Get to bed
Original spell check

>Some choices can be evaluated as right or wrong for the results we want in society

This seems to be more a point against free will rather than in favor of it.

no, but I can understand why most people are in denial about it

>Some choices can be evaluated as right or wrong
By who?
A person who is made of atoms?
Atoms that are controlled by physical laws?
If this person is made of things that are governed by physical laws, to "choose a different choice" they would need to alter or violate physical laws

The context of my life definitely includes having self control and making choices.

Trillions of dice rolls and egg rolls happen across the universe, the simple statement doesnt change much. Enrich your life with meaningful philosophies.

>Some choices can be evaluated as right or wrong for the results we want in society
I do not disagree. I never made this argument. We can discuss the moral and ethical implications of determinism if you would like, but I was simply trying to get you to see that the idea of free will is untrue. It seems like you are coming to that conclusion as well with time. Once you put careful thought into it, it is quite hard to deny.