How do you deal with the knowledge that you dont have free will?

How do you deal with the knowledge that you don’t have free will? If you have a fortunate reward system and you habitually make good decisions, then it’s not really a problem, but if you have addictions and bad habits then it just feels like the universe has predestined you for failure. Does anyone else feel weighed down by how flawed we are? We didn’t evolve for a modern environment, so we’re constantly fighting the urges that would have been perfect for the success of hunter-gatherers. Very few people seem to realize that this is why we have “sinful” desires, why making decisions is so complicated for us, while animals in the wild have no such dilemmas because they are well-adapted to their environment. I feel like we’re just waiting for evolution to fix things, which takes a really long time. Many humans will experience depression, regret, confusion, etc. for many generations to come..

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Chapter: 1
    Inward Revolution

    Osho,
    On man’s path of evolution, is it possible that at some time in the future humanity as a whole can attain enlightenment? At what point of evolution is man today?

    With man, the natural, automatic process of evolution ends. Man is the last product of unconscious evolution. With man, conscious evolution begins. Many things are to be taken into account.

    First, unconscious evolution is mechanical and natural. It happens by itself. Through this type of evolution, consciousness evolves. But the moment consciousness comes into being, unconscious evolution stops because its purpose has been fulfilled. Unconscious evolution is needed only up to the point where the conscious comes into being. Man has become conscious. In a way, he has transcended nature. Now nature cannot do anything; the last product that was possible through natural evolution has come into being. Now man becomes free to decide whether to evolve or not to evolve.

    Secondly, unconscious evolution is collective, but the moment evolution becomes conscious it becomes individual. No collective, automatic evolution proceeds further than mankind. From now on, evolution becomes an individual process. Consciousness creates individuality. Before consciousness evolves, there is no individuality; only species exist, not individuality.

    (1/2)

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This sounds like bullshit. There is no empirical or formal reason to believe unconscious evolution just stops.

      Sure there are now possible conscious (what does this word even mean) adaptations, linguistic communities making decisions.

      But the unconscious doesn't just walk out the door when self consciousness arises. Like it can control it or limit it. Unconscious processes still must occur at about the same pace.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Most people are unconscious.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/2UVDZvO.jpeg

        Most people are unconscious.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The idea that there is a "purpose" to "unconscious" processes literally makes no sense at all.

        Evolutionary science doesn't hold to the consensus that evolution happens towards a specific goal like consciousness. It seems like self consciousness is even a hindrance to the species' or the individuals' adaptability in some circumstances.

        It reads to me like a form of theodicy. That all evolution progressed towards the ideal of consciousness and now there is some sort of conscious history unfolding. To what?

        A plebe wrote this. One who isn't well read.

        The Greeks then hegel, then Nietzsche, homosexual.

        Counterexample is that unconscious racial biases have had historical impacts on the elaboration of conscious history. Boom, debunked.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >The idea that there is a "purpose" to "unconscious" processes literally makes no sense at all.
          Like breathing?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            There's two senses of "meant". There is mechanical, sure breathing is meant to provide oxygen to the brain but this is the mechanistic sense of meaning and is not the use that I intend. The sense of meant that I am using is communal, linguistic , has reference to a divine or an ideal or something like that.

            I'm saying that unconscious things have no reference to the second sense. I can see why you chose breath as a counterexample but that is a good counter to a misreading of my point.

            We call the behavior breathing. But does the limbic system or whatever neural wiring controls breath rate "intend" or "mean" for oxygen to be delivered to the brain when it sends impulses to the diaghragm. Similarly, does the diaghragm mean for the breath to give life? Or does it just contract?

            IOW, do all the component parts of the action of breathing contribute to the purpose, do they will a purpose for something outside of their selves? Impossible.

            For someone born with extreme mental disability, would the purpose the same, would their breath be meant to make their life transpire with cosmic significance?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          you seem to be responding to things that anon didn’t say

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's the same anon adding to his own seethe.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      (2/2)

      When evolution is still unconscious, it is an automatic process; there is no uncertainty about it. Things happen through the law of cause and effect. Existence is mechanical and certain. But with man, with consciousness, uncertainty comes into existence. Now nothing is certain. Evolution may take place or it may not. The potential is there, but the choice will rest entirely with each individual. That is why anxiety is a human phenomenon. Below man there is no anxiety because there is no choice. Everything happens as it must. There is no choice so there is no chooser, and in the absence of the chooser, anxiety is impossible. Who is to be anxious? Who is to be tense?

      With the possibility of choice, anxiety follows like a shadow. Now everything has to be chosen; everything is a conscious effort. You alone are responsible. If you fail, you fail. It is your responsibility. If you succeed, you succeed. It is again your responsibility. And every choice is ultimate in a sense. You cannot undo it, you cannot forget it, you cannot go back on it. Your choice becomes your destiny. It will remain with you and be a part of you; you cannot deny it. But your choice is always a gamble. Every choice is made in darkness because nothing is certain.

      That is why man suffers from anxiety. He is anxious to his very roots. What torments him, to begin with, is: To be or not to be? To do or not to do? To do this or to do that? “No choice” is not possible. If you do not choose, then you are choosing not to choose; it is a choice. So you are forced to choose; you are not free not to choose. Not choosing will have as much effect as any other choice.

      The dignity, the beauty and the glory of man is this consciousness. But it is a burden also. The glory and the burden come simultaneously the minute you become conscious. Every step is a movement between the two. With man, choice and conscious individuality come into existence. You can evolve, but your evolution will be an individual endeavor. You may evolve to become a buddha or you may not. The choice is yours.

      Based Osho-poster.

      Also, for a simpler and shorter response to OP, there are basically at least two (2) good responses:

      1.) Realizing or considering you have no freewill, or are less free than you think you are, can actually give rise to a feeling of great relaxation and acceptance of what happens, realizing you’re basically just the observer or witness-consciousness of what’s going on, just going along for the ride
      2.) Also, regardless, in our ordinary day-to-day life and consciousness, we still often automatically revert to assuming, acting, thinking, and/or speaking like we and others have freewill. Even if it’s an “illusion”, it seems to be a useful one, and one hard to fully eradicate.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    (2/2)

    When evolution is still unconscious, it is an automatic process; there is no uncertainty about it. Things happen through the law of cause and effect. Existence is mechanical and certain. But with man, with consciousness, uncertainty comes into existence. Now nothing is certain. Evolution may take place or it may not. The potential is there, but the choice will rest entirely with each individual. That is why anxiety is a human phenomenon. Below man there is no anxiety because there is no choice. Everything happens as it must. There is no choice so there is no chooser, and in the absence of the chooser, anxiety is impossible. Who is to be anxious? Who is to be tense?

    With the possibility of choice, anxiety follows like a shadow. Now everything has to be chosen; everything is a conscious effort. You alone are responsible. If you fail, you fail. It is your responsibility. If you succeed, you succeed. It is again your responsibility. And every choice is ultimate in a sense. You cannot undo it, you cannot forget it, you cannot go back on it. Your choice becomes your destiny. It will remain with you and be a part of you; you cannot deny it. But your choice is always a gamble. Every choice is made in darkness because nothing is certain.

    That is why man suffers from anxiety. He is anxious to his very roots. What torments him, to begin with, is: To be or not to be? To do or not to do? To do this or to do that? “No choice” is not possible. If you do not choose, then you are choosing not to choose; it is a choice. So you are forced to choose; you are not free not to choose. Not choosing will have as much effect as any other choice.

    The dignity, the beauty and the glory of man is this consciousness. But it is a burden also. The glory and the burden come simultaneously the minute you become conscious. Every step is a movement between the two. With man, choice and conscious individuality come into existence. You can evolve, but your evolution will be an individual endeavor. You may evolve to become a buddha or you may not. The choice is yours.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Free will/determinism is a non-issue. It has zero discernable difference whether one is true or not.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Of course it does, guilt, blame and praise is thrown out of the window.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Which is the whole point, people who deny freewill are just a bunch of "dindunuffins". And in my experiences, those who deny freewill are ultimately trying to bring everyone down to their level rather than trying to lift anyone up.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          But it's a "non-issue" so we can just ignore you and whatever you think.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          People have will power. Willpower balances the lack of free will. Everyone has to resist urges. The people you met are probably moronic.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I like how determinists always accuse libertarians of believing in magic and then they arbitrarily postulate some unseen force that can somehow break the laws of the universe and contradict everything they said beforehand and give them a sliver of control in their lives.
            Insane, truly.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Some guy I used to know as a teen did exactly this. He reasoned that the only thing that matters is adopting a good mindset about things.
            He also ironically claimed to hate stoicism because he thought it meant "sex bad" or something, even though his whole view of the universe and mindsets was pretty much a carbon copy of stoicism. He claimed to have read Nietzsche as well, but he only ever mentioned Zarathustra an even then I doubt he actually could gleam anything from that book.

            Teens are stupid.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Of course it doesn't, guilt, blame, and praise are also involuntary behaviors people can't stop themselves from doing.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Except it doesn't inside the reference system we built our societal system on.
        It doesn't matter if there's such a thing as free will or not (not that it would be possible to determine either way), just don't be a dick and you don't get shot (probably, theoretically)

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        no, it's not. all these kinds of claims rely on a sleight of hand where the one praising/blaming is assumed to retain free will, while the one whose actions are judged is assumed to lack it.
        if we're consistent and say both are in the same state, whether that state is having free will or lacking it, moral praise and blame survive.
        also worth noting that even in the trick version these authors are employing, praise and blame can still be retained by appealing to their causal effects on determined agents.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you deal with the knowledge that you don’t have free will?
    How do you deal with the knowledge that you asserted a falsehood in a question like a homosexual? OP is a homosexual.

    I guess it's just an unbeliever thing, you guys don't mind dishonesty and lies, making claims in question yet never proving them, just asserting them.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >unbeliever
      Projection. I predict every free will defender in this thread will be a christcuck.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Most atheist philosophers believe in free will.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Most enlightened people know it's false.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Enlightened or not it’s a very israeli position dating back to Spinoza at the very least. Almost every adherent of hard determinism seems to be either a israelite or a shabbos goy with very little exemptions.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Kek, no, Free Will is a israeli idea which is why Christians use it.

            Spinoza borrowed the idea of determinism from the East.

            >The Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3, Verse 27:

            >“प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः | अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते || 27||”

            >"All activities are carried out by the three modes of material nature. But in ignorance, the soul, deluded by false identification with the body, thinks of itself as the doer."

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Still, hinduism, as well as jainism and buddhism, believe the concept of karma. Spinoza also likes to think that you actually can have some influence in your life by recognizing the causes behind your behaviors. He thinks that you can have a god's eye view of the universe essentially. All in all, determinists are not very good determinists. If they were actually determinists, they'd have to actually let go of all notions of choice and believe that "they" do not actually exist, because existence always implies causal potency. But determinists do not believe that "they" are the real causes behind any of their behaviors. There is no "my" x drive, there is also arguably no "drive" at all because what even is causing that drive? In reality, for determinists, there is only one thing.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I think that there's really two types of determinists, although most determinists do not actually realize it.
            Determinists always like to imagine the universe as a great causal chain, where every link is an effect caused by some prior cause (this is a very simplistic view imo, but maybe simplicity is what is needed to make determinism work). The thing is, many determinists will often like to say that "you" are not the originator of your behavior. It is actually just some chemicals in your brain. But if you are not a cause, then it implies that "you" are also not an effect. Hence, "you" do not exist. And some determinists actually believe this. Then you can take this further and interrogate the determinist asking him whether he shouldn't also wonder whether the words he uses; "drives, chemicals, brain, etc." are also real causes behind effects, and whether he shouldn't instead just posit that there is only one or two things: the universe and its cause. This is what spinoza did, but the problem with determinists is that they are almost incapable of taking their positions to their logical conclusions.

            Then there are the other determinists who actually do believe that you are a link in the chain. But if this is the case, then they have to explain how they are not actually just compatabilists; determinists who still believe in free will. Remember, compatabilists believe that there is nothing wrong with believing in free will even though your prior actions were all by necessity.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >But if you are not a cause, then it implies that "you" are also not an effect
            do clarify: determinists who believe that you are not a cause are really implying that there is is no separate link between the effect of your action and whatever material cause that tickles the determinist's fancy the most. There is no *you* link. hence, you do not actually exist.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Then how come every single theorist who opposed free will carried water for the israelites? Calvin and Luther are some of the biggest shabbos goys, reducing Christianity to Old Testament values, which is very israeli. Supersessionism exists for a reason.
            >Eastern
            Another reason to avoid it.
            So essentially eastern values are Old Testament values. Which kind of makes sense considering the telos of world history is directed towards wiping out the rest of humanity so Chang and Chaim can collectively dominate the globe. Got it.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            What are enlightened people enlightened to? Why do some enlightened people not know that free will is false?

            How did you come to know this? Are you enlightened, or can you just tell who is enlightened and what they think? Or did you survey them?

            1. Are you enlightened?
            2. Is there free will?

            What was your sample size? Did you control for race agr gender abledness and veteran status? Religious affiliation?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Which is the whole point, people who deny freewill are just a bunch of "dindunuffins". And in my experiences, those who deny freewill are ultimately trying to bring everyone down to their level rather than trying to lift anyone up.

      If you have free will, then why do you procrastinate or be lazy or do drugs or watch porn or use IQfy or eat unhealthy food? Or do any of you actually perfectly align every single action with what you rationally believe is best for you?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        this question really makes their deterministic gears spin

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Because you chose to do those things?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        My Black person, if you are actually physically incapable of ever saying no to your monkey impulses I think something might be wrong with your brain. Normal people feel the urge to do those things but are able to resist them.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP, but that idea is a homosexual idea. You don't have free will. You probably have countless unconscious mannerisms you aren't even aware you have. You don't even know who you are.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >You probably have countless unconscious mannerisms
        And you are aware of these unconscious mannerisms, despite them by definition being outside your awareness, because God told you they exist?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I do, and he used freewill to "disprove" freewill.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      A
      >deterministic beings are deluded by their brains and believe in free will
      B
      >free will beings freely choose to believe they don’t have free will

      There’s plenty of evidence of humans inventing things that don’t exist. Not so much of the opposite. You have to ask yourself, what exactly “causes” one’s free will to actively choose not to believe in free will, therefore hindering it? And why does one person do this while another does not? Your only answer will be a non-answer: “uh, because like, free will OK?!”

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        ’s plenty of evidence of humans inventing things that don’t exist.
        Like determinism.
        >what exactly “causes” one’s free will to actively choose not to believe in free will, therefore hindering it?
        Freewill.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Free will doesn’t explain anything. You might as well say that magical fairies are in charge of everything we do. You can’t actually use this information to make any useful decisions. Whereas if determinism is true, then our behavior is determined by genetics and experiences, meaning we can manipulate both of these factors to produce desirable behavior. And that would explain why some people make better decisions than others. This is why bad beliefs eventually get replaced. They may have worked for thousands of years when humans had no clue about how anything worked and thought that lightning was a god’s wrath, but one day you won’t even have an option to entertain these delusions. The survival of our species will depend on it.

          But if you really think free will is real, then feel free to do everything you believe is best for you, like cutting out all your addictions and vices forever. You can’t

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Whereas if determinism is true, then our behavior is determined by genetics and experiences
            Is there a single philosopher arguing for free will who does not believe in the latter?
            The influence of genetics on behaviour is entirely pseudoscience at this point

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You’re either a israelite or a christcuck. If differences in genes didn’t affect behavior then monkeys and humans would act the same. Fricking moron

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The influence of genetics on behaviour is entirely pseudoscience at this point
            your genes made you a moron, sorry

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            There is a faulty assumption here that all behavior has been shown to be causally mapped to genetics and experience, which is not the case.

            And if we are, like you say, able to manipulate factors into producing desirable behavior by like, monitoring our nutrition, partaking in good sleep hygiene, developing appropriate interpersonal skills, partnering with people who are likely to provide compatible genetics so as to avoid pitfalls then it starts to seem like we are free to choose to do these things again.

            My philosophical thinking is always heading off ways out of determinism at the pass. Like because there can't be a thing that has no cause. But then my worldview gets bleak and I can't believe in anything and I know there are people who believe in stuff and I think that it's just stubborn and even immature to think free will means having total instant access to behave in any way at any time.

            Sure the world is constantly imposing detours and sidelining my wishes but that doesn't mean it's impossible for me to quit smoking or to ask a woman out who i believe is out of my league.

            Maybe you could say if I ask for a woman's number that my sex drive determined that behavior but what sense are we using the word "I" when we debate whether "I have free will".

            Though I think that I am not free to express my thoughts in hyper sensitive liberal academic settings so I'm determined to express shit here where people assume you're a homosexual (striking similarity to liberal space that) and either won't read or will only read in order to bash what I wrote.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Its possible for a deterministic organism to manipulate itself. You have an extremely naive understanding of this debate. I guess you think AI has free will because it makes decisions and changes itself as it learns. But anyway, my main point was that we can genetically engineer and shape the experiences of other people, which will help them make better decisions (including being able to adapt when they need to change their behavior)

            Because you chose to do those things?

            but why? Why doesn’t everyone always choose the right thing? Under determinism, the explanation is straightforward. But with free will, there is no explanation. Reminiscent of people who say “a moral action is something you should do because it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do…”

            My Black person, if you are actually physically incapable of ever saying no to your monkey impulses I think something might be wrong with your brain. Normal people feel the urge to do those things but are able to resist them.

            Everyone resists impulses, but it’s a question of degree. You yourself know that you aren’t perfect at this, which is why you deflected and redirected at me. Under determinism, it’s simply a matter of following the greatest desire at the moment (and since we can have multiple desires, we will sometimes feel their influence). Whereas if we have free will then you can’t explain why you sometimes do what you want but sometimes don’t. Everyone will occasionally do something that they KNOW is not optimal. If THAT is free will, then what fricking use is it? Why does this world resemble a world that is completely deterministic? I would imagine that if people actually had free will, things would be a lot different, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Its possible for a deterministic organism to manipulate itself.
            ok, so you actually do believe in free will. You are a compatabilist.
            Christ, why does every single teenager who learns about determinism for the first time think that they've suddenly unlocked the secrets to the universe? You guys are not that intelligent.
            >But anyway, my main point was that we can genetically engineer and shape the experiences of other people, which will help them make better decisions
            Except we aren't doing anything under incompatabilist determinism. It's all just a series of predetermined, necessary events. You cannot "manipulate" yourself, that goes against determinism.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Its possible for a deterministic organism to manipulate itself.

            I did not say this is sufficient to demonstrate free will.

            >You have an extremely naive understanding of this debate.

            You wouldn't recognize understanding

            >i guess you think AI has free will because it makes decisions and changes itself as it learns.

            Igdk for u I guess see wittgensteins's discussion in the investigations into whether pain behavior is enough of a sign to show whether a thing is in pain.

            >But anyway, my main point was that we can genetically engineer and shape the experiences of other people, which will help them make better decisions (including being able to adapt when they need to change their behavior)

            I get that this is your point and I'm saying it's difficult to commensurate this process with total determinism. To formulate an ideal and to consciously manipulate your world towards an ideal is the basic condition of freedom for classical theorists.

            Like what are your criteria for freedom if it's not manipulating your environment to reach an ideal you've come up with yourself?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            There are things that you don't have to explain. It might be that they are beyond your explanation or that they don't really have any. The problem is that, no matter what enlightenmentarians or rationalists want to believe, your knowledge will always remain imperfect. The point of critical thinking is that the moment you come to some conclusion, critical thinking stops.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    All I think about is "Well, we probably don't have as much control of our lives as we think we do, but I'll try my best anyways. With this new knowledge I understand it isn't as fair to judge other people as much because their very well may be a variety of circumstances beyond their control that made them who they are. However, if they commit actions that are wrong or harmful, we must not make excuses for them because pragmatically we collectively want to prevent as much unnecessary harm as meaningfully possible, and holding people accountable for their actions is part of that."

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The point is that ideally we want to get to a point where we can identify exactly what causes bad behaviour or wrong actions and work to create better outcomes rather than waiting for people to act badly and then harshly punishing them.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Those two claims aren't mutually exclusive, you can do both. Also I mentioned nothing about harsh punishment, merely that we must hold people accountable.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >being an anthropologist
    >believing in psychiatry

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Have any Calvinists shown up yet?

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    JIDF propaganda used to destroy the Catholic Church

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      the catholic church doesn't need to be destroyed, it already has been subverted years ago

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This book was debunked here:
    https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/determined-a-science-of-life-without-free-will/

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Robert Sapolsky's book "Determined" argues against free will and moral responsibility based on neuroscience and determinism. The reviewer, philosopher John Martin Fischer, criticizes several aspects of Sapolsky's approach:

      1. Sapolsky assumes that free will can only exist if our actions are not fully determined by prior causes. Fischer argues that this definition unfairly dismisses compatibilism from the start, as compatibilists believe free will can coexist with determinism.

      2. The book focuses on establishing determinism but doesn't engage with philosophical arguments about free will and moral responsibility.

      3. Sapolsky doesn't seriously consider compatibilist accounts of free will or address indeterministic theories of free will.

      4. The author's extrapolation from specific neurological conditions to a general principle that causal understanding eliminates responsibility is seen as a hasty generalization.

      5. Sapolsky's rejection of moral responsibility and punishment in favor of a "quarantine model" is challenged as potentially problematic.

      Fischer argues that while Sapolsky presents detailed causal mechanisms of behavior, he fails to explain why this determinism necessarily precludes free will and moral responsibility. The reviewer suggests that reasons-responsiveness and deliberation could still be compatible with the kind of determinism Sapolsky describes.
      Overall, Fischer contends that despite its empirical content, the book doesn't offer new insights on free will or moral responsibility from a philosophical perspective.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Sapolsky assumes that free will can only exist if our actions are not fully determined by prior causes
        So libertarianism does not need one's actions to be fully undetermined in order to work?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Is knowledge predetermined? If all knowledge is innate, why learn anything?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        What a bad thesis. Actions that are predetermined by nothing that exists prior to them could never be "ours" in any meaningful way. They would be arbitrary, random, determined by nothing.

        When people speak of freedom they mean that their thoughts and decisions determine how they act, which is well supported by a ton of empirical evidence. The argument against statements like "people eat sweets because they taste good," relies on trying to squeeze empirical evidence into a certain sort of incoherent metaphysics of mechanism.

        The question is if mental experiences and intentions determine behavior in a way that is self-determining. It's a strawman to say freedom means "magical acausal action determined by nothing."

        Clearly people can also be more or less self determining. This is all consistent with the classical idea of freedom found in Plato, St. Augustine, Plotinus, St. Aquinas, etc.

        It only doesn't work with the modern idea of freedom as pure indeterminate potency, which is incoherent anyhow.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          generally, modern philosophy tends to say that in order for libertarian free will to be possible the cause of A needs to have its source in the person and that it wasn't necessary for A to happen. Not meaning that the cause should have the potential to cause something that isn't A, only that it wasn't a universal necessity for you to choose to have breakfast this morning.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    i guess what i'm curious about is do the anons here think we're going to discover some way to measure determinism versus free will? are we going to crack some kind of secret open, and advance in a new branch of science that will answer these questions?

    like did the ancients who speculated about momentum and gravity... did they sound as stupid as you all do? i guess they must have. i could see an old greek frick telling off his cousin for wasting time trying to figure out why things rolled down hill. "what good what that do you?" he would have asked, and meanwhile today we are able to predict gravity and momentum to such extremes that we can leave the planet.

    but are we any closer to understanding why gravity exists? has science ever even gotten close to the "why" something works? obviously not... but here we are talking about a "why"- why do we do the things we do? why does anything? maybe i'm just the old greek frick here, but it seems like you're wasting your time.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Gravity is useful not just in going to space but in developing rockets etc. that can give a military advantage. That’s why we do anything. Our curiosity is a great trait as it can often lead to knowledge that will give us power over others. We can’t always know when that curiosity will be beneficial or not, but clearly it exists because it evolved and is probably advantageous in general. Though of course a healthy society will contain different degrees of curiosity among its individuals, because not everyone needs to be so inquisitive and philosophical (and scientific), but a good minority should.

      Determinism is pretty important for reasons already mentioned. If you think of organisms as deterministic, then their behavior can be determined, pretty simple. That means changing genetics (such as through selective breeding or genetic engineering), and shaping one’s experiences. And this can obviously lead to a huge advantage. Suppose that your enemy country is employing significant resources to make these advancements and create superhumans, while your country has the mindset of

      >Whereas if determinism is true, then our behavior is determined by genetics and experiences
      Is there a single philosopher arguing for free will who does not believe in the latter?
      The influence of genetics on behaviour is entirely pseudoscience at this point

      . In the end, which society do you think will have the advantage?

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you deal with the knowledge that your dog doesn't have free will?

    Nothing. I live my life mostly the same.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Just because something is pre-determined doesn't mean it's "meant to be" because you fighting against it might also be pre-determined.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Totally mechanistic accounts of conciousness that suppose "causal closure," (i.e., that the mental never has causal efficacy because it is an epiphenomenal dual aspect of the physical) have extremely dire epistemic and evidentiary problems.

    For the latter, consider how good evolution is at explaining why the world appears to us as it does, why sex feels good, why certain foods taste good, etc. But if mechanistic accounts with causal closure are true how we feel can never, ever, without violation of the principle, cause us to act a certain way. Having sex could as well feel like burning your dick off and it wouldn't affect anything because intentionality and experience never determine behavior.

    And then we need to explain psycho-physical harmony, why an acausal biproduct of mechanism just so happens to result in experiences similar to reality. But if the mental never affects behavior, if it is all mechanism and experience is "just how mechanism feels" then natural selection can never select for experience being similar to reality. Experience could drift arbitrarily far from reality and it would never effect behavior, undermining all epistemic warrant for empiricism in the first place.

    Finally, experience would be a unique sui generis force in the universe. The only thing that casually interacts with nothing else.

    But science overwhelmingly assumes experience dictates behavior precisely because there is immense evidence for this.

    Basically, the only way you get "mechanism all the way down" is if you're unwilling to say "there are some things we still don't know that will require paradigm shifts on par with relativity, QM, etc." Its basically saying, "the balls of stuff materialism we dreamed up 2,400 years ago? That HAS to be right and everything must conform to it."

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Freedom is only understandable relationally. There is no absolute freedom or unfreedom.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If you rewinded reality and hit play. It wouldn't suddenly be different. The "free wills" of the participants wouldn't suddenly act differently. Given the antecedent spatio-temporal arrangement of matter, the positions of atoms, and their velocities. There's only one way it could've gone.

    You can pretend "mind" is something "non-physical" (which somehow magically frees it from causality...somehow) all you want. Cope and seethe.

    No one is saying inside your head you don't experience a decision making process. It can even be super complicated. That's all perfectly compatible with determinism.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, so are you a compatibilist? You do know that there are people out there who think determinism and free will are compatible, right? You do not live under a rock, right?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >If you rewinded reality and hit play. It wouldn't suddenly be different.
      And you know this because...
      Give me a break. It all comes down to meaningless hypotheticals with you guys.
      >Under determinism, the explanation is straightforward.
      It actually isn't. You will never be able to say with any certainty what the one true reason behind your decision was. All you have is generalizations and mumbling something about brain chemistry. In fact, in light of this ambiguity, you can safely assume that free will exists and that there is no real explanation except the one that you conjure up.
      > Reminiscent of people who say “a moral action is something you should do because it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do because it’s the right thing to do…”
      You can just say "infinite regress". But that's a shitty example of an infinite regress since you are just repeating the same statement. P because Q, period. Infinite regress is P because Q because X because Y because Z... and so on to infinity.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Consciousness is not identical to brain chemistry and neural states because it just isn't. Something something, quantum mechanics, qualia, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, emergent properties. That's reductionist and undermines people's freedom and personal autonomy. Math exists even though we can't see it. Therefore acasuality can also exist or something. If I say the word "quantum" enough times maybe it'll finally make sense!
        >*two minutes later*
        >omg that person has depression and allegedly low serotonin levels? He's dangerous. We need to put him on medicine.

        Why are they like this? Yes it is the same exact people who often hold these two views.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, I don't know who is currently living rent-free in your head, but whoever it is, it isn't me.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Free will doesn't exist, if it existed people would be able to change their entire personalities on a whim, in fact that happens when you take some drugs, why? Because it modifies your brain chemistry and your personality changes accordingly, we are completely determined

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Free will doesn't exist, if it existed people would be able to change their entire personalities on a whim
      why?
      The only thing that free will requires is for a cause to have its source in the person and optionally for the universe to be indeterministic.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Because you have the free will to be anything you want unconstrained by your genetics/chemistry/past experiences/traumas/whatever other input that shaped you into what you are. This is obviously false, we don't have that kind of free will. However your personality does radically change when you take drugs, why? Because they materially alter your brain chemistry, you cannot do that by your own volition because free will is a silly concept akin to ''soul'' or some other metaphysical mumbo jumbo

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >you cannot do that by your own volition
          What? Yes you can, what the frick do you think learning is?

          I fricking called it, didn't I? You think free will is a paranormal concept. NIGER

          FREE WILL

          IS LITERALLY JUST

          THE ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            moron doesn't understand distinction btn will and free will, you think the free is there for decoration?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Youre done.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            lmao, i am literally arguing with children

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >i am literally arguing
            no you arent

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I thought you were going to show me your homework on the definition of arguing so that i can grade you? What happened? Don't be shy.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            explain the difference between will and free will. Well go on then.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            My god you are moronic
            will:
            the FACULTY by which a person decides on and initiates action.
            free will:
            the FREEDOM to make choices not determined by prior causes

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I am way beyond you. You have the luxury of thinking that your idiotic opinions are superior without ever really being confronted with an obvious demonstration that you’re wrong, since you will just cling to whatever you believe, anyway. That is why so many false beliefs still exist, because they are not so easily disproven. But natural selection will take care of this. Societies that fully embrace determinism will be more powerful than those that don’t, because free will is not something that can be manipulated, as it’s self-causing. The non-scientific mind will be reserved only for those in the herd, while those who understand reality will be their masters.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I just realized i replied to the wrong comment, aren't you that guy who posted that definition screenshot? Seems like he stopped replying.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            obviously I’m the guy you responded to, who responded to the guy you thought you were responding to. Your post was vague in its intent but I just focused on the part where you called “me” moronic.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >I debate things in my head. Therefore free will is true and determinism is false. Personal responsibility.

            Damn bro that's deep.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Think of your favorite color. Why is it your favorite color? Is it because it "deserves" it? Is it because it "earned" your respect? Is it because it "put in more work" than the other colors? No, even though capitalism and free will requires you to believe so. You like it cause you like it and that's that. You cannot will what you will. People always want to pretend a shallow topic is more complex, nuanced, and multifaceted than it actually is because the alternative upsets them and its implications question their current paradigm of morality and "who deserves what". Surely there's some "context" somewhere that we're just not taking into account right? There's no way a modern post-enlightenment society could practice something as primitive as discriminating against people because of their genes or something non-merit based.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Free will is for toxic males who need a justification for their dominance of others and to blame their victims. H-h-h-he's self made. H-h-h-he worked hard. The losers just didn't try hard enough.

  19. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The reason people choose to believe in determinism is almost always due to trying to reduce anxiety (literally the stoic approach) and to cope with regret. The more crazy reason is when people somehow think that determinism gives them control over their lives by telling themselves that everything has a clear reason. Of course, determinism ultimately implies a total lack of control. Some also believe that it helps others empathize with themselves, but in my opinion, there's no reason to empathize with a machine.

  20. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you morons always talk about pre determination instead of post determination which imo is a better proof that there's no free will? The decisions that you can make can be nicely collected into a single set or container. That's enough proof to dispel any notions of free will. That's what determinism ultimately means.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      what on earth are you even talking about? specifically this:
      >The decisions that you can make can be nicely collected into a single set or container.
      I second the other poster's question. Just what are your criteria for freedom in the first place? Because it feels like none of you guys are actually sure what freedom means.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        You wake up at night to drink some milk. Someone walks into your house, shoots your wife and points the gun at you. Do you have the freedom to drink the milk? The decision you make in that instance by virtue of being human is already determined whether the intruder kills you or not.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >The decision you make in that instance by virtue of being human is already determined whether the intruder kills you or not.
          Ok? And what decision is that? You're not making any more sense.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >do you have the freedom to drink the milk
            I don't fricking know, do you? Do you even know what free will is?

            If the answer is yes you have the freedom to drink the milk, free will is the ability to choose whether or not to drink the milk.

            WHY DO PEOPLE THINK CAUSALITY NEGATES CHOICE

            YOU ARE AN AGENT OF CAUSALITY moron

            lmao you probably think we can end world hunger and achieve peace for humanity through mere activism.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            no?
            I swear, every time, you guys turn completely schizo.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            If you think you have the freedom to drink the milk then, you are probably too naive and have never been in a life threatening position in your life. You have zero experience to answer that question.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Ok. And why would I not be free to drink the milk? What would it take for you to think freedom exists? What are your criteria?

            Simple questions all.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Are you trolling or just autistic? Because i'd understand if you had no experience, but it also seems like you have no imagination to even understand whatever explanation I'd offer up.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            nta but its a very simple question. the man is pointing the gun at you, but has not yet shot you. WHY are you not free to drink the milk?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Because he has shot your wife moron my god. This debate can be resolved when people who have real experiences in life realize they are arguing with idealists who have lived in safety all their life.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >2+2 doesnt =4 because someone made it inconvenient for you to do math at the moment
            Youre trolling

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I can understand why you still live in your mom's basement. At least don't advertise it to everyone on this thread.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            See, i told you you were too stupid to understand, was that DETERMINED by your low iq or just by virtue of being a naive zoomer?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            There is nothing to understand. You have not explained your point.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            You are just too stupid to understand.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >do you have the freedom to drink the milk
          I don't fricking know, do you? Do you even know what free will is?

          If the answer is yes you have the freedom to drink the milk, free will is the ability to choose whether or not to drink the milk.

          WHY DO PEOPLE THINK CAUSALITY NEGATES CHOICE

          YOU ARE AN AGENT OF CAUSALITY moron

  21. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Free will discussions always boil down to
    >people who dont think free will exists have some paranormal definition of free will
    >people who think free will exists have a praxiological definition of free will
    and everyone talking past each other

  22. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Free will is possible if consciousness collapses the wavefunction.

  23. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    People really think freedom means omnipotence and it's sad.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      omnipotence in relation to your choices, yes. Imagine if we had phrases like “free intelligence” or “free strength” or “free appearance.” Would it not mean that you could be omnipotent in these domains? You can will, but you can’t will what you will. That is why we have a distinction between will and free will. It makes sense that we don’t have free will in a deterministic universe in which our desires are the result of billions of years of evolutions, and they often compete with each other and one’s intelligence and foresight can conjure the help of certain desires (ex: one who can envision future consequences is more likely to be aroused by certain desires after imagining such consequences, having an advantage over the less intelligent). But if we have free will then it makes no sense that so many people “freely” choose to make bad decisions. The only way “free will” makes any sense is in legal terms, where you’re describing someone who is not being forced to do something by someone else. But that’s much different than the philosophical definition.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        no

  24. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Im amazed how many people keep falling for this bait. Astounded, flabbergasted, dumbfounded etc etc.

  25. 7 days ago
    Anonymous
  26. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    this homie better not sue me when i plagiarize everything and sell it under my own name because he actually didn't write it and i actually didnt steal it.

  27. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    It’s pretty easy to debunk the idea of free will

    Why do people become the way they are? Have the personalities they have? It’s a combination of environment (ie how they were raised, the people and culture they were surrounded with) and genetics. Neither of which you have any control over. Therefore the very thing that guides all of our decisions is something we have no control over. So we have no free will.

  28. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    I just cry idk

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *