>If free will exists, then be perfect. Do whatever you think is best for you. If you can’t do this then you’re just a slave to desires
uhh freewill bros??
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>If free will exists, then be perfect.
it’s over…
it can’t be refuted bros..
>Posters: 1
no representation was made to indicate otherwise
He doesn't have free will, don't blame him
Good one.
bros no..that would playing into their hands
that’s what people who don’t believe in free will say. Once again you are only agreeing with them
>that’s what people who don’t believe in free will say. Once again you are only agreeing with them
What? I believe in free will and I am saying that. What are you talking about? Is this a shitposting thread?
Free will is obviously not being bound by desires. Freedom and bondage are opposites, anon
Yes. Your will is not free when bound by desires. Remove the desires etc. and set your will free. This course of action is why the concept of free will was induced.
Give an example of free will in action
Sacrificial love.
where is the “removal of desire” here? Both of these actions are accompanied by desire. You can’t sacrifice yourself unless you desire to do so. This is just irrefutable. It’s obvious now that I realize it. I was blind for so long
>where is the “removal of desire” [in sacrificial love]?
In desires being trumped.
>You can’t sacrifice yourself unless you desire to do so.
Desire isn't necessary for action. Will is. It seems you conflate the two.
Not you again. You still haven’t explained what exactly will is, and why it’s different from desire. You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with the model that trumping a desire is just what happens when one desire is greater than another, though we can perceive and be affected by both. For example, the decision to not eat cake is made out of the desire to be healthy, which arises from the understanding that eating cake is unhealthy. Doing so would make me suffer because I will still be tempted by the desire to eat. This phenomenon is completely coherent under determinism. No free will is required here.
>You still haven’t explained what exactly will is
"Still"? I wasn't asked. Will is the unrestricted force exerted by an agency towards a particular end.
>You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with the model that trumping ...
Again... "still"? What are you talking about, Anon?
>No free will is required here.
My argument isn't that free will is "required".
>Will is the unrestricted force exerted by an agency towards a particular end.
unrestricted in what sense? Force? How does this not describe a desire? Again, what is the difference?
>My argument isn't that free will is "required".
If it isn’t required to model our behavior, and is simpler without free will, why believe it? Why make yourself invent these incoherent definitions? You still haven’t responded to the OP
>unrestricted in what sense?
In the physical one, like a body not managing to carry as much weight as I will. In the psychological one, like my mind conflating one end I will and another I don't. Restrictions are endless.
>How does this not describe a desire?
Because I don't conflate desire with will.
>If it isn’t required to model our behavior, and is simpler without free will, why believe it?
It is more practical. You don't frame it to a junkie that he is a combination of 1000 contradicting desires some of which happen to wind and some of which happen to lose. You frame it as his will being hijacked by a construct external to his nature - a sickness: an addiction.
If you're a huge fan of pluralism and it's your pretense to objectivity, you may convince yourself that you're a bundle of semi-organized desires among which there's no inherent prioritization. But it's pretty clear to anyone who ever had to struggle that into some things you enter by will and into some by manipulation of your will.
>You still haven’t responded to the OP
Finally an appropriate usage of "still". Except I did:
+
>Because I don't conflate desire with will.
sad non-attempt
>because it is more practical
It may be the case that believing in free will is more practical for some people. But that doesn’t mean people can’t reject free will and still find ways to conquer unhealthy habits. If people actually had “free will” then they should be able to conceive within their mind some goal, and then perfectly achieve that goal. Otherwise the concept is useless. The fact that people can’t do this proves that free will doesn’t exist
I don't conflate desire with will.
>sad non-attempt
Not an argument.
>doesn’t mean people can’t reject free will
Which is what I said:
>>> If you're a huge fan of pluralism and it's your pretense to objectivity, you may convince yourself that you're a bundle of semi-organized desires among which there's no inherent prioritization.
>If people actually had “free will” then they should be able to conceive within their mind some goal, and then perfectly achieve that goal.
>Otherwise the concept is useless.
You're replying to the post that details the other uses.
>The fact that people can’t do this proves that free will doesn’t exist
People as a species can't conceive of some goal and perfectly achieve it? I'm sorry what?
People have desires and often these desires benefit them. But it’s also the case that people will certain things, yet don’t act on that will. Why is that? Now people like you say it is because people are free to will something else, which doesn’t make sense. You yourself say there is a difference between will and desire. So not following your will seems to be a case against it being free. Just because you occasionally follow the will doesn’t mean it’s free. However if someone could conceptualize their will and ALWAYS follow it, then their will would be free in the most practical sense possible. If I could freely choose to never procrastinate, then I would never procrastinate. Why would anyone CHOOSE to procrastinate? If I had free will I wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now. I would likely be exercising, studying, meditating, researching, etc. Human behavior best seems modeled by a lack of free will, so instead of just telling people to freely choose the good, we should use more accurate models and figure out where to go from there.
>people will certain things, yet don’t act on that will. Why is that?
Because of desires and to a lesser part because of restrictions listed in
>So not following your will seems to be a case against it being free.
Yes. Those who haven't freed their will don't actually have free will.
> if someone could conceptualize their will and ALWAYS follow it, then their will would be free in the most practical sense possible
Agreed.
>Why would anyone CHOOSE to procrastinate?
Because it's comfortable and you desire comfort.
>If I had free will I wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now.
Agreed.
>Human behavior best seems modeled by a lack of free will
You said this in
and I responded in
.
I freely willed to write that op is gay
This is literally the point of "free will" even existing as a concept. To help you recognize that you're bound by desires, addictions, expectations etc. You just validated the whole thing.
what the frick does this even mean
> then be perfect
"perfect" in what way, why does it mean you have to be "perfect"
>Do whatever you think is best for you.
people were doing this anyway, also telling people to do what they feel like is probably the worst advice you can give anyone
>you’re just a slave to desires
and how is doing whatever you please different from being a slave to desires, it is contradictory unless you are using some offbeat definitions for all these things, in which case you would be obliged to explain in a little more details because how are we supposed to know
your thread is a total meaningless brainshart
>also telling people to do what they feel like is probably the worst advice you can give anyone
as opposed to doing what they think is worst? You put words into my mouth. I don’t see any point in arguing further with someone like you, Satan. Try not to be too embarrassed by your poor display of logic, but learn from it
>You put words into my mouth
I'm asking what you mean, you're not leaving me with much to go on with your ambiguous word salad
>u r satan because your post ends in 666
take your meds
You are technically correct but on on real terms this entirely train of thought is meaningless. Much like the random question, which in essence boils down to the fact that "true" random doesn't actually exist in the universe that we know off. But on real terms that doesn't really matter
Can you explain in great detail what it means to be "perfect"?
to act in perfect accordance with your rational will. This assumes that our will is good. But for example, I will to be healthy, to have no addictions, not to be lazy, etc. If I had free will then my actions would perfectly align with my will. Otherwise free will is useless. But ironically even this can be a fully deterministic process, as the desire to be healthy itself is outside of “my” control. True free will would be an absence of will entirely, no better than complete randomness with respect to how your will is chosen. Our desires and will are always formed by preference. We can’t choose our preferences, unless we appeal to a higher preference
>the desire to be healthy itself is outside of “my” control
Just go exercise unless you have "genetic" disease. You are making a choice refusing not to exercise to get healthy. That is free will.
>We can’t choose our preferences
Yes you can. Hell preferences change all the time. It isn't something set in stone.
When people are truly free to choose what’s best, they always do so. Bad action comes from either ignorance or lack of freedom. You cannot make yourself simply prefer x over everything else. Again, if this were possible, then there would be no addictions, no procrastination, nothing that people recognize as bad
Aside from imperfect information, rational will is a function of frontal lobe development. Children and fully grown adults don't have the same impulse inhibited will . These discussions are rather hopeless because Christians try to box themselves in with presuppositional apologetics now. How does one even begin to talk about this shit without acknowledging the existence of feedback mechanisms?
You are being chased mosquitos or a knife-wielding hobo. Your reflexively body runs on its own with renewed adrenal fueled stamina. That is not free will. Free will power is a dumb non-strategic approach towards accomplishing goals as opposed to manipulating variables that dire t you towards a certain path over another. Even the introduction of new knowledge that is acted upon makes free will a shaky concept.
>Your reflexively body runs on its own with renewed adrenal fueled stamina.
Fight or flight doesn't last that long. You are still making the conscious choice to run away. This free will. Do you believe your body breathing on its own is also proof free will doesn't exist? Should humans need to make the conscious decision to manually take every breath?
>they always do so
They usually don't.
>you cannot prefer x over y
I prefer root beer over Pepsi. And then sometimes it changes and I prefer Pepsi over root beer.
>They usually don't.
If you prefer to be rich, and I offer you a choice between $1,000 and $10, you would take the $1,000 every time. This is because you are free to take either option, but one option is better. It makes no sense to choose the worse outcome if you are free to choose the better one. This behavior is better explained by the lack of freedom.
>you cannot prefer x over y
you literally changed what I said:
>You cannot make yourself simply prefer x over everything else
Just because everyone will take option A doesn't mean they aren't allowed to choose option B. They have free will to choose option B. If someone happened to choose option B you wouldn't stop them.
They could only choose option B if they thought it better for some reason. You can imagine option B to be a torture room. Only masochists would choose this because they like to feel pain.
But the point is that there is no “freedom” here. There are simply multiple desires and you always choose the greatest one. I’ve already explained this ITT. Either you’re too moronic to understand or you’re trolling
That still doesn't disprove free will since they still are given the option to choose option B. If that option is still given, they have free will. Doesnt matter if they always choose a
>There are simply multiple desires and you always choose the greatest one.
If you're a huge fan of pluralism and it's your pretense to objectivity, you may convince yourself that you're a bundle of semi-organized desires among which there's no inherent prioritization. But it's pretty clear to anyone who ever had to struggle that into some things you enter by will and into some by manipulation of your will.
Incorrect. The primal brain that is responsible for your vomiting, breathing, heart beat, and so forth is the same unconscious part that is activated through the autonomic nervous system in flight or fight scenarios. At some point a threshold is reached where the react purely on instinct exactly like the reflex of a hand touching stove. There is no free will because one region is activated over the other responsible for all the elements that make up that will. And you know why physiology is like this? Because in those scenario there is no time to think when it comes down to survival. Again this discussion is pointless if we don't even start to talk about unconsciousness. The fact that one can get black out drunk and still be interacting and exhibiting certain behavior while unconscious is a terrible kick in the balls for people who want to say free will exists outside of the brain.
Free will is just another way of saying people can make sound judgements and are therefore held responsible for their actions but that's all dependent on that part of the brain. Determinism is the true nature of this reality.
literally having to drug yourself to do something proves you have a will to go against sertain urges
It demonstrates there is no free will outside of the brain. It's a function of the brain. Again kids and adults do not share the same capacity for free will which is why they are treated differently under the law. If you missed the point that hard then you're just not capable of seeing the forest for the trees.
>free will comes from the brain
?? why does it matter from where it comes from
gaining knowledge to judge what you are going to do doesnt mean there is no free will
BECAUSE THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF SIN IS DEPENDANT ON THERE BEING FREE WILL OR ELSE IT'S FRICKING moronic TO JUDGE PEOPLE TO ETERNAL DAMNATION. THAT'S WHY PREDESTINATION IS CONSIDERED A PARADOX OF FREE WILL. THAT SO CALLED FREE WILL YOU DESCRIBE IS EXTREMELY CONDITIONAL AND YOU COULD BE FRICKED FOR REASONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR CONTROL. WHO YOU ARE ALSO DEPENDS GREATLY ON WHO AND WHAT YOU WERE RAISED AROUND CONDITIONED TO THINK IS NORMAL. YOUR FREE WILL NO LESS DETERMINSTIC THAN THE STATE OF FLOW. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU THINK FREE WILL IS THIS SIMPLE MONOLITHIC SUMMONED MAGIC
HOLY SPIRIT POWER THAT EXISTS IN A VACCUUM ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE.
Jesus says each own carry their own cross
we dont have the same vices and trials
if you like sex and prostitutes it's your cross
if i like gambling and alcohol it's mine
it doesnt mean we dont have free will
Then you have a rigged system where god is creating people to be fricked over intentionally vs baptized infants who meets an early demise. Good going now we might as well speed run salvation through industrialized abortions combined with embryonic baptism.
It's not about what do with what you get in this universe. It's about how favorable of a series of outcomes do you experience within a sphere of probability.
not true, many poor people become succesful and many people born in high places end up poor
Vague and irrelevant with regards to salvation regarding free will. Also being poor can bring better deterministic factors than being rich and spoiled/dependent or losing because of series of bad luck and bad judgement calls based on the information and perception that is available at the time.
to be saved do romans 10:9, and that's it
that's it, and there is no luck, just your choices
Why would I believe in the long ending of Mark?
it's not about what you get, it's about what you do with what you get
remember the parable of the talents
there are lies and trials
Jesus tell us to know the Truth, you have free will to follow a lie
like the prophet of God says:
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I will reject you from serving as my priest.
Since you have forgotten the law of your God,
I will also forget your sons.
Huh?
I don't know what you're talking about. You have the free will to choose to go to hell if you want.
This seems pretty much settled. If free will is real, then why would anyone make bad decisions? Just make good decisions instead.
Yeah, no one can respond well to this point. You can similarly ask Christians why they cant just choose to not sin. Is there some sort of probability assigned to someone being able to be perfect? Or is it impossible? If it is impossible, then where is free will?
Because people place short term gain over long term gain, they want the dopamine coom and don't care about god or hurting anyone, there are lots of reasons why people sin.
This seems pretty obvious, if you are human you have experienced these things. You have seen someone who needs help but you don't like the look of them or you'd rather not go through the trouble and expense. You have given in to temptation.