Do you actually think this is impossible in a world without free will? This is the problem with you people, and not just with free will, various other concepts too. You can’t even imagine and understand the alternative. Why is it impossible for a deterministic world to produce organisms who think that their choices aren’t predetermined? Why is it impossible for organisms to have multiple desires, consider them, and still ultimately act on whatever desire was predetermined to the the greatest? How is this not a simpler and more sensible model of behavior? Whereas with free will you’re stuck untangling the incoherency of being a self-causing agent amidst the influence of various factors. The illusion of free will is surely built upon the illusion of self. I’m not sure why Sam Harris doesn’t realize this
Denying free will is the ultimate sign of a brainlet. Consider addictions: your brain tries everything to make you use the substance you are addicted to, yet some people are able to overcome the most powerful urges the brain can muster.
The only argument against this is pure reality denial, claiming you mechanistically desire to quit (abstract, nondemonstrable) more than you desire the substance of abuse (concrete, visible on brain scans).
It’s literally midwit cope for people who hate having agency (and thus, responsibility). This is why leftists and other degenerate scum worship this idea, its a complete cope.
Denying free will is the ultimate sign of a brainlet. Consider addictions: your brain tries everything to make you use the substance you are addicted to, yet some people are able to overcome the most powerful urges the brain can muster.
The only argument against this is pure reality denial, claiming you mechanistically desire to quit (abstract, nondemonstrable) more than you desire the substance of abuse (concrete, visible on brain scans).
It’s literally midwit cope for people who hate having agency (and thus, responsibility). This is why leftists and other degenerate scum worship this idea, its a complete cope.
>yet some people are able to overcome the most powerful urges the brain can muster.
Doesn’t this mean that those who can’t overcome their addiction don’t have free will?
No one is saying we all have the same amount of free will right?
Sooo your ‘free will’ is actually affected by external factors? Could they possibly be genetic as well?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The extent to which will can be exercised is affected by external factors, the will itself isn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>see girl with big boobies big lips big ass >get horny, desire to jerk off >will is not affected by external factors >but wait, I’ve seen evidence that fapping is bad, this makes me desire to not fap >will is not affected by external factors
2 years ago
Anonymous
Both of those situations are exercises of the will. The will itself is not affected. If you desire to jerk off and you do it, your freedom is not exercised, you are simply relinquishing control to your sexual urges. If you choose not to fap because you have power over desires, your freedom has been exercised.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you choose not to fap because you have power over desires, your freedom has been exercised.
But those also are desires. Either way you are relinquishing to desire. It’s just that one act of relinquishing seems easier because its rewards are more immediate, whereas the alternative creates immediate suffering
2 years ago
Anonymous
ok
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But those also are desires
Willing is not a desire, except proximately (it's called that by common convention). When you will something, that is your volition, not necessarily what you desire (if it was merely what you desire, you would not be willing at all, which is generally considered a choice by laymen because it is assumed that your will is more powerful than your desires, it's mainly in the cases of drug addicts and sex addicts where it is acknowledged that the will is no longer capable of overcoming the desires, and they are not judged as having made a bad choice, except in the past). This is clear because desire directly desires its object, whereas will wills an action which it sees as having no necessary value in itself, nor even consequential value (ie flowing from the consequences of the action). >Either way you are relinquishing to desire.
No, in the case of willing you are relinquishing to the will, which doesn't make sense. Will is trivially not the same as desire because we have many desires and they are generally not factored into decisions, nor do they act one by one, instead they are governed by the will.
Besides, you seem to be basically hinting at the common problem where you redefine any action at all as "desire", so to make the term worthless. If everything is a desire, then the word loses all meaning. So even if I accept your assertion, it actually doesn't change anything, because the will is still free to will as it does and is not constrained by what are commonly thought of as desires.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can’t will anything without desiring it. Just because you can hold an idea in your mind and desire it doesn’t mean it’s a separate magical thing called will. >volition, not desire
Great definition, it really distinguishes the two clearly. >whereas will wills an action which it sees as having no necessary value in itself, nor even consequential value (ie flowing from the consequences of the action).
This is just bullshit, and I can’t believe you wrote it. Why do people “will” to quit addiction? Because the consequences of quitting are preferable, and whatever is preferable is desirable. There’s nothing incoherent about the model that all is desire or preference, and that these things are predetermined, or at least in no way “free.” I urge you to imagine the possibility that animals evolved (deterministically) to be able to think abstractly and generate desire based on those abstractions in a similar way that desire is generated by normal perceptions. When you identify with your thoughts you think that it is “you” as it is more abstract than simpler desires, but they are thoughts and desires nonetheless. There is no you to be found, no freedom.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You can’t will anything without desiring it.
Yes, you can. I just gave you an explication of how they are differentiated. >Great definition, it really distinguishes the two clearly.
It has to be distinguished otherwise we end up in the mire where everything is "desire" and the word no longer has any meaning. There is a clear difference between volition and desire, most people are intuitively aware of what that is, and if you need me to copy/paste the statement I just gave I will put it here for you: desire directly desires its object, whereas will wills an action which it sees as having no necessary value in itself, nor even consequential value (ie flowing from the consequences of the action). >Why do people “will” to quit addiction?
People do not "will" to quit addiction strictly speaking, they merely do it because their life becomes so bad in that situation that they revolve in the opposite direction like a pendulum, trying to recover some stability in their lives. There is almost no willing involved. That's why they usually have to be locked up in recovery wards, because they have no actual willpower, in addition to the health ramifications.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I just gave you an explication of how they are differentiated.
No, you just said that will is volition and volition isn’t desire, and that will isn’t necessarily about valuing something (then what the frick is it?). Whereas I explained quite simply that will is just the name given to desires generated abstractly, or perhaps those desires that we understand to be the best for us. The will is still generated by thoughts and desires, neither of which are free. >People do not "will" to quit addiction strictly speaking, they merely do it
What? Surely they at least desire it then? How can you do something without desiring or “willing” it? You’re completely confused
2 years ago
Anonymous
given some set of external factors, how does the free will choose in a non-random manner? would free will always choose the same option given the factors are identical? free will makes literally no sense
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how does the free will choose in a non-random manner?
An extreme simplification because there are many confounding factors, but it simplifies into this basic format:
Choice 1: good, but hard
Choice 2: bad, but easy
etc. for as many varied choices as there might be present.
The will decides between them based on its inherent strength, ie does it inwardly will the harder choice, which is ultimately better (in this example correct knowledge of the options and what they might entail is presupposed). So it's not random, it's basically a matter of strength. A strong will is more free, it has power to easily choose between two options. One which is weakened and ensnared by desires and other contingencies, is constrained to a single choice, and becomes predictable because it tends to do the same things over and over again, it is not capable of anything else.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I assume you would say that the strength of the will is obviously not predetermined. Is it in some fluctuation then? Is it's general strength some attribute of our soul?
The problem is deeper than this. Modern science tells us we are just monkeys and everything we do is down to biological or otherwise evolutionary impulses. The entire human is treated like the causal relationship between a force and an object. This says a lot more about the scientific worldview than it does about what we really are.
>Modern science tells us we are just monkeys and everything we do is down to biological or otherwise evolutionary impulses.
That explains almost everything pretty well though.
They overcome addiction because the atoms in their brain were such that they overcame addiction.
You have never read any arguments about this, you literally just wrote down your naive gut feeling.
Until there is an explanation for why we perceive ourselves at all, and existence isnt just a black void while our bodies do all their biocomputer "atomic processes" or whatever there is reason to believe there is something more than just your rick-and-morty we are just le chemicals love is just chemicals. an alternative is that everything is conscious the way we are, not just dogs but rocks and shit
The subjective experience of love is wonderful, almost magical, and yet there are clearly hormones and chemicals involved.
If the brain is irrelevant, why does even minor brain damage completely change the behaviour of people?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If the brain is irrelevant, why does even minor brain damage completely change the behaviour of people?
who said the brain is irrelevant? All I am claiming is that there is more to us than just being a flesh computer. what the nature of that is I make no claim, because I do not know. Probably some buddhist shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
my scifi exploration of this concept includes: the brain increases its computational capacity for evolutionary purposes by harnessing through unknown processes some kind of floating conscious ether, shaping it and plugging it into its sense inputs like the matrix. this happens gradually after its formation which is why we do not remember feeling conscious until a few years after birth.
we are ether held hostage by the organ until death, like a little mecha pilot locked in. after death our "soul" slowly loses its shape and gradually melds back into the ether like how people feel when theyre on shrooms
Genetic predisposition is tied to substance abuse though. People who use "free will" are people who don't understand the inherent anti-egalitarian bent of nature. Its a good excuse to not think deeply enough about the causes and effect of phenomena that can be scientifically observed.
I'm addicted to water, how can I overcome my urges to clench my thirst?
Imagine being a moronic nazi taking an unsettled philosophical question, absolutely giving an answer and seething over some bogeyman. Pathetic.
nah, it can be just as deterministic to have a morally repulsed reaction to it and lock them up. it's a whole different level of debate. i thought everybody was trolling in this thread but apparently you guys really are this stupid-.
Unironically yes BGE, not because it directly deals with free will but when you realise that life is not about making a rational system and living inside it, the whole debate is sidestepped.
William James is interesting here too. What difference would it make if we were free vs determined? If you think there is a difference then you can let that guide you but you’re probably just wasting your time
There's no free will as an agent acting upon the world for which he is not part of.
There is also no determinism, because this is an argument which is trying to imply time is ever present force, which negates the concept of causation, which negates determinism all together and hence leaves you with a constant state of non-change.
Correct understanding of time allows us to understand how people can act/change outside of proposing nothing changes or that some external force is changing us.
If materialism is true then a brain is just a cloud of particles affected by forces beyond it's control. The only way around this is evoking some magical dualist bullshit force that miracously acts upon matter but is completly undedectable.
Have you seen him in interviews? His argument against free will is that you can't know what thought will pop into your head next therefore you can't control your thoughts therefore you have no free will. That is literally it. Guy is dumb as a bag of bricks.
"Agency" and "Responsibility" are unnecessary forms of moralization that are outdated. They come from a time when philosophy was used to explain phenomena when better tools did not exist. Such as statistics and behavioral genetics. There's no reason to care about what's "right" and what's "wrong" because they are simply phantasms that conceal the real interests of men. Its much easier now to make an objective, consequential analysis of action rather than using normative claims of responsibility and agency for action.
This entire question is idiotic. You can’t know, test or prove anything and all arguments boil down to ‘Well, I feel that way’ and baseless semantic constructions. It’s literally people arguing about what’s in a black box that they can’t interact with in any way. Anyone who seriously partakes in it is a moron, and I’m a moron for even coming to this board in the first place.
Agreed. It seems especially like a waste of time to talk about these things when we have such a poor understanding of how the human brain actually works.
Refuted by Schopenhauer. Ultimately for determinism to be true, there would have to be a determined causal chain (in time), but every cause is also an effect because there cannot be a beginning in time. Ergo, even though cause and effect is universal and things are determined horizontally, there is no vertical free will (ie there is no vertical terminus to the chain of cause and effect), which means that we are both determined (horizontally) and free (vertically, because there is no causal terminus).
lol that's not a refutation of the antinomies. The antinomies show that we can think both freedom and determinism. Kant literally makest the argument that you presented as one half of the antinomies.
>lol that's not a refutation of the antinomies.
Schopenhauer refuted Kant's antinomy of time by showing that time is necessarily infinite, and that there is no rational argument for supposing that time has a beginning. This then leads to the conclusion which I just posited, and which Schopenhauer also posited after his refutation of that antinomy (Kant's antinomies rely on positing two opposed conclusions as though the arguments for both rest on sound premises; however, in the case of the antinomy of time, only one argument rests on sound premises, the argument for the infinitude of time).
2 years ago
Anonymous
I see (that was genuinely well put). I'm not familiar with Schopenahauer's argument that time is necessarily infinite, but I see how that would push you to the one side of antinomy. I have a hard time seeing how that's possible to "prove" though?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I'm not familiar with Schopenahauer's argument that time is necessarily infinite
It uses the transcendental (which ends up being the same for the real) form of time to show that the form responsible for all changes cannot itself be subject to change, in other words what contains all beginnings and ends can't itself have a beginning or an end or else it would contain itself ad infinitum (a similar theoretical problem was later encountered by positivists when developing set theory, but they didn't specifically apply it to the form of time). It's essentially the same as the argument Kant uses for the one correct side of the antinomy, mainly what Schopenhauer did was show why the other side's conclusion did not actually follow, meaning the antinomy itself as two opposing conclusions was false.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>in other words what contains all beginnings and ends can't itself have a beginning or an end or else it would contain itself ad infinitum
I should probably add as well, these are not actually contradictory statements, ie the latter is not a refutation through absurdity. Maybe it does contain itself ad infinitum. The point is both conclusions lead to exactly the same result.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Interesting. For me, Kant does enough to show that modern billiard-ball style determinism rests on faulty notions of time and casaulity to undermine that position, even without the point you/Schop are making, which is why I recommended it.
I also think that Hegel (and to a certain extent Sartre) shows self-consciousness to be distinct from the causal order of nature given its reflexivity and ability to negate. I don't think human minds can simply be explained via causal determinsm given that we have a dimension of negativity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your actions could theoretically be predicted down to a 99.999999...% degree of success via scientific methods. The point is that even if this were 100%, it would still not imply determinism because the causal chain was not determined to begin with. Each moment and the next are fully conditioned by each other but the overall process isn't.
The problem here is that there is no difference between having free will and not having free will. You are BOTH morons, arguing over imaginary shit, but I will say the vibe of the anti-free will crowd seems way more negative and I wouldn't want to associate with those losers who probably have shit lifes.
Causality shouldn't be applied to the mind. Causality itself is an artficiality that philosophers (Egypticists) apply to nature simply because nature doesn't have a say in how we characterize her. We as humans do, even though ironically we act as creators of artificiality in everything we involve ourselves in. Everything in the universe is actually free i.e. endeavors to persist in its own being. There is nothing more grotesque than the idea that anything can be determined by cause and effect, caused to be by something else. Causality is fake rigidity. All finite beings exist within the infinite, but they are not parts of the infinite, they partake in it. Things do not produce each other via causality, rather they give each other reason to be.
I created a thought experiment which proves beyond a doubt that we have free will.
Let's assume the universe is deterministic. That means that everything that will happen was bound to happen. That means that, you could hypothetically have a piece of paper, that has written on it exactly what you will do at 12:00 noon today (we cannot produce such a paper, but hypothetically nothing says it couldn't exist). Let's say that the paper says you will raise your arm at 12:00 noon on the dot.
If we are to believe free will deniers, then you could read that paper and, come 12:00, you would not be able to resist raising your arm, since it was predetermined.
This is what free will deniers actually believe. Don't be a muppet, free will exists
yeah except in reality whoever wrote that paper was also predetermined to write it and thus my response to the paper is just part of just the same causal chain as he was trapped in
i.e. you can't just insert a non-determined actor into a causal chain and pretend that nothing happens
Nobody wrote the paper. There's no way of even determining whether it's really correct or not. But, there IS a correct sequence of events, and in this experiment, we assume this paper happens to correctly predict the future by chance.
There is nothing stopping such a paper existing (even though its unlikely), and there is nothing stopping anyone from going against whatever the paper predicts. Ergo there is free will.
>we assume this paper happens to correctly predict the future by chance.
IF this is true, then yes, you will raise your arm. You may say that you can choose not to raise your arm but perhaps the paper is true because you will be forced to raise your hand, so that you will desire this above desiring to prove that you have free will. So it follows that such a paper would never exist (and be true) if its prediction would not actually happen. Your argument is based on a strange hypothetical existence of a magical piece of paper that reads the future and communicates this to humans, and that you also are not guaranteed to follow the prediction because “we aren’t puppets” which isn’t an argument. But you ARE a puppet. I’ll prove it: you will not cut your dick off with a fork within the next 24 hours. You will do exactly as I predicted
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are the one who believes in magic here. There is a sequence of events which cannot be contradicted (assertion of determinism), and this paper happens to have it written down. You're saying that anyone who reads it will magically be unable to go against it in any way, they will have to follow it to the tee.
Continue being a p-zombie, I will go on as usual
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You're saying that anyone who reads it will magically be unable to go against it in any way, they will have to follow it to the tee.
Yes but it’s not magic. Again, the paper would not exist if it required magic to make the prediction true. It would always say something that you would be unable to go against. I already have an example: >you will not cut your dick off with a fork within the next 24 hours
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're saying the act of reading the paper itself will have to be factored into the prediction. I see. But I don't see why given knowledge of a discrete event in the future ("you will raise your arm at 12:00") that you couldn't do everything in your power to make sure it doesn't happen; even have a nice day, or have someone kill you. That seems magical to me.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You have no power because it is determined so. Again, magic is impossible. If you follow the prediction there is a deterministic reason for it. >you will raise your hand at 12:00
If it were possible for such a prediction to be true, then it would happen. Either you would forget about it and do it naturally, or perhaps someone would point a gun at you and you would do it instinctively, etc. But maybe you think you can tape your arms (or even cut them off) before 12:00. But if that happens, then the paper was never true. That is, the paper would never exist in the first place. It would only exist if it couldn’t be avoided, and there would be no magic involved.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There is a sequence of events. Your confusion and claim is that the paper is somehow not part of that sequence. Determinism isn't a claim that if you add a new factor into a causal chain that the chain won't be altered. You're arguing against a strawman without realising it.
True determinism would take into account that you saw the paper and thus it wouldn't have written that in the first place. Determinism means that, based on ALL factors, a specific outcome is predetermined. Obviously if you introduce a new factor will change the outcome, that doesn't disprove determinism. I swear, some people on this board are so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to exist.
what's appalling is that he's presenting the kind of shit discussions everyone had in high school as something new. What's even more appalling is that people are buying it. Frick zoomers.
Free will understood in the sense of not being bound by the laws of physics is silly, all you need to show is that within the laws of physics it is possible for systems to engage with information in a a self-reflective way. And this is a persupposition we need to make for the conversations we are engaging in concerning free will to even make sense as 'conversations', rather than mere epiphenomena. An entity that is thoroughly determined by its environment doesn't have justified beliefs, any talk about 'understanding' and 'logic' it might engage in is just meaningless sounds produced by extrinsic physical interactions.
> Discussion of free will > Nobody brings out the models
(Metaphysical) libertarianism: Choices are made ex-nihilo (!!!!), undetermined by the prior causal chain, as we are unmoved movers. Free will.
Compatibilism: Choices are determined. We are free (politically, biologically) or otherwise. Free will.
Hard Incompatibilism: Choices are determined by probability (which subsists at the level of quantum physics) and so the apparent self has no input into them. No free will.
Hard determinism: Choices are determined by classical physics' clockwork causal chain (biology is closer to classical physics than quantum physics) and so the apparent self has no input into them. No free will.
If you want to identify yourself with science-ignoring theology, you are likely a metaphysical libertarian. If you identity yourself with politics and biology, you may be a compatibilist. If you identify yourself with physics, one of the hards, depending on whether you prefer classical or quantum physics.
It is rather entertaining to discuss which models the Biblical Fall correspond to the most. Were Adam and Eve determined or undetermined? Was their rebellion political, biological, quantum, classical or metaphysical?
>Everyone should be taught that Mohammad is the one true prophet, because even if he isn't, faith in Allah is a healthy and empowering factor.
Pascal's Wager mk2
He has a point, you're better off acting like free will exists even if it doesn't
Unless you can't control your rage and spite when someone wrongs you. Accepting that it was impossible for them to do otherwise may help you cope with your emotional reaction.
should be taught that Mohammad is the one true prophet, because even if he isn't, faith in Allah is a healthy and empowering factor.
this but unironically
a clockwork orange
Do you actually think this is impossible in a world without free will? This is the problem with you people, and not just with free will, various other concepts too. You can’t even imagine and understand the alternative. Why is it impossible for a deterministic world to produce organisms who think that their choices aren’t predetermined? Why is it impossible for organisms to have multiple desires, consider them, and still ultimately act on whatever desire was predetermined to the the greatest? How is this not a simpler and more sensible model of behavior? Whereas with free will you’re stuck untangling the incoherency of being a self-causing agent amidst the influence of various factors. The illusion of free will is surely built upon the illusion of self. I’m not sure why Sam Harris doesn’t realize this
crickets.
for
seconded; also, there's the linguistic problem of how 'free' & 'will' are defined
no
Denying free will is the ultimate sign of a brainlet. Consider addictions: your brain tries everything to make you use the substance you are addicted to, yet some people are able to overcome the most powerful urges the brain can muster.
The only argument against this is pure reality denial, claiming you mechanistically desire to quit (abstract, nondemonstrable) more than you desire the substance of abuse (concrete, visible on brain scans).
It’s literally midwit cope for people who hate having agency (and thus, responsibility). This is why leftists and other degenerate scum worship this idea, its a complete cope.
Didn't read
It's okay anon, I know you were always going to hold that position
>yet some people are able to overcome the most powerful urges the brain can muster.
Doesn’t this mean that those who can’t overcome their addiction don’t have free will?
Correct. Or rather, they have it but are unable to utilize it.
Sooo your ‘free will’ is actually affected by external factors? Could they possibly be genetic as well?
The extent to which will can be exercised is affected by external factors, the will itself isn't.
>see girl with big boobies big lips big ass
>get horny, desire to jerk off
>will is not affected by external factors
>but wait, I’ve seen evidence that fapping is bad, this makes me desire to not fap
>will is not affected by external factors
Both of those situations are exercises of the will. The will itself is not affected. If you desire to jerk off and you do it, your freedom is not exercised, you are simply relinquishing control to your sexual urges. If you choose not to fap because you have power over desires, your freedom has been exercised.
>If you choose not to fap because you have power over desires, your freedom has been exercised.
But those also are desires. Either way you are relinquishing to desire. It’s just that one act of relinquishing seems easier because its rewards are more immediate, whereas the alternative creates immediate suffering
ok
>But those also are desires
Willing is not a desire, except proximately (it's called that by common convention). When you will something, that is your volition, not necessarily what you desire (if it was merely what you desire, you would not be willing at all, which is generally considered a choice by laymen because it is assumed that your will is more powerful than your desires, it's mainly in the cases of drug addicts and sex addicts where it is acknowledged that the will is no longer capable of overcoming the desires, and they are not judged as having made a bad choice, except in the past). This is clear because desire directly desires its object, whereas will wills an action which it sees as having no necessary value in itself, nor even consequential value (ie flowing from the consequences of the action).
>Either way you are relinquishing to desire.
No, in the case of willing you are relinquishing to the will, which doesn't make sense. Will is trivially not the same as desire because we have many desires and they are generally not factored into decisions, nor do they act one by one, instead they are governed by the will.
Besides, you seem to be basically hinting at the common problem where you redefine any action at all as "desire", so to make the term worthless. If everything is a desire, then the word loses all meaning. So even if I accept your assertion, it actually doesn't change anything, because the will is still free to will as it does and is not constrained by what are commonly thought of as desires.
You can’t will anything without desiring it. Just because you can hold an idea in your mind and desire it doesn’t mean it’s a separate magical thing called will.
>volition, not desire
Great definition, it really distinguishes the two clearly.
>whereas will wills an action which it sees as having no necessary value in itself, nor even consequential value (ie flowing from the consequences of the action).
This is just bullshit, and I can’t believe you wrote it. Why do people “will” to quit addiction? Because the consequences of quitting are preferable, and whatever is preferable is desirable. There’s nothing incoherent about the model that all is desire or preference, and that these things are predetermined, or at least in no way “free.” I urge you to imagine the possibility that animals evolved (deterministically) to be able to think abstractly and generate desire based on those abstractions in a similar way that desire is generated by normal perceptions. When you identify with your thoughts you think that it is “you” as it is more abstract than simpler desires, but they are thoughts and desires nonetheless. There is no you to be found, no freedom.
>You can’t will anything without desiring it.
Yes, you can. I just gave you an explication of how they are differentiated.
>Great definition, it really distinguishes the two clearly.
It has to be distinguished otherwise we end up in the mire where everything is "desire" and the word no longer has any meaning. There is a clear difference between volition and desire, most people are intuitively aware of what that is, and if you need me to copy/paste the statement I just gave I will put it here for you: desire directly desires its object, whereas will wills an action which it sees as having no necessary value in itself, nor even consequential value (ie flowing from the consequences of the action).
>Why do people “will” to quit addiction?
People do not "will" to quit addiction strictly speaking, they merely do it because their life becomes so bad in that situation that they revolve in the opposite direction like a pendulum, trying to recover some stability in their lives. There is almost no willing involved. That's why they usually have to be locked up in recovery wards, because they have no actual willpower, in addition to the health ramifications.
>I just gave you an explication of how they are differentiated.
No, you just said that will is volition and volition isn’t desire, and that will isn’t necessarily about valuing something (then what the frick is it?). Whereas I explained quite simply that will is just the name given to desires generated abstractly, or perhaps those desires that we understand to be the best for us. The will is still generated by thoughts and desires, neither of which are free.
>People do not "will" to quit addiction strictly speaking, they merely do it
What? Surely they at least desire it then? How can you do something without desiring or “willing” it? You’re completely confused
given some set of external factors, how does the free will choose in a non-random manner? would free will always choose the same option given the factors are identical? free will makes literally no sense
>how does the free will choose in a non-random manner?
An extreme simplification because there are many confounding factors, but it simplifies into this basic format:
Choice 1: good, but hard
Choice 2: bad, but easy
etc. for as many varied choices as there might be present.
The will decides between them based on its inherent strength, ie does it inwardly will the harder choice, which is ultimately better (in this example correct knowledge of the options and what they might entail is presupposed). So it's not random, it's basically a matter of strength. A strong will is more free, it has power to easily choose between two options. One which is weakened and ensnared by desires and other contingencies, is constrained to a single choice, and becomes predictable because it tends to do the same things over and over again, it is not capable of anything else.
I assume you would say that the strength of the will is obviously not predetermined. Is it in some fluctuation then? Is it's general strength some attribute of our soul?
The problem is deeper than this. Modern science tells us we are just monkeys and everything we do is down to biological or otherwise evolutionary impulses. The entire human is treated like the causal relationship between a force and an object. This says a lot more about the scientific worldview than it does about what we really are.
>Modern science tells us we are just monkeys and everything we do is down to biological or otherwise evolutionary impulses.
That explains almost everything pretty well though.
They overcome addiction because the atoms in their brain were such that they overcame addiction.
You have never read any arguments about this, you literally just wrote down your naive gut feeling.
Until there is an explanation for why we perceive ourselves at all, and existence isnt just a black void while our bodies do all their biocomputer "atomic processes" or whatever there is reason to believe there is something more than just your rick-and-morty we are just le chemicals love is just chemicals. an alternative is that everything is conscious the way we are, not just dogs but rocks and shit
The subjective experience of love is wonderful, almost magical, and yet there are clearly hormones and chemicals involved.
If the brain is irrelevant, why does even minor brain damage completely change the behaviour of people?
>If the brain is irrelevant, why does even minor brain damage completely change the behaviour of people?
who said the brain is irrelevant? All I am claiming is that there is more to us than just being a flesh computer. what the nature of that is I make no claim, because I do not know. Probably some buddhist shit
my scifi exploration of this concept includes: the brain increases its computational capacity for evolutionary purposes by harnessing through unknown processes some kind of floating conscious ether, shaping it and plugging it into its sense inputs like the matrix. this happens gradually after its formation which is why we do not remember feeling conscious until a few years after birth.
we are ether held hostage by the organ until death, like a little mecha pilot locked in. after death our "soul" slowly loses its shape and gradually melds back into the ether like how people feel when theyre on shrooms
I think that animism might be a bridge too far, although there is something to be said for the evolutionary advantage of consciousness.
Atoms don't apply where volition and originality come into play. It's what differentiates living beings from inorganic matter.
Genetic predisposition is tied to substance abuse though. People who use "free will" are people who don't understand the inherent anti-egalitarian bent of nature. Its a good excuse to not think deeply enough about the causes and effect of phenomena that can be scientifically observed.
No one is saying we all have the same amount of free will right?
I'm addicted to water, how can I overcome my urges to clench my thirst?
Imagine being a moronic nazi taking an unsettled philosophical question, absolutely giving an answer and seething over some bogeyman. Pathetic.
Sounds like cope.
>poltard tries to philosophy
Stick to your jordan peterson and basedjacks
He has a point, you're better off acting like free will exists even if it doesn't
moronic
Rape a determinist, and see how quickly they say that you "shouldn't have done that" as if you had a choice.
do you think thats, like, a normal thing people say after having been raped lol
Based, following the tards who say that free will doesn't exist, rape is morally good because you're just fulfilling what has been set out for you.
nah, it can be just as deterministic to have a morally repulsed reaction to it and lock them up. it's a whole different level of debate. i thought everybody was trolling in this thread but apparently you guys really are this stupid-.
The funny part is you literally won't rape a determinist because you aren't determined too lol
Schelling's Inquiry on the Nature of Human Freedom.
this right here is an absolute must for anyone interested in the nature of freedom
>pdf only
Frick this god-green flat earth of ours
What would the work look like if free will was the case? What would it look like if determinism was the case?
Not this one.
Why?
I agree with Nietzsche when he said this whole debate is just a waste of time and it doesn't really matter
Unironically yes BGE, not because it directly deals with free will but when you realise that life is not about making a rational system and living inside it, the whole debate is sidestepped.
William James is interesting here too. What difference would it make if we were free vs determined? If you think there is a difference then you can let that guide you but you’re probably just wasting your time
could've sworn
There's no free will as an agent acting upon the world for which he is not part of.
There is also no determinism, because this is an argument which is trying to imply time is ever present force, which negates the concept of causation, which negates determinism all together and hence leaves you with a constant state of non-change.
Correct understanding of time allows us to understand how people can act/change outside of proposing nothing changes or that some external force is changing us.
If materialism is true then a brain is just a cloud of particles affected by forces beyond it's control. The only way around this is evoking some magical dualist bullshit force that miracously acts upon matter but is completly undedectable.
Have you seen him in interviews? His argument against free will is that you can't know what thought will pop into your head next therefore you can't control your thoughts therefore you have no free will. That is literally it. Guy is dumb as a bag of bricks.
"Agency" and "Responsibility" are unnecessary forms of moralization that are outdated. They come from a time when philosophy was used to explain phenomena when better tools did not exist. Such as statistics and behavioral genetics. There's no reason to care about what's "right" and what's "wrong" because they are simply phantasms that conceal the real interests of men. Its much easier now to make an objective, consequential analysis of action rather than using normative claims of responsibility and agency for action.
Sounds depressing.
This entire question is idiotic. You can’t know, test or prove anything and all arguments boil down to ‘Well, I feel that way’ and baseless semantic constructions. It’s literally people arguing about what’s in a black box that they can’t interact with in any way. Anyone who seriously partakes in it is a moron, and I’m a moron for even coming to this board in the first place.
Agreed. It seems especially like a waste of time to talk about these things when we have such a poor understanding of how the human brain actually works.
Brainlet here
So what exactly is it that we don't know?
Read Kant's antinomies
Refuted by Schopenhauer. Ultimately for determinism to be true, there would have to be a determined causal chain (in time), but every cause is also an effect because there cannot be a beginning in time. Ergo, even though cause and effect is universal and things are determined horizontally, there is no vertical free will (ie there is no vertical terminus to the chain of cause and effect), which means that we are both determined (horizontally) and free (vertically, because there is no causal terminus).
>there is no vertical free will
There is no vertical deterministic action*
lol that's not a refutation of the antinomies. The antinomies show that we can think both freedom and determinism. Kant literally makest the argument that you presented as one half of the antinomies.
*one half of the antinomy on freedom
>lol that's not a refutation of the antinomies.
Schopenhauer refuted Kant's antinomy of time by showing that time is necessarily infinite, and that there is no rational argument for supposing that time has a beginning. This then leads to the conclusion which I just posited, and which Schopenhauer also posited after his refutation of that antinomy (Kant's antinomies rely on positing two opposed conclusions as though the arguments for both rest on sound premises; however, in the case of the antinomy of time, only one argument rests on sound premises, the argument for the infinitude of time).
I see (that was genuinely well put). I'm not familiar with Schopenahauer's argument that time is necessarily infinite, but I see how that would push you to the one side of antinomy. I have a hard time seeing how that's possible to "prove" though?
>I'm not familiar with Schopenahauer's argument that time is necessarily infinite
It uses the transcendental (which ends up being the same for the real) form of time to show that the form responsible for all changes cannot itself be subject to change, in other words what contains all beginnings and ends can't itself have a beginning or an end or else it would contain itself ad infinitum (a similar theoretical problem was later encountered by positivists when developing set theory, but they didn't specifically apply it to the form of time). It's essentially the same as the argument Kant uses for the one correct side of the antinomy, mainly what Schopenhauer did was show why the other side's conclusion did not actually follow, meaning the antinomy itself as two opposing conclusions was false.
>in other words what contains all beginnings and ends can't itself have a beginning or an end or else it would contain itself ad infinitum
I should probably add as well, these are not actually contradictory statements, ie the latter is not a refutation through absurdity. Maybe it does contain itself ad infinitum. The point is both conclusions lead to exactly the same result.
Interesting. For me, Kant does enough to show that modern billiard-ball style determinism rests on faulty notions of time and casaulity to undermine that position, even without the point you/Schop are making, which is why I recommended it.
I also think that Hegel (and to a certain extent Sartre) shows self-consciousness to be distinct from the causal order of nature given its reflexivity and ability to negate. I don't think human minds can simply be explained via causal determinsm given that we have a dimension of negativity.
Your actions could theoretically be predicted down to a 99.999999...% degree of success via scientific methods. The point is that even if this were 100%, it would still not imply determinism because the causal chain was not determined to begin with. Each moment and the next are fully conditioned by each other but the overall process isn't.
The problem here is that there is no difference between having free will and not having free will. You are BOTH morons, arguing over imaginary shit, but I will say the vibe of the anti-free will crowd seems way more negative and I wouldn't want to associate with those losers who probably have shit lifes.
Who the frick is Will and why is he locked up?
Causality shouldn't be applied to the mind. Causality itself is an artficiality that philosophers (Egypticists) apply to nature simply because nature doesn't have a say in how we characterize her. We as humans do, even though ironically we act as creators of artificiality in everything we involve ourselves in. Everything in the universe is actually free i.e. endeavors to persist in its own being. There is nothing more grotesque than the idea that anything can be determined by cause and effect, caused to be by something else. Causality is fake rigidity. All finite beings exist within the infinite, but they are not parts of the infinite, they partake in it. Things do not produce each other via causality, rather they give each other reason to be.
I created a thought experiment which proves beyond a doubt that we have free will.
Let's assume the universe is deterministic. That means that everything that will happen was bound to happen. That means that, you could hypothetically have a piece of paper, that has written on it exactly what you will do at 12:00 noon today (we cannot produce such a paper, but hypothetically nothing says it couldn't exist). Let's say that the paper says you will raise your arm at 12:00 noon on the dot.
If we are to believe free will deniers, then you could read that paper and, come 12:00, you would not be able to resist raising your arm, since it was predetermined.
This is what free will deniers actually believe. Don't be a muppet, free will exists
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
yeah except in reality whoever wrote that paper was also predetermined to write it and thus my response to the paper is just part of just the same causal chain as he was trapped in
i.e. you can't just insert a non-determined actor into a causal chain and pretend that nothing happens
Nobody wrote the paper. There's no way of even determining whether it's really correct or not. But, there IS a correct sequence of events, and in this experiment, we assume this paper happens to correctly predict the future by chance.
There is nothing stopping such a paper existing (even though its unlikely), and there is nothing stopping anyone from going against whatever the paper predicts. Ergo there is free will.
>we assume this paper happens to correctly predict the future by chance.
IF this is true, then yes, you will raise your arm. You may say that you can choose not to raise your arm but perhaps the paper is true because you will be forced to raise your hand, so that you will desire this above desiring to prove that you have free will. So it follows that such a paper would never exist (and be true) if its prediction would not actually happen. Your argument is based on a strange hypothetical existence of a magical piece of paper that reads the future and communicates this to humans, and that you also are not guaranteed to follow the prediction because “we aren’t puppets” which isn’t an argument. But you ARE a puppet. I’ll prove it: you will not cut your dick off with a fork within the next 24 hours. You will do exactly as I predicted
You are the one who believes in magic here. There is a sequence of events which cannot be contradicted (assertion of determinism), and this paper happens to have it written down. You're saying that anyone who reads it will magically be unable to go against it in any way, they will have to follow it to the tee.
Continue being a p-zombie, I will go on as usual
>You're saying that anyone who reads it will magically be unable to go against it in any way, they will have to follow it to the tee.
Yes but it’s not magic. Again, the paper would not exist if it required magic to make the prediction true. It would always say something that you would be unable to go against. I already have an example:
>you will not cut your dick off with a fork within the next 24 hours
You're saying the act of reading the paper itself will have to be factored into the prediction. I see. But I don't see why given knowledge of a discrete event in the future ("you will raise your arm at 12:00") that you couldn't do everything in your power to make sure it doesn't happen; even have a nice day, or have someone kill you. That seems magical to me.
You have no power because it is determined so. Again, magic is impossible. If you follow the prediction there is a deterministic reason for it.
>you will raise your hand at 12:00
If it were possible for such a prediction to be true, then it would happen. Either you would forget about it and do it naturally, or perhaps someone would point a gun at you and you would do it instinctively, etc. But maybe you think you can tape your arms (or even cut them off) before 12:00. But if that happens, then the paper was never true. That is, the paper would never exist in the first place. It would only exist if it couldn’t be avoided, and there would be no magic involved.
There is a sequence of events. Your confusion and claim is that the paper is somehow not part of that sequence. Determinism isn't a claim that if you add a new factor into a causal chain that the chain won't be altered. You're arguing against a strawman without realising it.
>We know that A implies B.
>Assume A.
>Actually... let's not assume A.
>Therefore B may or may not be true!
Nice proof.
True determinism would take into account that you saw the paper and thus it wouldn't have written that in the first place. Determinism means that, based on ALL factors, a specific outcome is predetermined. Obviously if you introduce a new factor will change the outcome, that doesn't disprove determinism. I swear, some people on this board are so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to exist.
what's appalling is that he's presenting the kind of shit discussions everyone had in high school as something new. What's even more appalling is that people are buying it. Frick zoomers.
Critique of pure reason
Phenomenology of Spirit
Free will understood in the sense of not being bound by the laws of physics is silly, all you need to show is that within the laws of physics it is possible for systems to engage with information in a a self-reflective way. And this is a persupposition we need to make for the conversations we are engaging in concerning free will to even make sense as 'conversations', rather than mere epiphenomena. An entity that is thoroughly determined by its environment doesn't have justified beliefs, any talk about 'understanding' and 'logic' it might engage in is just meaningless sounds produced by extrinsic physical interactions.
>self-reflective
no such thing as self or self-reference
say who?
Nicolai Hartmann "Ethik" the third part of the book
> Discussion of free will
> Nobody brings out the models
(Metaphysical) libertarianism: Choices are made ex-nihilo (!!!!), undetermined by the prior causal chain, as we are unmoved movers. Free will.
Compatibilism: Choices are determined. We are free (politically, biologically) or otherwise. Free will.
Hard Incompatibilism: Choices are determined by probability (which subsists at the level of quantum physics) and so the apparent self has no input into them. No free will.
Hard determinism: Choices are determined by classical physics' clockwork causal chain (biology is closer to classical physics than quantum physics) and so the apparent self has no input into them. No free will.
If you want to identify yourself with science-ignoring theology, you are likely a metaphysical libertarian. If you identity yourself with politics and biology, you may be a compatibilist. If you identify yourself with physics, one of the hards, depending on whether you prefer classical or quantum physics.
It is rather entertaining to discuss which models the Biblical Fall correspond to the most. Were Adam and Eve determined or undetermined? Was their rebellion political, biological, quantum, classical or metaphysical?
You will never learn about free will through philosophy books. Understanding neuroscience will get you where you want to be, read pic related
Doesn't physics and the ways quarks will end up behave teach us more about free will than neuro-science?
Unless you can consciously control the position of a quark, no
Everybody should be taught that free will is real because even if it isn't, belief in free will is a healthy and empowering determining factor.
>Everyone should be taught that Mohammad is the one true prophet, because even if he isn't, faith in Allah is a healthy and empowering factor.
Pascal's Wager mk2
Unless you can't control your rage and spite when someone wrongs you. Accepting that it was impossible for them to do otherwise may help you cope with your emotional reaction.
should be taught that Mohammad is the one true prophet, because even if he isn't, faith in Allah is a healthy and empowering factor.
this but unironically