What exactly is free will? Do we have it?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
What exactly is free will? Do we have it?
What exactly is free will? Do we have it?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
What would he look like with short hair and a full shave?
a featherless biped
>behold, man!
freewill is the ability to alter from your life path. We're born with spiritual amnesia and some people use freewill to do things that prolong their reincarnation cycle because it's so easy to get caught up this human experience and forget why we're here. We get off track so easily and caught up in the experience and our own little reality or bubble. Your freewill decisions are like a way to know how advanced you are as a soul or if you still have more growing to do and need to come back again
layered autonomous functions within layered sets
Some arguments for free will based on quantum mechanics:
>probabilistic sampling = free will
That just means you have LESS control of your destiny
Random noise is the opposite of free will
What Orch-OR often fails to mention is that biophotons play a central role in the communication between microtubules
Basically consciousness is EM-based and everything nondualist mystics have been saying for millenia is correct
But the idea that consciousness is tapped into using some kind of microtubule based antenna is dualistic in nature
free will is the ability to have done otherwise. it's not possible to prove either way, but i personally believe we do NOT have free will.
shouldn't it be "the ability to have done otherwise, if you had willed otherwise?" Actions have to correspond to will if free will is a useful concept
willing otherwise falls under doing otherwise. but you could also have the same will and yet do otherwise, theoretically. this is the kind of freedom that free will proponents insist exists.
Is it a matter of perspective?
that's impossible to know, but my guess would be no. either we really, objectively could have done otherwise (for any given action), or we couldn't have.
its 50/50 tbqhwy
Science israelite says 'you're a meat puppet and there's no god'
No thx
FATE and FREEWILL Explained
?feature=shared
Are We Forced to Come to Earth or Do We All Plan Our Lives?
?feature=shared
I came across this chick's channel a couple years back (some stuff about holonomy i think) and couldn't remember her channel until now, thanks for posting
Oh boy more Jung autism, that's my favorite flavor of autism.
She Remembers Life Before Birth! | Akerke Muratova Pre-birth Memories Part 1
?feature=shared
Free will and consciousness derive from metaphysics, not physics. It cannot be explained through science. It is not of this physical world.
Correct.
Immanuel kant on the reason being incapable of answering those questions.
It´s just a summary you are not obliged in anyway or shape or form to understand Kant.
>At the foundation of Kant’s system is the doctrine of “transcendental idealism,” which emphasizes a distinction between what we can experience (the natural, observable world) and what we cannot (“supersensible” objects such as God and the soul). Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of things we can experience. Accordingly, in answer to the question, “What can I know?” Kant replies that we can know the natural, observable world, but we cannot, however, have answers to many of the deepest questions of metaphysics.
https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/#SH2b
>and what we cannot
If we can't know about it how does Kant know about it?
If you know someone cannot know what facts they cannot know that leads to a contradiction since you are claiming that you know what facts people cannot know (namely, the fact of which facts they cannot know) despite having claimed the opposite. Therefore you can know what facts you cannot know from proof by contradiction
We can point to facts that cannot be known. Just cover all possibilities. Nobody knows what happened a billion years ago and yet nothing or something did happen.
This has to be the most moronic attempt at mental gymnastics I have ever seen.
>>"you don't know what you don't know"
>well by saying that you are claiming that you know what facts people cannot know!
>therefore you can know what you don't know!
Why yes, if I said ice is cold, by saying that therefore I meant ice is hot, and therefore pigs can fly.
Please tell me you are not an actual philosogay and just a larper. Lobotomy is the only fitting punishment for spreading these sort of mental cancer.
What is the temperature 14 feet under the groubd you are standing on as you read this for the first time? Nobody will ever know. I am not sure why God forbids such quintessential knowledge, but it do.
Which part of the above question conveys the information about the temperature?
free will determines the quality of your experience
Why does free will matter? If we don't have it what would that change for you?
It matters to me because without free will there's no morality.
There is, its just not up to you, something in you biology is instinctively repelled by maliciousness yet other things you find more repulsive can make it be the most attractive choice.
I don't get your point. Without free will, there are no choices to be made, so the point of "how to choose" (morality) disappears.
There are choices to make, its just biological and limited by your form instead of due to the freedom of some mind, psyche, or soul's ability to generate willpower, so you aren't ever fully in control or aware of the reasons for your choices or the consequences of your actions.
Axiom of choice is not predicated on free will, but on the arbitrary interchangeable nature of most actions.
What does a choice consist of to you?
Axiom of Choice and Pigeonhole Principle type exercises in realizing combinations and permutations of agents of choice and their selections.
Now what's your definition of free will?
The ability to control your thoughts and behavior (ie willpower) without external limits and boundaries (ie freedom).
It is impossible because external limits and boundaries almost entirely dictate an agent's behavior and desires.
Nature being non-deterministic doesn’t mean it is your brain causing this non-deterministic event.
So how could you do "Axiom of Choice and Pigeonhole Principle type exercises in realizing combinations and permutations of agents of choice and their selections" without "control over your thoughts and behavior"?
Willpower (as in having limited control influenced by external factors) is not in dispute, although as I have repeatedly said, agency is a better paradigm than will, it is the freedom of the will that is questionable, we do those exercises because external agents originally brought the topics to our attention and informed us of the basic rules and protocols of mathematics and combinatorics so we can think of ways to apply it to other external circumstances.
you just let others decide for you. judges, politicians, laws, ultimately commanders like god. i don't steal, don'tkill because god told us so. but you actually can steal and kill.
Sep, sadly when manipulated in specific ways, people lose all sense of choice making, after choices are what you see
i know, but you can't really blame people for getting informed and educated, or just following simple logic statements "the more the better". i mean that's a bit hardcore free-will take, which ultimately ends in some kind of redemptism take.
Anon...
Manipulation, think, this a table with food you can only leave until x amount of food is consumed, am not hungry frick you, this how is done
See choice depends of societal factors, after all there is more people making their own choices
agree, but why are you hungry at that moment in time? did you eat some chips before? and why so? because there are some kind of stimulants in the chips? and those chind of chips have stimulants so taht you buy more of that? why should someone engage such behaviour?
So if "free will" is debunked, what? People stop being moral? People stop being accountable? Or you're saying they never were moral?
Learn about Francis Galton and genetics and then you will understand that at least free will is limited.
Also Morality and Ethics don´t exist in nature in the same way that there is not atoms of pure evil or eletrons of pure good.
https://galton.org/
>Also Morality and Ethics don´t exist in nature in the same way that there is not atoms of pure evil or eletrons of pure good.
Morality refers to actions, not to objects like particles.
>Morality and Ethics don´t exist in nature
Abstract concepts usually don't exist in nature.
If free will was debunked, right and wrong wouldn't exist and every action would have the same validity, which would be terrifying.
>right and wrong wouldn't exist and every action would have the same validity
I don't see how this follows. I see how it could change what people think about accountability, but how could predetermination completely do away with morality?
Morality is about choices of actions. Predetermination means actions happen without choices.
Morality is about actions and outcomes. Whether they are predetermined is irrelevant.
So if Free Will didn't exist you can still say 1what the Nazi's did was morally wrong (evil) and that they are to blame for causing all that destruction and that they SHOULDN'T have done those evil deeds? How can you hold them accountable if they had no control in the final analysis? How do you know their actions were wrong if there's no objective standard like the other anon said? Then isn't everything relative?
Because biological brains have notions of right and wrong, even if that is predetermined in a complex manner. Thread over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downfall_(2004_film)#Humanization_concerns
>Cristina Nord from Die Tageszeitung criticized the portrayal, and said that though it was important to make films about perpetrators, "seeing Hitler cry" had not informed her on the last days of the Third Reich.[57
>Downfall was the subject of dispute by critics and audiences in Germany before and after its release, with many concerned regarding Hitler's portrayal in the film as a human being with emotions in spite of his actions and ideologies.[42][30][51] The portrayal sparked debate in Germany due to publicity from commentators, film magazines, and newspapers,[25][52] leading the German tabloid Bild to ask the question, "Are we allowed to show the monster as a human being?"[25]
>They just got it wrong. Bad people do not walk around with claws like vicious monsters, even though it might be comforting to think so. Everyone intelligent knows that evil comes along with a smiling face.[16]
—Hirschbiegel in 2015, on the criticism surrounding the portrayal of Hitler
Even the laws of biology and causality in human nature applies to them.
By the way they are being held accountable if you remember the trials and National Socialist Hunters.
Ethics is all about choice, the will to act and decide good or bad. It’s all predicated on free will.
I am going to answer this.
Definition.
Free will noun
the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-will
Here are positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predeterminism
Choose one and others for that matter it´s complicated tl;dr
Define "decide"/"choose"
>science butthole: you have no free will
>me: where does consciousness come from?
>science butthole: it is an emergent quality
>me: so it just magically comes into existence?
>science butthole: *shoots self with shotgun
Science is gay.
consciousness /= free will
How can you say that when you don't even know what consciousness is?
nieztche wrote a book about that, chud
To say that we have free will requires only observing simple day-to-day life.
To say that what we observe is false and that we do not have free will requires disproving our observations and what we believe we know. However there is no evidence, experiment, or sound reasoning ever given behind the assertion that what we observe is false. What is given are only ever untestable, unfalsifiable, personal preferences.
>Just trust your gut feeling bro
Brilliant take
That's literally what every anti-free will argument is.
The only anti-free will argument is that your brain is determined by physics and not the other way around.
>DUDE MY BRAIN WARPS PHYSICS SO I GET THE ANSWER THAT FEELS MOST COMFY
>dude like your choices are actually fake and you would've done the same thing every time
>my source? what do you mean man it's obvious to everyone bro
Ok I give up, your feelings won. The world bends to your brain, that is not an absurd notion at all.
>To say that we have free will requires only observing simple day-to-day life.
No, if you can only observe from a singular perspective trapped in a day-to-day cycle, your will not free, it is bound by the time and day cycle.
>To say that what we observe is false and that we do not have free will
It has nothing to do with observing something that is false, it has has to do with the fact that no matter how much you want it to be tomorrow, it will always be today because your personal will is actually free and open, it is bound and limited by external factors.
>there is no evidence, experiment, or sound reasoning ever given behind the assertion that what we observe is false.
They are called optical illusions, there are many examples, for instance if you perceive this image moving when in full screen, as most people with normally functioning stereoscopic vision do, that is false, as it is a perfectly still jpg image.
*your personal will is not actually free and open, it is bound and limited by external factors.
Yes there are immaterial laws that dictate how material behaves. No there can't be an immaterial will because...
No, you have it backwards, material often behaves in ways that can be rationalized by immaterial semantics.
Is the world rational or not?
Reality is subject to rationalization, but so far no theory of everything explains the whole world and the theories we do have to explain most things are more probabilistic than dictatorial.
Are you saying that maybe the fundamental principle on which the world operates is beyond logic and reason as we currently know it? That's amazin anon. Almost like a divine logos or something.
No, I am saying not everything can be known, but trying to use vague convoluted semantics with even less explanatory power than logic and reason, doesn't actually bridge any gaps, it just makes you high on your own farts while you kick the can to something else beside reality that can't be explained so you can feign knowing everything about reality.
People aren't
Do 'we' exist? Is there any such thing as "will" to begin with?
For many people the answer will be "yes, obviously" but some people have metaphysical beliefs which preclude them from ever believing in free will. We should be mindful and inclusive to these people in our discussion.
Its not the individual and the will that is generally in dispute, it is the freedom of the individual's will since if they were truly free it wouldn't be possible to quantify them as an individual since their freedom would free them from such limited compartmentalization.
The movie? I left it at my parents' house when I moved out and they most likely threw it away with all other VHS tapes many years ago.
"Free will" is isomorphic to computational energy minimization. No, I won't elaborate.
>If this pattern is predetermined how come you find the sequence XYZ in it????? Check mate.
You are so goddamn moronic
>~~*Sapolsky*~~
Just assume your free will is non-freely determined and make bait posts about it freely, while freely ignoring all the people calling you a moronic Black person.
Observing determinists irl, like Sapolsky or Harris gives us some insight into this meme condition. None of them push it to the logical conclusion and functionally behave like schizophrenics.
All because this creed is basically insane on its face and incompatible meaning or dignity.
>You're a meat puppet who never made a decision in his life...but don't you dare to vote for Donald Trump
determinism is brain cancer due to over-information stimulus. fact is you are responsible for your own well-being, social status, physical aspect, and wealth.
You are responsible for yourself but there are some things beyond your control and it takes wisdom to understand what is within your control and what never will be.
The way I see it, is there's no effective difference between a free mind and an analytical mind born from unpredictable states.
Our lives aren't deterministic because it's impossible to measure everything at once. Sure if you had some god computer you'd know everything I'm going to do, but you don't and neither does anyone else. This ultimately means that the mind and world around us is churning chaos, and identical to free will.
If the answer to "What changes between free will and deterministic minds?" is immeasurable, then it doesn't really matter now does it?
But is chaotic will the same as free will?
>and yes it occurs as modeled in Orch-OR theory
How is free will modeled in this theory?
>This ultimately means that the mind and world around us is churning chaos, and identical to free will.
No, its not free will at all to claim that your will is entirely bound by chaos.
it kind of is if the chaos gives you options to choose from. lack of chaos means lack of choices means not being able to exert your "free will".
Forcing to choose between given options rather than manifesting your own choice directly is exactly why your will is not free, but pigeonholed according to your form and circumstances.
>lack of chaos means lack of choices
No, lack of chaos means your choices are the result of something else besides chaos, identifying the exact mechanism that limits your will and condenses your choices does not make your will free, it makes you aware of the limits of your willpower.
>between given options rather than manifesting your own
you make this strange distinction. seems artificial, like an afterthought to support your initial argument.
your statement doesn't make sense. it's nonsensical.
I don't make the distinction, nature and your form makes the distinction since you can only choose to do things that are compatible with your form, no flapping your arms and flying to jupiter to get a better look for you no matter how much you wish you could do that or anything else that your form makes impossible, the only nonsensical thing is believing you have free will because you are constantly forced to choose between a bunch of random bullshit you don't particularly care for, but your body needs.
I don't get it. explain the difference between you "manifesting" ideas and how entropy works for actually coming up with ideas, you seem confused.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809019/
>This study investigates the relationship between human intelligence and brain entropy, to determine whether neural variability as reflected in neuroimaging signals carries information about intellectual ability. We hypothesize that intelligence will be positively associated with entropy in a sample of 892 healthy adults, using resting-state fMRI. Intelligence is measured with the Shipley Vocabulary and WASI Matrix Reasoning tests. Brain entropy was positively associated with intelligence. This relation was most strongly observed in the prefrontal cortex, inferior temporal lobes, and cerebellum. This relationship between high brain entropy and high intelligence indicates an essential role for entropy in brain functioning. It demonstrates that access to variable neural states predicts complex behavioral performance, and specifically shows that entropy derived from neuroimaging signals at rest carries information about intellectual capacity.
If you could directly manifest ideas, you would no actually be bound by entropy or any other external cause, if you are just picking pigeonholed choices as your form dictates, you aren't exhibiting free will, you are making arbitrary choices based on your inherent nature.
your response is kind of offensive, especially since I didn't argue in bad faith and am on IQfy not on fricking /misc/ /x/ or IQfy. you can't just say stupid shit like that. have you no fricking self-awareness (ironically enough) or are you trolling?
Your free will nonsense belongs on x or lit, though, so if you want to be received well go rant about your free will there instead of presenting unscientific bullshit to a science forum.
What part of pigeonhole principle or axiom of choice is less scientific than "I need to believe muh will be free, so I don't give up on life".
anon I am explaining what people confuse free will for, I'm not talking about free will, you are.
this a pretty low tier discussion overall. the general consensus for freewillets is simply
>nuh-uh. I don't care what scientific proof you will ever bring, at any point I'll simply deny it and say it's something special, more than science.
if this is the intellectual level of the discussion I'll bounce, have fun with moronation.
No, see
You were explaining that you don't get it and I tried to explain, but you still clearly don't get it and would rather go on a name calling binge than try to understand anything.
>but you still clearly don't get it
yeah I keep telling you that you are speaking nonsense. try and speak in maybe scientific terms? or else what even the frick are you doing here? are you fricking lost?
Free will is not scientific, though.
Of course not.
for example:
>If you could directly manifest ideas, you would no actually be bound by entropy or any other external cause
what the frick does
>directly manifest ideas
mean in scientific terms? what even is that? some hippy new age the secret manifesting bullshit or what?
Science wouldn't be a thing if things were freely willed instead of dictated by laws of nature, you can't use scientific method to examine free will because the scientific method assumes some larger reality that you can only observe rather than directly control.
This.
Science is founded on the axiomatic assumption that there are natural forces "out there" that are independent from consciousness. The validity of the scientific method in acquiring eternal knowledge rests on this assumption been correct.
If the schizos turns out to be correct however, and all is consciousness, then what is supposed to be objective natural laws, are in reality just consensus agreement between metaphoric "brain in a vat" consciousnesses formed through free-will for the sake of a networked simulation.
While non-schizos would ask for proof of the this by breaking physics as we know it, the schizo retort is that breaking consensus agreement drops a consciousness out of the network and thus becoming invisible to those still in it. Others can't prove it to you, only you can prove it to yourself through belief and practice.
Free will is any amount of exclusive self-determination. It is obviously related to being conscious, and yes it occurs as modeled in Orch-OR theory. A Turing machine such as a modern computer does not have it, nor does any sane person claim a smartphone is conscious. Anybody who knows Sapolsky is a rich New York israelite who studied primates and spent many years in Africa. He knows very well about the differences between human races yet remains silent on the topic. Also the reader should know that this pseudoscientist was spammed here not too long ago
>Free will is any amount of exclusive self-determination.
No, free will would means self-detemination had no external limits, ie it was free rather than bounded.
People are confused about this free will/determinism/random thing so will put three articles.
At the end of the day you make up your heads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism
Obviously when people use the word free to mean bound by external factors, they will confuse themselves since that is the opposite of being free.
>what is genetics that you got from ancestors,parents,since you can´t control or too young to have some awareness of it.
But all humans regardless of race,sex,age,social class have genetics or dna and that means not totally free,it´s impossible for a human to not bound to external factors or internal.
tl;dr humans are 50%genetics and 50%environmental.
All philosophers or some don´t know just use compatibilism really.
Yes, its not even humans, anything that is bounded to a particular form has a will that is dictated by that form rather than freely existing which is why philosophers stopped using free will and started using agency over a century ago.
Agency makes far more sense.
Good point it´s better to reframe the concept so we not lose track of being outside of science and engaging in things which is hard to test.
ex;Fire or Water are real sensible matter which exist in time and space,"free will" in comparison to these things is harder to find in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleonomy
>tl;dr All things have a cause,to be born,to give birth,to grow,to have offspring,to age and die.
Cause and effect,action and reaction.
It´s a meaningless endeavor,it´s best to just follow what school of thought there are,and that´s it.
"Free will" by nature is a abstract concept and not provable by reason or thought,same thing as god or soul or afterlife,very interesting case of a person who wanted to use the empiric method to prove what happens afterlife.
The problem is that nobody came back to life i am not going to talk about religion here,just the proof,and he never talked about it.
>In an attempt to ascertain the existence of an afterlife, the spiritualist, committed suicide by sealing his Detroit apartment, blowing out the pilot of his heater, and turning on the gas, dying of carbon monoxide poisoning. Bradford had intended to communicate his findings to fellow spiritualist Ruth Starkweather Doran, but some weeks after his death, the New York Times ran the article "Dead Spiritualist Silent".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Lynn_Bradford
https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A1EFD395810738DDDA10894DA405B818EF1D3
Free will is incompatible with nature because if nature dictates reality, then will can not exist outside of nature, so the best you can assert is natural will instead of free will once you have asserted reality exists as part of nature.
>A large part of Kant’s work addresses the question “What can we know?” The answer, if it can be stated simply, is that our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural, empirical world. It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics. The reason that knowledge has these constraints, Kant argues, is that the mind plays an active role in constituting the features of experience and limiting the mind’s access only to the empirical realm of space and time.
https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
If free will doesn't exist then how do you explain my feelings?
Only I have it
From a practical perspective it does not matter whether we have free will or not. We by and large still act as if we have agency and our experience does not change.
Agency is not same thing as free will, but nice attempt at moving the goal posts, I guess since everyone also acts as if they know they have many limits to their ability to want and to create.
In 99% of all situations nobody has free will, you are just responding to situations based on instinct or conditioned responses and than consciously justifying your actions after the fact.
But for 1% of situations you do have a small amount of free will, specifically when your instincts/intuitions come into conflict with one another for example if you were underwater, and on the verge of asphyxiation and had at the same time the instinct to breathe and the instinct to hold your breath during a situation like that you might have the option of conscious choice.
And while we're at it, "consciousness" might be a side effect of the human brain being split into two hemispheres. Bandwidth across the corpus callosum is limited causing an echo of sorts effectively letting the brain talk to itself (internal monologue) and giving you the ability to be aware of yourself thinking, because your brain interprets the signal lag as stimuli.
>Free will is not actually free and its not the result of your willpower, but its totally like free will anyway instead of the numerous other words and phrases that better match the thing I am trying to describe because it just it, ok.
>Free will is not actually free and its not the result of your willpower
As I said you have free will in 1% of situations
If you had free will 100% of the time you could change anything about how you live at any moment, you could choose to believe or not believe in anything, or choose to change you sexual preference or what music you actually enjoy, etc, most of the time you are a creature of intuition and conditioning.
>Freedom means being 99% not free which is why I totally have free will despite being unable to demonstrate being anything but me.
k
>Do we have it?
Yes we do, because NDEs are real and NDErs talk about free will being the case. Indeed, NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o
So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."
If NDEs were hallucinations somehow then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would maintain that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
So our wills are free, but while incarnated also limited to "human free will". We can not will ourselves to defy gravity for instance.
Based NDE poster
stop replying to yourself anon
Chad NDE poster
purely random events can bring entire kingdoms to their knees
do people with impulse control issues have free will? yeah but less of it than regular people. free will is a spectrum, where those who can exert better conscious control over their brains have more free will than others.
your brain does alot of random shit which can lead to random outcomes, but usually that shit is kept in balance by various functions in your brain. but if those functions arent doing so well then your ability to decide things for yourself slips away and you lose your free will. pic related: the thalamus of the human brain, which helps regulate those random outcomes so that you're not a slave to them.
t. neurogay
Does your brain depend on physics or do the physics of this world depend on your brain? The former, so there is no free will. There might be random aspects, but never does your brain deviate from the underlying physics.
It depends on how much of the world my brain decides to burn down.
>do the physics of this world depend on your brain?
Yes.
this guy's lectures always used to pop up on autoplay if I left youtube on while sleeping
Last I heard, they quit infinite autoplay and cut it down to 4 hours then it stops
I never paid attention because it's obviously some academic being promoted by youtube
Blog posters always pop up on this website, but I never pay too much attention to you morons.