What is the central source of freely-willed choices and how does it operate independently from the laws of physics, neurobiological factors, and envir...

What is the central source of freely-willed choices and how does it operate independently from the laws of physics, neurobiological factors, and environmental/social influences?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This guy comes from a long of israeli pseudo intellectuals hellbent on enslaving gentiles thru metaphysical means. The prison that Foucault historically spoke of originated with Spinoza and is a mental rather than physical one.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Spinoza was functionally a pandeist, Maimonides was not, and historically SINCE Spinoza that pattern has followed their kind since time immemorial. israelites are not required to believe in God to be considered israeli.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Free Will is israeli.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Orthodox Jew

          Interesting, tell me more

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This whole debate seems utterly moronic to me.

    Take your hand, move it. Can you do it? Yes.

    What more needs to be said?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lmao
      These debates get traction because morons like you are unable to even understand what the conflict is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What part of you willed that choice and how does it operate independently from the laws of physics, neurobiological factors, and environmental/social influences?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That is nothing to me.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >environmental/social influences
        I occasionally hear this particular argument against free will from neoliberal activist types. To me it’s the weakest argument. I can simply violate a taboo. The end. They vastly overestimate the stranglehold that culture has over the individual. When I mention taboo then they’ll say something like “you’re wearing pants right now!” Yeah homie, I feel like wearing pants. Just because I do something that aligns with society as a whole doesn’t mean I don’t see how it’s falsely imposed. Free will is mostly real on an ontological level, but humans have placed artificial barriers around it. You don’t have to accept them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Totally missing the point.

          lmao
          These debates get traction because morons like you are unable to even understand what the conflict is.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if free will exists as israelites claim:
    it was created by the israeli god to give a man a choice: either be a god's drone and not suffer, or do the opposite of what god wants and suffer according to his plan. thus free will has no freedom in it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can be a servant in heaven or a king in hell the choice is yours. I can certainly tell you which one feels better and I can also tell you that it is abosolutely a choice.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The determinism comes from the gods above, not from the laws of physics or anything material. We only enact scripts written in the higher realms.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What difference does it make?
    I believe it is all predetermined, but I really don't feel any less free. I feel nothing about that piece of information. It's like the self not being real. So what? I am still here doing whatever.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Criminals are victims of their own faulty brain wiring, not moral failures - prisons become secure treatment facilities. Society ruthlessly cultivates its gifted while containing the defective like a body quarantining a pathogen. No more hand-wringing over "fairness" - genetic stratification is an inescapable reality. We must embrace a kind of soft eugenics, uplifting the excellent to drive human advancement while forcibly rehabilitating or segregating the depraved. Like a gardener pruning defective branches, we dispassionately remove societal deadweight and focus resources on flourishing genetic lines. Morality falls by the wayside as we optimize for a stronger, smarter, fitter species. Social Darwinism logically extended to its brutal conclusion - not a matter of ethics but cold, deterministic fact.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That is never going to happen.
        Or maybe it is already on its way.
        Either way, for all practical intents and purposes, I can hardly give two shits.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        literally what are you talking about? if we deny moral responsibility the consequence is that we should avoid harming people as much as possible since it is never deserved
        https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/#CrimPuni

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Should everyone be executed instead?
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33445078/

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >We must embrace a kind of soft eugenics, uplifting the excellent to drive human advancement while forcibly rehabilitating or segregating the depraved
        Isn't law exactly that in practice?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The system of justice we have now is punishing after the fact, if we accept determinism we can identify problems before they arise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if we accept determinism we can identify problems before they arise
            Just as we can predict the weather? Short term it might be possible, but that's already how we indentify "sketchy" as a feature.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            AI will make it inevitable, it'll begin with identifying health problems with smartwatches to assessing psychological states and remedying them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's is somewhat of a hard limit to how far ahead chaotic systems can be predicted, which is solely dependent on the precision of the initial states of a simulation. This hard limit can't be sidestepped with more parallel simulations with slightly varying initial states either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's great. You only need to asses present conditions to make changes, doctors don't predict the future either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The issue is assesing the present conditions. It can't be done exactly, so you have to rely on a group of approximations. The thing is that the group of initial states diverges beyond recognition after a short while, and ends up being useless for predicting. There's a hard set time window of "predictions close enough to each other" until they inevitably diverge from the present.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >more midwit talk
            It was possible before computers, it will only become more accurate as AI advances.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's hard limits to computation you know. Predicting chaotic systems (which a human most definitely is) with a sufficient certainty isn't a matter you can solve with more compute. I highly recommend you to do read up on chaos theory and think about the implications it gives.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are seriously overthinking the problem.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thinking about the worldy implications of determinism is already overthinking. In practice it being true doesn't change anything, and I'm saying this as someone who thinks determinism is inevitable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thinking about the worldy implications of determinism is already overthinking. In practice it being true doesn't change anything, and I'm saying this as someone who thinks determinism is inevitable.

            GPT: The argument that chaotic systems like humans are inherently unpredictable due to chaos theory is an oversimplification. While perfect deterministic modeling of such complex systems is limited, modern AI techniques excel at finding insightful patterns, quantifying probabilities, and providing valid short-term forecasting from high-dimensional data. Whether integrating medical tests, genetic factors, sensor data or lifestyle information, AI can absolutely identify elevated risks and early warning signs for conditions that may ultimately manifest in an individual.

            1. Chaos theory does not preclude prediction entirely, but rather sets limits on how far into the future accurate predictions can be made for chaotic systems. Even short-term forecasting of certain aspects of human health/behavior can be incredibly valuable.

            2. AI and machine learning excel at finding patterns in large, multi-dimensional datasets. While a human is an incredibly complex system, modern AI can integrate data from many sources (medical tests, genetic profiles, lifestyle factors, sensor data, etc.) to identify risk factors and early warning signs that may escape human analysts.

            3. The goal is not necessarily to achieve perfect deterministic prediction, but to quantify probabilities and risks. AI can provide insights like "Based on these factors, this individual has a 70% higher risk of developing condition X in the next 5 years."

            4. AI models can be dynamic and update their predictions as new data arrives. So they don't have to model the entire complexity at once, but can course-correct based on the actual trajectory.

            5. Cutting-edge AI research into fields like knowledge representation, causal reasoning, and integrating symbolic and statistical methods may overcome some limitations of current techniques when applied to complex domains like human health.

            Dismissing the entire value of applying AI to domains like preventative healthcare due to chaos theory is misguided. The goal is not perfect prediction, but practical insights that can drive further testing, monitoring or interventions. AI's capabilities continue rapidly evolving through techniques like neural networks, causal reasoning and knowledge representation. Harnessing these methods responsibly, rather than prematurely disregarding them, allows us to push the boundaries of what predictive analytics can achieve for complex systems like human health.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The question is can how far can you predict human behavior with the certainty (acceptable % of sureness) that would allow preventive enforcement of "state accepted behavior". How long can the Lyapunov time be stretched to in practice? 12 hours? 3 days? A week? Months? Years? Unless it is over 18 years, it doesn't warrant preventive abortion for example.

            Honestly I don't buy the initial argument, which is that accepting determinism leads to voiding responsibility. Responsibility itself is a self-repairing method of society, which exists in our deterministic world. Why would you choose to think it isn't valid anymore?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's the average 911 response time?

            So you think people should be punished? Why repair if you can make it so they don't break in the first place.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What's the average 911 response time?
            Shorter than what would justify the longer term ideas presented in

            Criminals are victims of their own faulty brain wiring, not moral failures - prisons become secure treatment facilities. Society ruthlessly cultivates its gifted while containing the defective like a body quarantining a pathogen. No more hand-wringing over "fairness" - genetic stratification is an inescapable reality. We must embrace a kind of soft eugenics, uplifting the excellent to drive human advancement while forcibly rehabilitating or segregating the depraved. Like a gardener pruning defective branches, we dispassionately remove societal deadweight and focus resources on flourishing genetic lines. Morality falls by the wayside as we optimize for a stronger, smarter, fitter species. Social Darwinism logically extended to its brutal conclusion - not a matter of ethics but cold, deterministic fact.

            .

            >So you think people should be punished? Why repair if you can make it so they don't break in the first place.
            You reveal your hand, which is using determinism as a scapegoat to justify your highly authoritarian ideals.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You seem incapable of understanding something at face value. Why so dishonest? Calling me authoritarian when it's you who wants to punish people for no reason.

            Regarding the time, the point is the bar is set low for it to begin changing society, it only gets better at predicting behaviour.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You wouldn't entertain the thought of voiding responsibility in a positive sense, unless you thought of it as an obstacle or unfit as the mechanism it serves. As for law enforcement, it is primarily a deterrent and secondarily a means of isolating bad actors from the wider society. The individual itself shouldn't be explicitly punished, it's the side effect of restriction.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The idea of responsibility would simply not be true, that's all. We are back to my original point.

            GPT: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Instead of focusing heavily on enforcement and punishment after issues emerge, we should prioritize addressing root societal causes and creating an environment conducive to positive human behaviour and well-being from the start."

            In essence, this advocates for a more proactive, preventative approach that looks at the systemic factors and social determinants that can lead to antisocial behaviour, poor health outcomes, and other societal ills. By improving areas like education, economic opportunity, community support systems, mental health resources, and the general human environment, we can reduce the need for reactive policing and criminal justice interventions down the line.

            The idea is that investing more upfront in nurturing a healthier, more equitable society will pay greater dividends than solely amplifying enforcement and punishment when problems inevitably arise from an unhealthy system. Prevention and addressing root causes is superior to just treating the symptoms after they manifest.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I consider responsibility to be a social contract, a valuable one at that. If we decide it is so, it shall be. You could consider so too, but you don't. You want something better as you realized there could be. That better is far more authoritarian, which I consider abhorrent.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So really it's you with the ideal, which you would choose even if it makes society worse. It seems you don't believe in responsibility either then.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Absolutely. Ours are opposed, which is why we argue for the exposition. But honestly there's better places for exposition than IQfy, or IQfy at that.

            Better than wasting unnecessary time for tryhard midwits.

            Rude, calling obstacles to your world domination low like that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So essentially it's like a Christian who only wants to be judged after he dies, he can rape, murder and steal but it's okay because he's going to hell. What use is judgement at that point? Why do you not want to be held accountable while you are alive?

            Wouldn't it be better for him to correct his path before that point or are you simply a sadist?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You assume a correction is possible, as if the criminality isn't already determined. How does that work if you assume determinism? The path correction was already determined? There's no choosing there either.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're clinging to a misguided determinism strawman to justify inaction. You naively equate causality with inevitability.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How is justification of specific action based on determinism any better? As I understand determinism, it's the idea that all path are already there, so there's no choosing. Activity, inactivity, it's all chosen already, and thus "pointless". This is why I consider it something that cannot be used as a justification for anything. There's no actionable implications to draw from it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Have you not read the book?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sapolsky's Determined? No. Does it offer an alternative definition of determinism?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alternative to your fallacious interpretation? Yes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Time to skim the book then, sounds interesting. Britannica summarises determinism as following:
            >determinism, in philosophy and science, the thesis that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.
            Which also includes the naive fallacy. It must be pretty wide spread misconception then.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If we could understand whole philosophies from dictionary definitions we wouldn't need books would we.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Moving the goal post?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well it also fits my understanding of it, which is why I referred to it. I'm still looking at the book. I'll probably end up reading it proper instead of just skimming. Thanks for the rec at least.

            It's not necessarily the definition that's wrong but the understanding of it which reflects a misunderstanding or oversimplification of what determinism actually implies.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well it also fits my understanding of it, which is why I referred to it. I'm still looking at the book. I'll probably end up reading it proper instead of just skimming. Thanks for the rec at least.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I do have to say, I find it funny that GPT is now used for automating argumentation of an unchanging point of interest. Just as the sophists intended. There's no truth, only persuasion of the fools.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Better than wasting unnecessary time for tryhard midwits.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > punishment as a cutting out of a degenerate element (in some circumstances an entire branch, as in Chinese law, and thus a means to keep the race pure or to sustain a social type); punishment as festival, that is, as the violation and humiliation of some enemy one has finally thrown down; punishment as a way of making a conscience, whether for the man who suffers the punishment—so-called "reform"—or whether for those who witness the punishment being carried out; punishment as the payment of an honorarium, set as a condition by those in power, which protects the wrong doer from the excesses of revenge; punishment as a compromise with the natural condition of revenge, insofar as the latter is still upheld and assumed as a privilege by powerful families; punishment as a declaration of war and a war measure against an enemy to peace, law, order, and authority, which people fight with the very measures war makes available, as something dangerous to the community, as a contract breaker with respect to its conditions, as a rebel, traitor, and breaker of the peace.
        Nietzsche already anticipated this

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Throughout the greater part of human history, punishment was never based upon the responsibility of the miscreant for his action, and it was never presumed that only the guilty should be punished – on the contrary, punishment was inflicted then for the same reason that parents punish their children now, out of anger at an injury that they have suffered, an anger which is directed upon the one who has caused the injury – but this anger is restrained and transformed through the idea that every injury has some sort of equivalent price, which can be paid as a form of compensation, even if it be nothing but inflicting pain upon the one who has caused the injury. From what source has this ancient, deep-rooted and now perhaps ineradicable idea drawn its strength, this idea of an equivalence between injury and pain?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Get yourself into an accident, any, for instance defending yourself and accidentally kiil someone, then go tell the judge it was predetermined lmao, or just refuse to pay taxes, it can be used as an excuse for anything really, but you wouldn't be able to convince 'responsible' normies that it was predetermined, they have a society to run without such dangerous ideas sneaking into the air they breath.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's an absurd and irrelevant concept that has no value at all.
        What happens if we convince everyone that reality is literally like a movie or a video game in which nothing but what has already happened, is happening, and will happen can be? Do we just sit on our asses and wait for the universe to make us do something? Would it make any difference in the life of the common man or the powerful or the depraved to know that, even if they can't feel it, it's all set in stone?
        This is a stupid concept whose only value is demoralizing midwits.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What happens if we convince everyone there is no god, or any other concept you think is useless because you are too stupid to explore its repercussions? I just gave you an example but it just skirted right above your head and disappeared.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You will not and you can't convince everyone in the world of a single thing you stupid frick.
            You seem to think everyone (or even the people who matter) is going to sit down and explore some homosexualy nebulous concept that goes contrary to everything they've been taught and programmed to feel.
            For someone who believes in determinism(hard determinism) you sure seem to think there's a whole room for choice and change.
            Go out into the world and preach sister, see how well it goes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > You will not and you can't convince everyone in the world of a single thing you stupid frick.

            if you cannot convince a man that murder is evil it is best to lock him away.

            if you cannot convince a man of the concept of good and evil perhaps its best that laws keep him at bay.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You see how many people out there have wildly different conceptions of good and evil out there? You see how many don't believe in good or evil at all?
            Even something so simple can't make its way around the world. And you want to preach to everyone that science redeems them from all their sins because they were never really in control of anything at all?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And you want to preach to everyone that science redeems them from all their sins because they were never really in control of anything at all?

            I'm not that anon sorry to say.
            Although we can, through argument determine which conceptions of good and evil are correct and should be implemented into a legal system. I am a strong believer that there is an objective morality to strive for and also that it should be incorporated into law.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am a strong believer in moral relativity, and the only way to impose any kind of order in the world is not through dialogue but through force, which is what law is.
            What you believe is good will only be real once you have the might to back it up, otherwise is just flowery talk. Same as responding "thoughts and prayers" to some bad shit happening.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I never stated that might is evil contrary to the common to the average nietzchetards interpretation of Christianity or Platonism. To confuse might being right as good is a grave error.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You should read H.L.A harts the concept of law to get a better understnading of law or even Hobbes' leviathan. If law was simply the force to give commands then what a gunman robbing a bank does would be considered law.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What happens if we convince everyone there is no god,
            Nothing? People will act as usual, they will follow laws most of the time, care for their loved and liked ones most of the time, etc

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, because religion is never the source of conflict.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >neurobiological factors
    Bullshit of you to add this
    The free-willed choice comes from your brain so how would you possibly be able to argue this?

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did anyone else watch his Stanford lectures on YouTube? I enjoyed them and plan on reading this book.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the central source of freely-willed choices
    Soul.
    >the laws of physics, neurobiological factors, and environmental/social influences
    Fake and gay.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Soul
      Fake and gay.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the central source of freely-willed choices
    The soul.
    >how does it operate independently from the laws of physics, neurobiological factors, and environmental/social influences?
    By being transcendent. The soul participates in the material world. It is not subject to or determined by the material world. It has not been proven that the material world is deterministic in such a way that a state at one time determines a state at some other time, but even if it was, that would not preclude the ability of a transcendent soul to participate freely in the material world, it would simply mean that the determinstic spatio-temporal totality of the material world would have to conform to the soul's will.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Random Quantum Jumps, is that where the transcendent soul lives?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If the soul participates in this world within worldly time then it may be that non-determined quantum events are made to conform to its will, but as I alluded to, it may be that the soul does not even participate in the world within the world's time, it may transcend this world's time, and if so, then it is not merely certain quantum events that are made to conform to its will but the entire spatio-temporal order from start to finish.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          It's not necessarily the definition that's wrong but the understanding of it which reflects a misunderstanding or oversimplification of what determinism actually implies.

          Wrestling with these sort of ideas is comfy but exhausting. Gonna head over to IQfy then to IQfy I'll then swing over to /x/ before turning off this machine and jumping into some short stories. Something by Thomas Mann and Robert Walser is on reading menu for tonight.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If the soul participates in this world within worldly time then it may be that non-determined quantum events are made to conform to its will, but as I alluded to
          I dont like calling it the soul here, as soul by definition implies being out of the worldly time

          I like to think that the consciousness, or the self, may be composed of quantum and non-quantum states simultaneously at each given moment and as such that it could form a will, a will which can influence and override any non-determined quantum states

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unsubstantiated fairytale.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Every story humans have ever told about the world falls into that category, unless we have direct epistemological access to some set of truths. Different groups of people believe in different sets of such truths, but no group is in a logically superior position to any other. Unless you are a complete radical skeptic with regard to the external world, your epistemological structure has some level which is properly basic, or "unsubstantiated".

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So it's just a nice story, a belief. You can't challenge science with religious ideas or beliefs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you have any further questions (assuming you're the OP) I'm happy to answer them, but I don't honestly care about your personal opinions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But we should accept your self-important opinions as fact?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Couldn't care less what you accept.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Of course, that's why you came to the debate with laughable nonsense.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >tips fedora

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Western religious notion of free will is pure narcissistic delusion - a grandiose fantasy that places human choice on a preposterous metaphysical pedestal above the natural laws and deterministic forces governing the entire cosmos. This contra-causal fairytale imagines our minds as immaterial, formless, magical sources of utterly uncaused, ex nihilo causal powers, exempt from the physiological constraints and causal chains that rationally explain all other phenomena. It arrogantly recasts human decision-making as some miraculous, self-created form of willful creationism rather than recognizing it as shaped by the same rational patterns and processes describing the rest of the known universe. In essence, it inscribes blatant anthropocentric narcissism as pseudo-profundity, shamelessly elevating human ego over empirical explanations of how embodied minds actually operate via scientific naturalism.

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