Free will is an illusion. Only an idiot could fail to see that at this point...

Free will is an illusion. Only an idiot could fail to see that at this point. It is an outdated religious idea that runs contrary to scientific evidence.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W0H2PUOrHDA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

his ears are so big, you could fly away on them

> there is no free will
> those who believe in it have no choice

Your point, straya?

>be "raised atheist" even though it's obvious you're jewish because you look like ben stiller and benjamin netanyahus lovechild
>have ingratiating jewish whiny voice
>be manlet
>get in to philosophy and take esoteric viewpoints
>overcompensate even more by getting in to martial arts
>somehow still have a following
why? do people hate themselves? he's not interesting in any way.

OK so what do you expect someone to do with that information? Should they cry about it everyday? These philosophies are interesting but they get us no where. Asking these same questions over and over proves how stagnant we've become. Youve discovered free will is an illusion, great; philosophers had said this hundreds of years ago. This is not a new or unique revelation, it is part of a bigger distraction formed by our own ego. It's absurd to ask these questions as we can only base our assumptions and speculations on human terms, beyond that out consciousness cannot tread.

Duh.

The lie of Moloch. You have no freewill so worship me or DIE

His demeanor is so fucking arrogant. He's a disgusting cuntface and thinks he's the world's wisest man.

>sorry for talking shit. I dont have a choice.

>muh scientism meme tier kike zionist philosopher is real trustworthy

He's very motivated into telling the goyim to be passive sheep, isn't he. Meanwhile he works around with is 'illusion' of free will to make a lot of shekels he didn't ''''choose'''''''' to make. Oy vey shut it down etc.

It's more of a scientific claim than a philosophical one.
I don't think you understand what both free will and determinism are.

>thinks free will is an incoherent idea
>is a hard determinist

Anyone with a rudimentary grasping of physics can tell you that free will is a retarded concept.

As a behavioral neuroscientist I can somewhat attest to that, but at the same time, humans are not 100% predictable because several factors involved in decision making are unstable as fuck.

Our biggest gift is not 'free will'

Its that we can understand how learning takes place, and plan for it. And by learning how to learn, and learning how to teach, we create all these cool stuffs.

You realize that since free will is an illusion that the U.S. constitution is literally null and void because it is founded entirely on the meme of free will and muh abrahameme god that is supposed to have granted it even though it is impossoble to actually have and all that is bring granted is the illusion.

No, it's based on natural rights and not on free will.

in the end is all about being able to use this superior knowledge of our own changes over time to be project the image of yourself that you want to be in the future and prepare yourself to be it.

>Free will is retarded even though really smart people such as Immanuel Kant believed in it

Nobody takes your constitution seriously outside of your retarded country anyway. You shouldn't appeal against facts by condemning possible consequences to their existence, either. Adjust your views to fit within reality, not the other way round.

The natural rights are based on the precept of people having free will which is what makes them "natural" (read: gawd given) rights.

Nothing is 100% predictable because natural laws are probabilistic and not deterministic

well what do you mean when you say you chose something? You guys are so full of shit.

>Muh muh, there was an ion isotope on my brain cord that went at the speed of light and reached receptor cell neuron

That's just mechanics and material. It doesn't tell me about properties that arise out of them.

a fucking cuck stamp

I'm not appealing against the fact, I'm pointing out an important consequence OF the fact that needs to be understood now that people are starting to understand the fact of the matter.

Kant has been dead for 200 years.I'm

What does free will have to do with natural rights given by god?

You can make a strawman say anything, but refuting him is not impressive.
Your constitution survives despite the falsity of a god, the end of free will shouldn't hurt it.

Because it is the free will that is given by god number one, the natural rights follow as a consequence of the illusion of free will. If you can't follow that then just don't worry about it, ignorance is bliss so you're better off.

And? His transcendental deduction is a little strange, but it's an interesting solution to skepticism and it has been given many realist treatments as well.

Some people make the argument that the basis of moral life is the choices one makes, that regardless of nature or nurture, you can always change everything and pursue a new path.

And that helps them justify not spending time and energy to change the enviroment to create better people

Give them the holy book, tell them hell awaits those who disobey and relax

He made a lot of claims with little evidence. I don't think Kant is important at all outside of some philosophical fields.

Free will is an illusion only in the sense that God is omnipotent, and knows what you will do before you do it.

You still have free will but God still knows what you will do. Think of it like having a movie you love watching. The actors in it will go about their set path, but will always end up in the way that they should.

>survives
Not intact it doesn't. It's a mere handful of fibres of inked parchment at this point, so there's no better time to make the facts known. We absolutism now.

>Morality without God

Nope. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is based a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.
I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions committed by different countries, often with great vigour.
For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

Which claims are you referencing, and in what way did he give little evidence for them? I'm going to wager that some of the things you don't like about him don't warrant evidence in the way you're thinking about it. For instance, we don't require scientific evidence for rules of inference or whether or not there exists an analytic/synthetic divide.

What sam says is not meaningful and he doesn't prove what he sets out to prove, and there are possible nefarious reasons for what he's doing. He's obviously a zionist shill, for instance. Why would he be a Zionist if he didn't believe in the capacity of humans to make meaningful choices? I call bullshit. He's the one who has the burden of proof.

> It is an outdated religious idea that runs contrary to scientific evidence.
Why doe degrasse-tyson and musk think there is strong evidence for the universe being a simulation. Free will v determinism is a very old philosophical question.

Science is a wonderful tool to show us HOW God chooses something to happen, but not why. Science is the measure of the physical by observation and experimentation. It offers no answers in the metaphysical because it cannot. You can no more materially quantify the immaterial than you can look under a microscope and find an atom of justice or a molecule of mercy.

So what you just gave me is a bunch of word salad, and it's become clear to me that you don't engage with a lot of academic philosophy. Otherwise, you might understand why it's important. When was the last time you rigorously peered through Kant scholarship or Kant himself. It's interesting to hear someone make such pronounced claims without being thorough.

Btw, metaphysics draws its principles from logic, not idioscopy/the special sciences.

Nice load of projection. It's not as if one thinks of what is good for the goose could be good for the gander, too, necessarily must come form a contradictory old moldy tome about tolerance.

Moral realism is a logical contradiction.
The entire philosophy of transcendental idealism is predicated on assumptions with no evidence, by definition, that Kant could have no way of knowing. The difference between things and things in themselves is pure posturing.
>Why would he be a Zionist if he didn't believe in the capacity of humans to make meaningful choices?
I don't think you quite understand what he's saying.

Sam denies metaphysics entirely. He's a complete materialist. That's why his claims are boring and wrong to most of us who have higher level thinking capabilities.

whats wrong with hard determinism?

inb4 he is terminally retarded and says the word "quantum"

So there's no actual rebuttal to my point, just you not liking a fairly easy to understand position that proves you wrong. Cool.

Are you by any chance Jewish?

But can he explain why he looks like a chimp?

We don't have scientific evidence that supports or denies free will because we can't empirically prove that we're conscious

Kant is ultimately wrong, yes. The issues with his philosophizing is that he runs into many of the problems that plagued the skeptics that he was responding to. However, if you read up until the Critique of Judgment, you'll see Kant revising his positions on things like aesthetic and causation. Furthermore, post-kantians like Hegel and Peirce give the system realist iterations which have promising prospects.

It should probably be noted that almost every single major figure in the atheist movement is Jewish. You could make a compelling argument that atheism is specifically being pushed by Jews in today's society, and they seem to largely be targeting western Christians and only them.

For example, Sam Harris, Chapman Cohen, David Silverman, Michael Newdow, Gregory Epstein, Sherman Wine, Bill Maher, Eric Kaufmann, and of course, Richard Dawkins's mother has a Jewish surname and was stated to have lived in the only Jewish suburb of the city she grew up in. But he hasn't explicitly named her religion.

But that's only a tiny part of the list. We could discuss the Jewish atheists who aren't pushing atheism so much as atheism-enabling political views like Marxism. For example Soklonikov, Trotsky, Deutscher, Lenin, Uritsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Sverdlov.

And what about atheist Jewish public entertainers that constantly run down Christianity? We can go ahead and recycle Bill Maher here and also include Jon Leibowitz, Stephen Fry, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, Daniel Radcliffe, Larry David, David Silverman, and... I'm sure I'm close to the post cap, so rather than just name the rest of Hollywood, you get the point.

PURE COINCIDENCE though.

>free will is an illusion

So eating that entire jar of gummy vitamins was someone else's idea?

sure thing bud

WV Quine was also a materialist, but at least he understood the questions that he was responding to.

The thing that turned me off to Sam Harris is in his book "The Moral Landscape," he gives these half-assed arguments for utilitarianism, and then has the gall to claim that he's not concerned with metaethics because it's boring. Dude doesn't engage with the literature, that's clear.

It takes like thirty seconds reading Kant to realise he's an irredeemable fedora and his opinions should be discounted.

Harris is another meme artist who bases his philosophy on experiences while high on drugs.

It would be irrelevant, giving that we're merely arguing within the scope of the world we experience.
What evidence do you have for the existence of the immaterial?
Ideally philosophy should only help to inform scientific and mathematical investigation. The question of free will is a scientific one.

Free will exists, but it has nothing to do with religion. Consciousness is an action. It's a feedback loop that can act upon itself. If you can respond to internal stimuli, you've broken the chain of causality.

Do you dream? Do you sometimes cringe at memories of the past? Do you ever mishear something? Or misunderstand? We are not computers, we are analog feedback loops of extreme complexity, capable of our own motivations and randomizations.

Ye's definitely content with calling people idiots full stop.
Yeah, sam is one of those dudes who goes to Burning Man with a yoga track-suit on, definitely.

Obviously Sam is misguided in ethics, as is every moral realist.

I agree. There is no ultimate free will.

As there is no ultimate determinism.

There is a blend between the two doctrines, both are ultimately limited. The mixture itself can be modified by strengthening both Oneself & Relationship with God, or gods. (Piety).

Oh let me just hand you that philosopher's stone that mankind has been searching for throughout all recorded time, user--simple. Kek!

you can make a robot that can make decisions based on past experiences and current inputs.

those decisions are deterministic. so. did the robot decide to eat those gummi vitamins?
did he have free will?

My rebuttal, nigger, is that OF FUCKING COURSE THE SPECIAL SCIENCES AREN'T GOING TO YIELD ANSWERS TO METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY SET OUT TO STUDY. That's fucking trivially true. My rebuttal was also that we should respect metaphysical inquiry because it draws its principles from logic.

The "can't materially quantify over the material," if what you said makes any sense at all (and isn't just another tautology), doesn't tell us anything interesting. "Yeah man, this immaterial stuff sure isn't material." Cool, now what? Your implicit premise that the immaterial should be eliminated hasn't been defended.

You're the fucking jew with your damn sophistry and posturing about shit you don't understand and then projecting when you get exposed for being a charlatan.

>autism

Embrace the call of the gods.

>those ears

Let me guess

you're about to tell me that I am a robot?

ITT

CRAAAAAAAAAWLING INNNNNN MY SKIIIIIIIIINNN

You misunderstand the arguments. The idea is that the physical world adheres to the laws of physics, which means that everything exists in a chain of cause and effect. Therefore no effect is independent of its cause and, therefore, not free. Thought is a physical process of the brain and is subject to the laws of physics, therefore thought and will are not free.

Math, cenoscopy (philosophy), and idioscopy (special sciences) are the three most general classifications of science.

It's a category error to think of free will in terms of physics. Free will isn't an object of study for that field anymore than acoustics is a field of study for ethics.

How can you make a claim of the immaterial with no way of knowing it exists?

Lel. I'm a tacit moral realist because ordinary experience seems to confirm it, and nearly every anti-realist position is self-refuting. Preponderance of evidence goes to realism. Burden of proof is on the anti-realist.

Duh which is why we must ascend to the creator

Then what does free will fall under? Bear in mind I'm not saying it is under the field of physics, you claimed that.

Mmmm intellectual laziness and ad hominems. You're irredeemable.

Life, goodness, freedom, philosophy BTFO by literally nothing, how will they ever recover?

You internal stimuli is still entirely inherited from the chain of causality, from your genetic data to your stored memories to your mood and to every ficking thing that fucming happens in your fucking environment that acts a stimuli that causes an effect in you to really make you fucking think about it. There is no way for anyone to avoid that.

>seems to confirm it
I see the opposite.

Your position is even more self refuting. Why even write words that correspond with that same 'nothingness' of 'spooks.' Language doesn't exist, right? Get over yourself, faggot.

Can't believe how deranged he's become since Trump was elected. Lost any grip on reality he once had.

Jew's can't stand the power of the alpha goy.

I asked how you know of the existence of the immaterial. What does that have to do with language, the creation and understanding of which are entirely physical properties of the brain?

Sorry, I misread. I suppose free will is a scientific question if you construe science broadly enough. Some use 'science' as meaning the set of special sciences, but there's also a sense in which it's used that claims a science is any rational activity performed among a community of like-minded individuals. On that construal math and phil count as sciences.

Free will is a metaphysical question and the answer to it will follow from making sure our logic is sound. Metaphysics follows from logic.

scientific evidence says that there's no free will

makes you think huh?

>Corresponding to the brain
In connection with what exactly?

Naw because most of your waking life you don't question it, and in many ways you can't help but believe it. 99% of the world's population are realists. That's not nothing.

Scottish and American common-sense philosophy all the way. You should check some out.

Sounds like you're a butthurt kike too stupid to understand a simple premise.

That must suck.

It sounds like you're the one refusing to give refutations now lol.

>reads some philosophy in his free tome
>thinks he can wage global anti-realist positions w/o arguments against two thousand years of literature he hasn't read.

>the material isn't just a highly advanced abstraction constructed out of abstractions of data

I bet they bend and flap during strong winds.

The question of free will is really, now,in the hands of quantum mechanics, but at best that will yield the result that free will is probabilistic, rather than deterministic.
The many faculties of the brain that correspond to language, quite a few, actually.
That's still no reason to accept that something passes authority on morality.

I'm in agreement that QM will probably have some interesting things to say about free will, but philosophy plays an indispensable part in this. One of the objectives of philosophy is to define and identify the data that is to be studied by our scientific inquiry.

Philosophy has to first uncover what it is we're talking about, and figure out if it's something that can be observed/tested. What we're doing right now is philosophy.

I really feel smart when I read so many idiots arguing together

Then everything is predetermined, I think I should go back to doing drugs

Which is why I said philosophy should inform science and mathematics, but refrain from making judgements on the nature of physical reality a priori.

Appeals to ordinary experience are super important. In philosophy nowadays, skeptical reasoning is normally taken for granted and sets the framework of the debate in terms of "defeating the skeptic" and so on. I think that's fundamentally flawed.

"Let us not doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts." -CS Peirce

if you do you had no choice

HUUUUURRRRRRRR

Coming from the guy who won't admit iq differences between human races

>a priori

Careful with that word. It's ambiguous when talking about it with respect to different types of reasoning.

A priori meaning appeal to no experience or meaning appeal to no particular experience. The latter definition is squarely in the wheelhouse of philosophy

youtube.com/watch?v=W0H2PUOrHDA

It's not that he won't admit differences, it's that he says pursuing them is socially harmful.

It just means to appeal through reasoning alone, rather than experience. At least that's what every lecturer of philosophy I've had has said.

Kant also uses it in a more aristotelian sense to refer to an abstraction that has been apprehended through experience but not referring to any particular experience one might have had of that abstraction.

Except I've stated a position. You haven't refuted that position, or offered one of your own, you've just whined like a little bitch.