Do we have free will?

do we have free will?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KETTtiprINU
youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Not all of us, government makes sure of that.

We are free to do as we wish, but not all actions even affect the course of history. Fate chooses which actions shape the world

you have an assignment due soon?

First: what are we?
Second: free from what?

I will be free.

No.

Society has rules you must abide and there's nothing you can do about it.

You're free to do many things, but your destiny is pretty much settled by the time you were born, especially if you were born poor.

Soft Determinism best philosophy, we are free when we have control in what we are.

Nice dubs

Free will is an illusion

Of course we have free will, but we must be willing to face the consequences of our actions at times.

>>society tells you you can't do something so you can't
Bitch what?

You are never free. You are always a slave to something.

We prefer to believe so, yes.

our habits are determinism but our spirits are free-willed

>you choose which one to surrender to as to forge your identity

You're free to jump off a building, but if that is what you call "free will" then you're a fucking idiot.

>spirits
There's no such thing as a "spirit". You are your body.

Would it matter if we did?
>1337
This.

I beat my dick pretty much whenever I feel like it, and if that isn't free will then I don't know what is.

>control in what we are.
You don't have control over what you are. You may be able to control your behavior every once and a while, in a sense, but you have absolutely no control over what you are, that's for sure.

>of course you have free will

>the larger part of you is Source Energy
>a smaller part of you Is physical body
>you free will and thoughts create your reality
>you become whatever you vibrationaly send out
>law of attraction is the only universal law always >active and works all the time.

>your vibration is ahead of your reality so reality is >old news. Don't face it.

>the more attention you give something, negative >or positive, will become active, so be careful what >you give vibrational attention.
>
>youtu.be Abraham Hicks

youtube.com/watch?v=KETTtiprINU

sorry about ADHD man

>You don't have control over what you are
>you may be able to control your behavior
>but you have absolutely no control over what you are
Either you don't control your behavior (and thus what you are in the moment/s), or you do.

Controlling how you respond to something and controlling why you respond to anything at all are different things.

Also, I made it very clear that you MAY have SOME control over your behavior, IN A SENSE, but I don't see how that implies you always have absolute control over everything you do at all times.

Stop distorting what I said.

Can you close your browser, leave Sup Forums and never come back? If so, then yes, you have free will. If not, then you're doomed.

/thread

No

WHAT IS THAT? NEITZSCHE?!? SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I hope you realize that I didn't distort anything you said, because the greentext is verbatim. What your recent reply gets across is the exactly similar sentiment that your previous reply provided, "in a sense" and all.

>IN A SENSE
How vague and amorphous.

>Controlling how you respond
>Controlling why you respond to anything at all
So, controlling your reaction to the environment, versus controlling the environment. I'm not entirely convinced, though, that controlling why you respond to anything at all is different to controlling how you respond to [anything at all]. You'll have to explain that one.

I mean, what changes between the two, regarding control? Is gouging my eye out with a spoon different than putting an opaque surface over my retinas with regards to denying my retinas light and thus causing me to react to photons?
>I made it very clear that you MAY have SOME control over your behavior
Some control is control. No control is no control. Any amount of control is more than no control, thus you have control if you have some control. "In a sense", is still a "sense" that allegedly fits the bill of "control", as you can still then liken whatever it is that's going on as "control", "in a sense".

It doesn't imply that you have absolute control over everything you do at all times, I don't see how that conclusion is valid either. I'd be willing to say that this is where you are the one that happens to be distorting what I typed. Maybe.

I want you to tell me why having absolute control over everything you do at all times is the particular, ultimate requirement of free will, however, since you're bringing us there. As you didn't make it clear, so much as state it clearly. Whether of your free will or no.

Yeah, I hope you don't expect me to read all this shit just so you can pretend you have a point by completely distorting or misinterpreting what I said.

Shit, this was bait. Joke is on you though. I have fully understood the nature of man and gripe at nothing in particular.

No. What are we? A fucking mass of cells that are a fucking mass of atoms and molecules. Physics controls everything. Physics controls all chemical reactions and electrical signals in our body. In my opinion we can't say we have free will because "it's already written"

>"it's already written"
Someone doesn't quantum mechanics enough.

You know what I meant.
I agree with you, in quantum mechanics shit happens because of a probability, but I'm not sure we can "control" those probabilities

>philosophy degree finally getting put to use
>if actually interested read Roderick Chisolm
>"Human Freedom and the Self"
the concept of "free will" is inherently flawed. the question is not whether or not we, as agents, are free act as we will. That answer is undeniably yes, we can. The question should be rather, is man able to will anything independent of his/her circumstance.

I doubt it

follow-up/tl;dr

>we can do whatever the fuck we want really
>but we cannot choose what we want
>ergo "free will" boils back down to determinism

Yeah, but as things like decoherence, entropy and the like are alleged to function, it makes you think about the seemingly non-linear, almost circular nature of things as they appear. And the scopes at which they do.

I mean, consider it. From the perspective of photons... they've already "stopped". They're where they end up. To us... they're still moving. We don't even know where they are as we try to determine how fast they're going. Things are even "decided" in such strange and alien, almost unreasonable ways before we even observe them to begin with, allegedly.

I mean, consider the notion of quanta just, popping in, because. Particles, just being spawned into existence, and being annihilated by their respective functional spawned counterparts.

From where? When, even? How is it that one can beam a particle through miles of solid matter, and have it end up in another point in space, almost moments before it was even "sent"?

Controlling and detecting not just ionized atoms, but whole ionized molecules is balls to the walls. Entangling particles to behave in ways, to which their behaviors can be likened to instructions or bits of information. Deliberately forcing a system to occupy all possible states, such that the only other state it can go to, is the lowest possible state. Heating something up so that the only thing it can do, is become colder than naturally possible.

The absurdity of discerning the mathematical harmony of planets that orbit a star over macroscopic periods of time.

There may not be any time travel (yet), but that's... a lot. I'm left with the impression that we very well might be able to "control" those probabilities, but not genuinely, you know. Control them.

There's a limit, to which the system most likely cannot and will never be able to alter itself, because it is subject to it's own limits. Kind of like a computer program trying to process something that requires more memory than it physically has access to.

No, not in the sense you understand. You are genetically inclined to have a base skill set and behavioral style that is honed by your upbringing, everything you do is based on those and what you learn unconsciously and consciously as you live life. You only have some choice of what you learn, and how it influences how you learn, but even this is heavily influenced by what was mentioned earlier. So in the end everything lies with you.

You choose whether to believe in free will or not, you must have free will in order to do so. Next question

No.

Rain does not choose to fall, the sun does not choose to shine, grass does not will itself to grow. The physical processes that resulted in your existence, while more complex, are ultimately no different. Humans like to delude themselves into feeling somehow separate from the forces of nature but it is not so. The energy you are made of simply had no other choice but to take this form for a while.

You are the universe and the universe is you. One complete whole. Every thing in its right place.

But, you could be predisposed to the choice you make by various other factors, and "believe" you chose of your own volition where it counts, as opposed to merely being wired/conditioned to choose so.

In that specific case I chose to not pay attention to said predispositions, must have free will

And if in this specific case you are predispositioned to not pay attention to the predispositions?

I can still choose to pay attention to them even if I'm more likely not to no? Since the possibility of a choice exist I must have made one. Even if I had no chance to choose the other option, the fact another option exist means there was a decision made, no matter how biased. Since a decision was made, free will

But, can you choose to pay attention to the predispositions, if you are actively not able to acknowledge them because of a penultimate predisposition that prevents you from paying attention to any predisposition? That's what I'm asking.

The posibility of the choice may certainly exist. It's the matter of whether you can be made aware of, or have known, or have had the capacity to know, that you could have done or become otherwise. It's the matter of whether it is logically possible that there was another option that could have been had. It's just where you are predispositioned to not do any of those things in the hypothetical scenario, is where I feel you would be incapable of free will. As, being predispositioned to not be able to regard any other choice, you would have never been able to choose, or have been able to choose, otherwise, and so the alternatives could not logically exist.

Think of it this way. Every decision or choice is a Node with a left and right child, which are the outcomes. As an example:

(Free will?)
/\
/ \
/ \
(Yes) (No)

Even if you are so predisposed that you have a 100% chance of picking no, and even if you can't acknowledge those predispositions, a decision was made. In other words, since that yes node exist, no matter your chance of choosing it, a decision must always be made. Therefore free will because decision. I would argue even if it didn't exist even progressing down that tree to the only child would count as a decision, just one where there is only one option. Still Free will. Since you need to have the free will to choose the only option

Do you need the free will to choose the only option, though? Wouldn't the whole ordeal be nothing more than a causal A to B, like a ball being dropped a certain height above a floor, coming to rest?

I just don't feel convinced that a decision would be made if there's only one state to occupy/logically progress towards. It reads a bit circular to say that It's free will, as you need the free will to choose the only option, thus free will. I mean, if there are exactly no other possibilities... what exactly is being deliberated upon in the order of things? What decision is being made between... exactly one thing? How does that work?

I don't believe that a decision was made assuming the premise involving the levels of predisposition. There's no deliberation, just a 100% of one outcome, with no possibility (and thus no existence) of any other outcome. If free will because decision... then no decision, no free will, no? The act of following the tree from parent to child would seem more of a reaction than a decision.

Yes you do because you would also need to choose between making the only choice possible and making no choice at all.

...

There is no point to this discussion

No, every action you take is part of your determined destiny.

to quote schopenhauer, man is free to do as he wills, but he is not free to will what he wills

Exactly

Compatibilism is the way to go imo

I believe so

If the actions we take in response to a given situation comes from knowledge or experience we already have, then "free will" essentially boils down to "the ability to make a choice with absolutely no regard for causality," or in other words, the ability to make absolutely arbitrary decisions. Which doesn't really seem possible to me, much less useful in pretty much any area of our existence.

No, the only way for reality to work would be a simulation with hard determinism.

Why would it need to be a simulation? And a simulation of what exactly?

how would we even know

If you have a mental illness that effects your judgment, no.

Hm don't know, i don't ponder about these kinds of questions because they're essentially a waste of time.

>Why would it need to be a simulation?
If it is possible to simulate a reality, then it's likely that we are living in one.
>And a simulation of what exactly?
A simulation of reality

I choose to believe we do

At the hardware level, no. Higher up, at larger levels of abstraction, we appear to. Appearance may be enough. I don't know, I'm not a neuroscientist or a quantum physicist, just a shitty engineer.

Oh, my bad I figured you were going somewhere else with that. I know it's likely that if a reality simulation was possible to create, then our reality is one of the simulations. But why does our reality specifically need to be simulated in order to "work properly?" Wouldn't the real, unsimulated reality also need to be deterministic in order for the simulation to be accurate to it? And if both reality and the simulation(s) based on it are deterministic then why did you bother making the distinction?

Sounds like you are new to the simulation hypothesis. If a materialist, maybe you should read about it with 'second attention'.. Let the thought sink in without hurry (while remembering that it's only a theory until proven right).

I hope so. I had a long conversation about free will, time, and space with my gf. It ended with me thinking suicide is the only way out of a set path but is my suicide predetermined? If it is I don't want to die. But is that what's supposed to happen?

Well im not terribly educated on it but I understand the basics I think. Your post just sort of struck me as worded oddly I guess, when you said that the only way reality works is to be a simulation with hard determinism, but then also say that the simulation would be a simulation of reality, doesn't that imply that the reality itself would also need to be deterministic? If so then you could just say that "reality only works when it is based on hard determinism," rather than "reality only works when it's a simulation based on hard determinism," since both the reality and the simulations are both based on the same principle of hard determinism, no? I dunno, maybe I'm just being overly analytical of your word choices.

No, we don't.

Everything is a chain reaction. Every choise you make is a reaction to previous actions. Everything is just the way it is supposed to be.

>both the reality and the simulations are both based on the same principle of hard determinism, no?
Yeah well, the "original universe" is a paradox in and of itself. I mean, where would it come from? For there to be life there always has to be a source. Too bad our current science is too primitive to answer such extra-cosmic questions, but that doesn't mean that we will *never* know, and chances are that when that time comes that we'll know where did life come from really, there was no free will involved. So you are probably correct in that ultimately hard determinism reigns everywhere, at least in each simulation; after all there is no true random when it comes to computer programs. I wish I knew everything but instead I don't know shit, I can just assume. I like reading about this stuff though.

Yeah same here, I like reading and thinking about stuff like this but I'm hardly intelligent enough or well read enough to consider myself any sort of expert.

Although to the statement that "life always needs a source," I'm not so sure about that. If we're talking about the idea that a creation must have a creator, thar might not necessarily be the case. Lots of people will cite the conservation of energy principle as proof that reality needs an outside source to create it, but when it comes right down to it, the laws of thermodynamics only really apply to a system that already exists- a true, zero-dimensional nothingness sort of thing like what we generally think of as what things were like prior to the big bang wouldn't be bound by the laws of physics if there was no physical existence. So while it's impossible for energy to be created and destroyed within our universe we have no reason to believe whatever, if anything, is outside our universe would act in a similar manner.

There's fate, which manifests in probabilities to lead you down a certain path in life (normal distributions always tend to the centre over a long enough period of time).
Then there's perceived free will, to go with or fight against that fate. If you go along with it, it's not really free will. If you fight against it, sooner rather later you'll be pushed back onto the path. That's not to say you shouldn't try.
The problem lies in you don't know what fate has planned for you. Maybe the plan is for you to fight against it.

That's my understanding of the consolidation of free will vs determinism.
In this sense, whether you choose to believe in this struggle as true free will is up to you.

I doubt that nothing exploded, but that's just me.

Pretty much this.

And that's fair, I'm not trying to say I think that's definitely how it did go down, just that it's a possibility. But, considering we have spent our entire existence, to be redundant, existing, then "nothing" is about the least understandable concept to any of us.

Not him, but that may be the case to you, but I understand existing then not existing perfectly.

You do too. Problem is you don't accept it at an emotional level. The idea makes you uncomfortable.
The intellectual aspect of it is very simple. It's the thought of not existing that is emotionally unacceptable as it goes against all ones core beliefs. This in turn leads us to reject the concept as a whole, hence it not being fully understandable.

I took a lot of hallucinogenics and experienced ego death to get to my point of understanding.

Point taken. But the code of life is rather obviously coded, and it's highly improbable that it isn't. Then we also have endlessly unlikely events like the meteorite (it wouldn't surprise me if "they" killed the dinosaurs on purpose), and if there is a purpose, then there is "them" too.

Since my mind happens to be science oriented I have never been able to believe in free will myself, but it'd be interesting to hear more points of view like yours.

checked

If you can kill an innocent in cold blood, then never harm or distress another being as long as you live (barring doing the anhero thing)....

then you can make an amoral choice, then live morally. To live one way, then live another is to make a free choice.

If you are forever amoral, or forever moral, you do not have free will, you are a slave to a code, or to precisely no code.

No offense but I have to doubt that. I've worked extensively in the manipulation of the subconscious mind and one interesting thing I've learned is that the mind can't, in the most literal sense, understand concepts like "no," "none," or anything of the sort. I can explain in further detail why this is how it is if you like but for the sake of brevity I'll just leave it at that. The idea of "nothingness" is, to the mind, something impossible to fully understand just like how someone who has been blind their entire life can't fully understand the experience of seeing color. Sure, they could understand how light and wavelengths and such work but the actual experience of seeing can't fully be understood except by someone who has seen color, themselves. To fully understand what nonexistence entails we would have to have consciously stopped existing at some point which is simply not possible, no matter how close you might think you've come through who death and that sort of stuff.

Nope.

Sam Harris nails it.

youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

tl:dr: we cannot blame the psychopath for his murderous deeds because of a head injury he sustained.

free will to get dubs

Of course

Why would the meteor that killed the dinosaurs be unlikely? Looking at all the craters in all of the other planets and asteroids etc. in our solar system, we actually got quite lucky with how little stray debris has impacted our planet.

>do we have free will?
You might choose to have.

The meteorite is an easy example, but it's not the only event among cosmic or evolutionary events that support intelligent design. Just look at the DNA.

That's what ego death does.
It is a temporary loss of awareness of the self. In that moment I lost myself and understood nothingness. It is merely impossible to comprehend because a person has an ego, an identity. And therefore cannot comprehend the absence of such things.

Out of interest, what experience do you have?

Yeah sure why not.
Nobody gives a shit.
Except for this ass.

Well, if you were born in a shit third world country you're maybe right, but in the US for example everyone has the same oppurtunities

Actually, we've been hit just as often.
The difference is that we have an atmosphere that can soften the blows and we have weather that erodes any static geologic features.
There's a website that shows documented and suspected hits on Earth and of course Wikipedia has "List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth".
Some are very hard to see and are detected only by things like shatter cones etc.

No, I'm an alcoholic. I have no free will. I literally have to drink to stay alive

I know im free, i shared a Facebook post about it so the government can't touch me.

I agree that life seems fantastically complex in many ways but I don't see it would imply a creator. I mean if there was a creator God sort of entity, this universe and life actually seem quite sloppy and ridiculous. The incredible size of the universe seems less grand when you realize how empty and hostile it is, with gaping holes in it's topology and DNA with the myriad of ways it can cause problems for it's lifeforms, makes you wonder why someone would go through the trouble of making things so complex only to do such a haphazard job.

When you think about it ~50% of animals on this planet are male and ~50% female which does seem purposeful.

its impossible to make no choice at all

not doing something is doing something

simulation theory is a meme

its like saying there are billions and billions of planets so were probably not on earth, statistics just doesnt provide any insight

I work in hypnotherapy and have also done quite a bit of research into putting various subliminal messaging into different types of media.

As for experience with hallucinogens and ego death, I wouldn't say I have too terribly much experience but I've had quite a few experiences with ego loss and death, and while it does mimic what I imagine non-existence may be like to an extent, it's far from absolute. If you were LITERALLY stopping existing every time you took a large dose of hallucinogens then there's no reason why you'd ever begin existing again. You'd either disappear fully or end up a braindead husk, because there's be nothing left of "you" to rebuild.

have you delved into quantum mechanics?
for me it really illuminated how useless our intuition is for this sort of thing

What is the most probable scenario in your mind then?

no. it just feels like it