Biggest red pil

>claims to be red pilled
>still believes in free will
Explain yourself

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Cx8xEUYrb74
m.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpUev1FvS0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What do you believe in, determinism?

Austismism

Nigger?

I would agree if humanity collectively had a goal besides basic survival.

I could explain the situation I'm in, but not myself.

I haven't lived long enough to define every aspect of myself well.

Not a fedora

>Explain yourself
? If I have no free will then it's not my fault I believe in free will. Nothing I can do about it.

Ultimately, in the end, it doesn't fucking matter.

One way or another, you either really are making our own choices or are laboring under the illusion that you are. In both cases, you operate exactly the same way.

There is no point in asking the question is what I am trying to get across here.

>no point to philosophical exercises
got a regular Plato on our hands goys

>1 post by this ID

agreed. these Jews think their choice between one Jewish trick or another is free will but they have no impact on the final outcome of all world events.
if there is a war it will happen; if there is a genocide it will happen; even the outcome of elections is not determined by the voters but by the desire of God: why did so many people vote one way or another? the policies of a man? but those policies exist based on past events, which in turn were put in place by God.
These Jews can't even comprehend time let alone philosophy.

So are you implying that God has already chosen who will get into heaven and be saved?

Everything about the world we know tells us that it's deterministic, people argue that quantum physics prevents this but it's not true, the Schrodinger equation is in fact deterministic and quantum states that are measurably distinct stay that way throughout the evolution of a quantum system. You only get probablistic outcomes when you actually take measurements.

Given that chemistry is deterministic it makes sense that brains are and so thoughts are and actions are. There's is no free will in the classical sense of the word.

However daniel dennet's work which is essentially a type of compatibalism is probably where I lay with regards to this topic, the universe is deterministic but while simple single cell life is deterministic and so are our parts, the whole of the body including the brain has agency to perceive what the future will be and alter it to its benefit, it doesn't break determinism but in some sense it allows a type of free will to alter what could havae been.

Is that a Sam Harris joke? Good job OP.

Determinism is true depending on what definition you give the term free will.

True

Shiggy

A lot of "deep philosophical questions" can be traced back to a human imposition on the natural world-- in the end, the question is meaningless.

If particles colliding in space were truly random and not predetermined, would you describe what they were doing as "free will"? What is will anyway? Are we really that different from dead matter?

And another thing, with the exact same information and emotional state, would you ever end up making a different decision?

What I'm saying is, free will and determinism aren't necessarily opposites. We just think they are, because determinism implies a lack of control. But if we are a part of the agency of determinism, are these things really outside of our control?

Also, eat shit OP.

youtu.be/Cx8xEUYrb74
what a neuroscientist thinks about free will

>>>/new age/

If determinism rules the universe there is no free will by definition, if we concentrate on the "free" aspect of it.

New age? What the fuck are you on about?

If given the same information, the same rewards and outcomes, would you always make the same decision?

So it is unavoidable fate that you are shit posting?
The universe has forced you to reveal your retardation via the arm pit of the internet?
Somehow I have my doubts.

How is it not retarded to make such assumptions based on my posts? It seems you are very emotional driven.

>If particles colliding in space were truly random and not predetermined, would you describe what they were doing as "free will"?
Randomness and free are two opposite things.

>If given the same information, the same rewards and outcomes, would you always make the same decision?
Cause and effect rule that this should be the case. Any state X will cause state Y.

Determinism is true, but thinking it means that life is pointless takes away your free will. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

what are metaphysics, user?

Free will is the ultimate red pill

a subject with zero value because its questioning axioms of existence which cannot be further explained.

>posts a picture of Ben Stiller instead of Sam Harris

Who you think you're fooling, mate?

Interesting. I suppose origin of the mind and origin of the universe have zero value, then? I would also imagine the concept of faith is useless to you?

Determinism is too reductionist. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

>Everything is subject to physical laws
>Except modern humans for some reason
Free will advocates are cucks

There is literally no evidence which suggests that humans will be able to find the reason for existence itself. You can think about metaphysics if you like, but it currently has no progression.

Faith has empirical influence in our lives, so it's not "useless" in the sense that people can use it daily.

The concept of decision-making might appear "free" in the sense that you are choosing, but we can empirically show that there is a causal chain outside of your body which lead to your decision.

Every body knows the brain is producing a anti-cause-and-effect field which lets your conscious control all atoms inside your skull.

Clearly I was predetermined to believe in free will.

The existence of paradoxes prove that metaphysics hold tangible value.

Faith having empirical evidence of use does not exclude its metaphysical value.

The problem you're having is that you cannot unbind your mind from rules and sense. Materialism is one of, if not the most, base philosophies. It literally takes no mental effort to accept the way things are.

>The existence of paradoxes prove that metaphysics hold tangible value
You will need to elaborate why this is the case.

in the same moment yes. what decisions you make are a product of the structure and arrangement of the material in your brain plus the the environmental stimulus. if both remained absolutely the same the effect would be absolutely the same.

How about you explain yourself? You've given to context in which you disagree with Jew boys outlook on free will. Perhaps explain as to why you don't believe in it?
>Or
Just kill yourself. Germany - traitors to the free world.

I guess it makes sense.

After all, no one chooses to be this much of a faggot.

>Perhaps explain as to why you don't believe in it?
I might believe it or not, but free will is fundamentally incompatible with determinism or indeterminism by definition alone.
Assuming we define free will as unconstrained will. Compatibilists define free will as being able to make rational choices which I agree with.

You didnt pick your region of birth. You didnt have a say in your birth. You can pick your family. You cant pick your race, age, gender, height, etc

If you were born Muhammad to the son of abudukur then you would be a poor muslim. Nothing special about you makes you who you are, that is to say nothing in your control makes you, you.

Free will doesnt exist. Their isnt a YOU deep inside yourself that makes free decisions. You cant control how you think therefor you do not control the next thought that arrives in conciousness .

To have free will would mean you to think your next thought BEFORE you thought.

Simply doesnt work. Ypur thoughts just arrive.

Fuck you Stasi shill.

>muh chemicals
>muh science is God

>determinism

not a thing

>>Materialism is one of, if not the most, base philosophies. It literally takes no mental effort to accept the way things are.
It actually takes a great deal of effort. Humans come preloaded wth a lot of evolutionary, tribal baggage.

I don't see how it being a mechanical process devalues the act of decision making. It seems like both sides of the argument are saying that life needs some metaphysical essence (or whatever) to have value, the only disagreement is over whether or not the soul actually exists.

I reject that. Your life and the choices you make can have value even if it's just electric meat

The only thing that really constrains someone's will is what they don't know.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpUev1FvS0

In short, reality and reason do not have to agree. Essentially, determinism, freedom, and chance coexist in a way that none of the above have a holistic system for existence when presented alone. You can look to Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and theology to describe large agents, minuscule agents, and free agents respectively.

The drive to nihilism, solipsism, and atheism comes from a lack of reconciliation to the nature of paradox. It's a philosophical rejection that one system can and must be correct, an overcompensation of truth.

If truth is relative and not universal, how can one system accurately describe it? If it is universal and not relative, how can flaws be presented? If it is both, why does that make no 'sense'?

Jew Stiller.

I disagree. There probably is a separation between emotional reality and reason somewhere. There probably is a unified physical truth. Even so, I think there's a lot of value in what you said.

So much nihilism is hinged on preconceived metaphysical notions-- things they think are necessary, but aren't. Like this thread-- the OP is implying, though maybe not saying outright, that for life to have value, there needs to be a soul that animates the body, and spurs it to action. If we can disprove that, then it means that humanity is worthless and we should all just die.

But if you think harder about it, what was the concept of the soul invented to describe? What immaterial feelings? What emergent phenomenon?

And the concept of "value" itself is just an imposition on the natural world. Dirt doesn't value anything. To dirt Carl Sagan has just as much meaning as a steaming turd ie none. So what can a strictly materialistic view have to say about anything's inherent value?

The point is, you have to decide what kind of thing you are. When you choose to no longer see yourself as a group of atoms and start to pretend to be a human, whether or not it's physical processes that compel you to do becomes irrelevant. I posted the kung-fu panda video to be obnoxious, but it applies. There are a lot of things you can't control, but it doesn't take away from the value of the things you can.

It's corrosive to people's wellbeing to try and live wholly within natural fact. We are creatures of stories and narrative, we need to have a feeling of purpose, something bigger waiting for us. We need to learn to strike a balance, through religion, spiritualism, or just letting our emotions take hold of our imagination temporarily so we can get through the day believing everything will be OK.

>Implying I can choose to believe in free will

When religion fell out of favor, our civilization started going downhill. It's possible we are finally smart enough to realize these things now, and maybe even to design our societies in such a way that we become the kind of creatures we want to be, but I doubt it.

By the time neuroscience catches up it'll be way too late for the west.

>free will
>pre-determined destiny
>implying it isn't a sordid mixture of both