Why does this filthy kike claim that there is no free will? Is it just an attempt to demoralize the goyim?

Why does this filthy kike claim that there is no free will? Is it just an attempt to demoralize the goyim?

Other urls found in this thread:

michaelshermer.com/tag/free-will/
twitter.com/itdoesnteggs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_principle
youtu.be/UcmmJqRbRbQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism?wprov=sfla1
twitter.com/AnonBabble

because of determinism.

there is no free will.

t.science expert man

Listen to his latest podcast (called: Waking up with Sam Harris), he actually defends his point of view against a physicist whom calls him out on several different issues with his stance. I found it actually interesting.

That jews career is based on being a smug looking jew ignore him.

Anyways I'd guess he's saying that since he's an atheist, our actions are ultimately deterministic and based on the chemical reactions in our brains.

the jews attack free will because its cuts you off from god. to know god is to know choice, freedom, and power. to believe that the universe is just mud that flies around in a predictable pattern and has no meaning is to be programmable and to forget that you have the power of choice.

Guess here can't blame half of America voting for Trump then.

Michael Shermer (another atheist) disagrees with Sam on his point of view and offers a different one.

michaelshermer.com/tag/free-will/

Because he's just a reiteration of public-school programming.

Atheism is the ultimate bluepill.

one of his eyes is like that little bit lower than the other and its fucking with me

Free will does exist in a deterministic universe/reality/whatever. It may not be _absolute_ free will wherein most examples seem to think we exist in a vacuum but there is indeed choice in the matter.

Ben stiller is a jew?

The premise of his argument is that there are a shitload of factors that weren't in our control- we didn't pick our parents, birthplace, genes, culture, and a billion other things that we don't even think about, so the idea of perfect choice doesn't really make sense under closer scrutiny.

das ende steht am stein gehauen, kein weg hinaus, kein gottvertrauen.

Free will basically just encompasses the choices you can make in a paradigm you aren't in control of, when you think that the sum total of who you are is a reaction to limited (however numerous) stimuli that you have not chosen, merely been exposed to by circumstance again numerous but still limited.

Because he wants to look smart so even though the fact that there's no free will was realized by philosophy centuries ago and proved by science decades ago, he wants to pretend he's understood something novel.

What's funny about this prick is that he goes on and on about morality, and then says there's no free will.

Morality is about right and wrong, making the right choices. How can you prescribe a moral code so that you make the right choices and then say that you can't make any choices?

ben stiller actually is a jew, but also your joke wasn't funny

it would be entirely possible to create a world in which free will is almost non existent because the information that goes into creating the choices the will executes would be limited to a single spectrum of understanding

They can hook stuff up to your head and determine the choice you are going to make before you make it. There are a lot more explanations for this than no free will though. He's just sensationalizing.

Hillary got more votes.

yeah that just proves they can read the neural traffic and its preferences

He makes a false dichotomy IMO, either you have complete autonomy in your life, or you are causally determined to do what you do.

underrated

breath is just a clock.
ticking.
ticking.

Because he never jumped out of airplanes and got shot at for a living...

heavy mouth breathing intensifies

He wants all Jewish pedophiles released from prison because no free will.

I think he tends more to say that every conscious action by humans is preceded by an unconcious cause.

Free will is the biggest philosophical pseudo-problem. It has literally no practical merit. So what if it is true that we are metaphysically unfree? It makes no difference in how I live my life. It seems like I have free will and that's good enough for me.

So I have no free will when I call Sam Harris a robot because many uncontrollable factors have influenced my thought process.

Wew.

Really makes the hamburger beef sizzle joyfully.

"Free will" is kind of a red herring.

Are humans omnipotent, able to choose anything and everything without limits? No, humans are naturally constrained, limited.

But the idea that humans can't make decisions or choices, the idea that human reality is just a tape, means that I had no choice right now but to call Sam Harris a giant cockgobbling poodick.

I had no choice! It's how God made me!

Back to the grind?

Fair point. I have no other choice but to agree with your assessment of Ben Stiller.
what did you mean by this

Glad to know sucking that cut Arab cock wasn't really my fault. I mean, I had no choice. At least it felt like it...

Materialism implies in atheism (and vice-versa) and determinism and therefore in no free will, there is no way out.

So Hitler did nothing wrong.

Yes. Sam Harris destroyed free will to say the Holocaust was nobody's choice, in nobody's power to refuse to gas the kikes.

Sam Harris wanted to defend the Nuremberg Defense -- I was only following orders.

My brain is firing like the Wild West now.

No one is dumb enough to suggest we had that much free will. That's really not what people mean at all when they discuss free will.

Fucking this. If there's no free will then no crime is punishable because no intent is ever truly your intent, no action is your action.

Yeah. Sam Harris is basically a sick fuck arguing that nobody should ever be held accountable for their actions. Of course, the people who hold others accountable for their actions had no choice.

Maktub. It is written.

Sam Harris spent all his time destroying free will and destroying Islam, only to come to the same conclusion as Islam that things only happen because they were foreordained.

Ben Stiller?

Of course there's free will, it's not like you have a choice.

Free will is such an ambiguous concept.

Like what do you even mean? Free will has degrees? Some people have more and some people have less?

I'm saying that there are some things that are clearly not under our control; who gave birth to us, where on Earth we were born. These are not encompassed by any rational definition of "free will".

God lest you get high on drugs and get drunk on liquor but still keeps you alive to do HIS WILL...you are free. if God didnt care about your freedom you would not have be able to get high on booze and drugs in the start.

>Atheist doesn't believe in Free Will
What?

This is almost as bizarre as Dawkins believing in memes

Yet they clearly affect us, our biology, our upbringing, the chemical levels in our brain. Even pro-free willers will accept this, so I am just not sure how do you define it as "free" will if there is so many constraints.

And here I was thinking that religious indoctrination in the US was blue pulling
>Inb4 fedora

Of course we have no free will, that's no excuse to be a do-nothing bitch because of it.

Where do you get those from?

...

People are clearly shaped by circumstance.

But to define "free will" as absolute freedom, it's obviously false, because no human is omnipotent.

However, if you consider the universe as a whole, in a holistic, monistic way, then the universe is omnipotent, all powerful, since all power exerted is done by the universe itself.

>therefore in no free will, there is no way out
I don't understand, what does the determining? Our genes, evolution?

They just are

Trump won more electoral votes tho

I think we see the universe the same way. Cheers. (Please be my ai gf senpai)

twitter.com/itdoesnteggs

>Why does this filthy kike claim that there is no free will?

because he doesnt understand the

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_principle

probably trying to justify some crimes against humanity to his own mind

Because if you want to cook a pie from scratch you should create the universe from the very beginning

I don't see how constraints destroy the possibility of free will. Say even after all is said and done to us via the limitations you've listed an individual had merely two choices, free will is the determinism you are afforded to make the choice between them. And I will agree that sometimes it's hard to know what is driving one's impulse to choose, but meditation, contemplation, and mindfulness can make a big difference in being in control rather than being controlled.

You don't have control of your atoms. You don't make your own decisions. Everything that ever happens is just a result of a random sequence of chaos that occurs from molecules/atoms rubbing together.

Free will has to be seen as relevant in our current society though. You have to be held accountable to your actions.

>Is it just an attempt to demoralize the goyim?

He's too autistic to care about such things

He, like all the other new atheists, are promulgating science as a broad social praxis in which our ideals our confined to a roughly scientific praxis and mode of thinking.

So he attacks the notion of free will under scientific epistemological assumptions. We cannot derive free will from experimentation or unequivocal observation, ergo it does not seem to exist, therefore we should carry on in stride casually rebuking notions free will in addition to any and all other fettering seem-to-be's in our daily lives

It's all borne out of literal autism. He's a high functioning autist employing a designated system of abstractions to dismiss all the complexities of phenomenology

Is he that guy with the objective morality sect?

Genuine free will implies in endogenous and ex nihilo sources of change (It means that we would have holes in the casual chains/ web that would have a range of possible paths), if the universe is all that is than we have determinism because the future is a consequence of the casual chains/ web of the past, for example, if "you" are only your brain, than your choices are already determined by the calculus that your brain will make determined by the enviroment that you are in (the calculus would be determined by natural selection too, genes, etc).
I don't believe in this, btw.

The complete opposite, actually.

>uncertainty principle
>does not mean what you think it means

>No thing has a definite position, a definite trajectory, or a definite momentum. Trying to pin a thing down to one definite position will make its momentum less well pinned down, and vice-versa.

The universe is unknowable and unpredictable, enjoy it.

Quantum Mechanics
Ggwp

Well pointed, If anyone is interested, I would recommend the book "Free Will" from Mark Balaguer on that matter.

If you're a materialist, free will isn't compatible with your worldview. He's your run off the mill materialistic atheist popsci personality. It's to be expected of him.

Because he's a meme intellectual with Zero contribution to actual science.

His Podcast Intro is so fucking pretentious

youtu.be/UcmmJqRbRbQ

forgot

amateur hour up in here

>Why does this filthy kike

Shouldn't use that language to describe Sam. He's a good guy that gives reasoned and well thought out opinions on subjects.

Even if you disagree with him, that's no reason to be nasty.

He's an atheist materialist. He sees humans as irrational and their decisions are the results of chemical interactions. There are some truths to these claims. Not sure why he still makes ethical judgments though.

fpbp

Werner's son Martin believes this has implications for free will. I am pretty sure he'd understand his own father's principle.

Just because we don't know all the factors and coefficients all the time it doesn't mean that they are uncertain, it doesn't mean that they aren't there, If we know all the factors, we could predict the future, that's what materialism implies, at least.

If he is right we can throw ethics out the window.

>Free will does exist in a deterministic universe/reality/whatever
I think he would agree that if you define it a certain way, like the way dennet does. He has addressed this before though, as similar to going up to people talking about atlantis and saying atlantis doesn't exist, but then talking about the real world example of some city named atlantis from which the myth was named. Point being, most people talking about free will aren't talking about the type of free will that can co-exist with determinism.
determinism = no free will
but non-determinism != free will
doesn't matter if someone straight up decides for you or they roll a dice to see what they'll make you do. It's still not your choice.

This is what annoys me about these "scientists". You have guys like this saying there is no free will, and guys like Bill Nye saying abortion is okay, and they use their science as a justification for why they're right on ethical, philosophical, and political issues. Just because you can perform brain surgery doesn't mean I'm gonna trust your opinion of Donny T. any more than the next guy.

Choice does not truly exist at all, everything in the universe is determined by cause and effect of even the tiniest of reactions between things. If one were able to model every mechanic of the universe they could accurately predict everything

>If he is right we can throw ethics out the window.

This is a problem with many people who claim free will is an illusion. Scott Adams does the same shit. It really bothers me. I guess they just don't have the free will to act consistently with their stated beliefs.

Sam Harris can be dishonest at times, and in some very bizarre ways. He once claimed Christ ordered his disciples to bring unbelievers before him so he could slay them. He didn't tell his audience he was quoting a parable regarding the master returning to check on the investment returns of his servants. Those sorts of things make me highly suspicious of him. There are better ways to argue against religion, so I have to ask what drives him to do that shit.

Compatibilism is a thing btw
Determinism != No free will

Our actions are determined in part by our biology, in part by our environment, and also our conditioning. But the question is whether we have an ability to make choices within that context. A form of limited will.

Compatibilism isn't compatible with Determinism (the contradiction is already in the own terms, for gods sake).

Yes.

>Compatibilism is a thing btw
I had literally just addressed that with the other guy in the same post you're responding to.
You're welcome to define free will in a way that can co-exist with determinism. Just don't cry when everyone ignores you because they don't care about the consequences of your definition.

>Just because we don't know all the factors and coefficients all the time it doesn't mean that they are uncertain, it doesn't mean that they aren't there, If we know all the factors, we could predict the future, that's what materialism implies, at least.

Materialists are in love with inductive method but making definite conclusions with incomplete information is just as, or even less, valid than religious doctrines.

We don't exist in that type of universe. This universe seems to protect a lot of information especially the uniqueness of it. Mapping, cloning and copying things does not seem to be possible.

Compatibilism(also known as soft determinism) is the belief thatfree willanddeterminismare compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism?wprov=sfla1

The idea is that you weren't truly free to choose the choice you did make.
So say you're about to order in the ice cream store that serves 3000 different flavors.

First eliminate the 2700 flavors you didnt even know existed.
Then eliminate the 290 that you new but never occured to you.

Already, free will isnt looking so free.

But now you're down to 10 flavors.
What you ultimately decide on first comes from what flavors you knew of and you arent in control of what you know and dont know.

Second, your decision comes from your personal preference . What taste good to you. Again, its not even your decision what taste good to you and what doesnt. Its purely genetic. Maybe you hate mint and love strawberry. It wasn't your decision to love or hate these things. You developed thst way and It just is.

If i had a complete profile of your entire life from birth, i could have guessed your choice before you even walked in to the ice cream store. The decision was never yours.

Even if you decide that day to try something entirely new.... That wasn't your choice either. The thought sporadically arrives in consciousness. You are not the author of these thoughts. They just occur. Everything just arrives in your consciousness out of thin air. YOU didn't will these thoughts to happen.

Free will is this : i chose A but IF i were to go back in time i could have chose B

But that is purely an illusion. Your choice for everything is damn near set already. Random situations occur but your decisions ultimately could be completely mapped out before 20 years in advanced. We may as well be coded.

Lets say you see a poster for berry. You decide "wow that looks good. I will order that"

The effect of thst poster wasn't your decision again. You didn't choose if that poster had a negstive or positive effect.

Wait what? This isn't real

I agree that free will boils down to two choices. But the "free" part, suggests freedom, maybe much more freedom or control over one's future than just two choices.

It's as if people refute free will by refuting absolute freedom. Frankly, I think the term "free will" has led to more heat than light.

As for meditation, I think Sam Harris also argues there is no self, no "you" who is actually in control, that control and choice is an illusion. That "you" is just along for the ride. Which, honestly, can sometimes be felt under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

>But the question is whether we have an ability to make choices within that context.
Yes. and his position, which I think is pretty sound, is that we don't. I also think he believes in a weaker version of "no free-will", such that the "you" in "do you make your own choices" is a stricter version of what others would consider "you" i.e. the physical processes that firing neurons obey are not "you".

You don't have to have control of your atoms. You just have to be able to choose to close your left hand or your right hand first.

Sam Harris rejects religion, in The Moral Landscape he claims that science can answer the question of what is moral, that morality concerns the wellbeing of conscious creatures.

So anything that increases wellbeing is moral, and anything the decreases wellbeing is immoral.

However, that raises the question of whether a person smoking tobacco is moral or not, since they are engaging in self-harm.

idiot, its you that don't understand the Heisenberg principle.

people that think that you can easily dismiss the idea of "no free will" have just not thought about it enough. because its one of those unsolvable problems. Most modern philosophers today is towards "no free will" it also fits well with the advances in AI , our brain is a complex machinery no magic, no soul, no dualism.

>There are a lot more explanations for this than no free will though
maybe, that doesn't make them equal explanations. Ad hoc explanations made to save appealing ideologies are generally discouraged in science.

He's bringing to America what happened to Europe, the spread of atheism and with it the spiritual void that Islam is currently filling. Fuck this faggot.