Prove right now free will exists

I am currently masturbating to shotacon but not just any normal shotacon, I am pleasuring myself to the sight of seeing an anthropomorphic animal furry beastman sodomize a shota.

I was jacking off to futa on male. Specifically this one
>八雲藍による性奴隷射精管理調教 子狐編
This is proof that free will exists because determinism is bullshit.

>>17815929 (OP)
Quantum physics tells us that it's fundamentally impossible to know a subatomic particles speed and direction, just on or the other, but not both at the same time. A subatomic particle occupies a probability cloud of where it could potentially exist in space
Because the position of a subatomic particle iis fundamentally random, then our actions cannot be fully predetermined, thus free will exists
but because some positions of this particle are more likely than others, it means we are still tied to the laws of physics that govern reality, which can potentially predict our next action, which makes our actions highly predictable.

Of course it exists, we have no choice but to have it

>>17815944
What?

>>17815942
That's a measurimg problem, it doesn't mean your decisions are free

>>17815948
>That's a measurimg problem
measurement can be any causal interaction, so while it is a measuring problem it's also fundamental in how subatomic particles behave

>>17815929 (OP)

>>17815949
That's only relevant if you need to measure the particle; there is still no link to free will

>>17815947
Everything know about ourselves and each other, how humans interact with each other, rests on the preposition that we have frill will. If it's not real we'd just simply invent it

>>17815942
>Because the position of a subatomic particle iis fundamentally random, then our actions cannot be fully predetermined, thus free will exists
>if my actions are random, they are free

Free will stands on its own, a retarded tribal nigger in the Amazons will understand that nothing's holding back except for potential external, physical things. A wild bird will understand that he can do whatever he wants, as long as no one comes in his way. The whole "Free will isn't real" is clearly a cope invented by degenerates such as OP who like to imagine that they aren't morally culpable for their actions. Well, you are.

>>17815929 (OP)
There's no absolute metaphysics of free will or anything else. If you look under a microscope, it doesn't exist, but neither do human beings. The simplest way to understand free will is it's part of the definition of a human.

What is a human exactly? Most agree humans are living things with great size and intelligence. Unlike the majority of life (single cells) humans have vast physical powers. Containing tens of trillions of cells, each human is like a nation of lesser things. For that reason, maybe it's wrong to talk about people as individuals, but nonetheless the body appears to move and act as one. That's our current definition of human, an individual human body. Presupposing humans exist, what else do you call the behavior of such an enormous system, if not free will? Why did humans grow so strong and so intelligent, if not to make decisions and take action? Disbelief in free will requires a moral equivalency between humans and single celled organisms, both equally at the mercy of fate.
Individuality is contingent on free will.

The question of whether individuality exists, and to what extent (what is a "bloodline"?) is more interesting.

>>17815942
>>17816383
relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4arOKZvuZK4

>>17816398
It's philosophical ambition to exceed hard limits. Free will imagined by a determinist isn't a fundamentally different world, it's just himself with godlike powers.

>>17816398
Bird didn't choose to be a bird, neither did boar. Some tribal guy didn't choose to be born in a random tribe instead of civilization.

>>17816471
case in point >>17816477 this guy thinks free will means you can decide to go back in time or breathe molten lava.

>>17816479
Lol, I don't understand that. Is he retarded or something?

>>17816485
People already have power over the whole world but the individual wants it for himself.

>>17815929 (OP)
>free will
maybe not free but reduced cost will. we endeavor to choose the path of least resistance.

>>17815942
Free will isn't random though, it's not just a matter of a lack of pre-determination in fact it's almost contradictory in definition, somehow both lacking in predetermination but also directed and based upon prior cause.

>>17816526
It's directed in the sense that an individual body has direction. The body is the site of free will. When something supersedes bodies, free will is also superseded.

>>17816546
But all direction still has prior cause. It's not totally random. Freewill requires things to somehow be both random and predetermined simultaneously. That is if you have a genuine definition of free will and not one of those shitty cope definitions like 'compatibilism' which is just determinism rebranded as free will.

>>17816572
People also have prior causes, I keep saying this debate is really about individuality and when you become your own person. The superior argument AGAINST free will has nothing to do with determinism, they're not opposites, it would just state that individuality is an illusion and human qualities are collective.

>>17816584
They are opposites, Free will in its honest definition is somehow both deterministic and random simultaneously, which is paradoxical.

>>17816598
No, I disagree with this whole post. They're not opposites because a non deterministic world would be molecular chaos. "Honest" is emotional language trying to manipulate. "Somehow" is an appeal to befuddlement, trying to obfuscate something, saying nothing. Free will isn't random, it's part of causality. "Paradoxical" is another appeal to befuddlement so you're contradicting me by saying you have no idea about anything. Bad work.

>>17816609
I say "honest" because compatibilism was a cope definition by people who understood the world was deterministic, but still wanted to cling to what philosophical value they saw in free will rather than adapt their philosophy around a deterministic understanding of the world. Mostly pushed by morons who think that if the world is deterministic you can't hold people 'accountable', which is nonsense and fails to understand the pragmatism of accountability.

>>17816621
Free will doesn't mean violating causality. Most self effacing determinists want to blame the past/want power over their lives, as you pointed out. They don't care about larger implications of what free will means, how concepts of human responsibility developed or what their rational limits are.

>>17816627
True free will would have to, as it would have to be both directed and unpredictable (i.e undeterministic) at the same time.

>>17816633
Whose will is it if nothing exists due to events being random, not connected?

>>17816633
>>17816640
In order to speak on subjects where you have, shall we say, a complete and total lack of any formal training, it's necessary to construct your language accordingly. Only by working from universally accepted assumptions can you enter an otherwise opaque field, but that doesn't give license to be vague. If people want vagueness they'll ask an expert. No, your logic must be concrete and practical. Why is it true, why does it matter, why are you saying this to me?? All the little things matter when treading on the specialty of others.

>>17815944
underrated

>>17815942
that's just randomness maybe reality functions on block time so there is still free will just no possibility of branching timelines

>>17815929 (OP)
the fact that I have the free will to shoot you and gun you down where you stand if I so choose, which is the right course of action for people with opinions like yours.

I prayed to God and He said free will doesn't exist

>>17815929 (OP)
I fartes

>>17816968
you're probably making that up of your own free will

You genuinely have to be 70 IQ or seriously coping to believe that free will exists. It's actually difficult for me to wrap my head around how someone could struggle to understand this

>>17817515
That depends on what you mean by "exists" do you exist or are you an illusion?

>>17815929 (OP)
No

>>17817519
What does illusion even mean here. The matter that people are composed of exists. The emergent behaviours that arise from particular arrangements of matter exist. The idea of a self, too, exists somewhere in this matter, because it was an evolutionary advantage for it to do so. It's grown extremely impressively advanced, but that doesn't make us escape from the fact that we're just running the exact same loop laid out for us 4.5 billion years ago when matter by some cosmic horror arranged itself in a way that allowed it to propagate itself, which necessarily only meant the ones best at it survived, over and over and over

>>17816971
It was determined from the moment of Creation that I would make that up

>>17817570
People aren't running any loop, unless you're referring to degrees of free will based on genetic ancestry. We exist on a scale of large unpredictable objects, complex living things, that are more than impossible to predict. Their design, their whole raison d'etre is to have a role in the great drama, to make decisions and own them as part of "self" quite literally, free will exists as part of all that human business. Determinism is cope for people who need more freedom than the freest, mightiest entity living the most dynamic life in the known universe.

>>17817572
hindu metaphysics are repulsive especially when introduced to christianity. No, your position in life is not determined by your "karma" calvineesh

>>17817591
No we quite literally are operating on the exact same loop decided those 4.5 billion years ago - be born, have children/propagate, die. Anything that diverges from this pattern obviously doesn't continue, because the pattern literally is "continuing". We're just extremely fine-tuned versions of that original pattern. Everything else in your post is just schizo word salad that says absolutely nothing in a lot of words

>>17817608
Free will doesn't violate causality. If actions didn't have consequences the universe wouldn't exist. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.

>>17817608
If you zoom in or out, individuality doesn't exist. Arguably human beings don't exist, although you could measure them genetically. If you instead choose to accept the human perspective, you accept several other premises as well. One of those is people are generally superior to animals in intelligence and versatility. Humans are literally designed to exercise will.

>>17817610
Then it's not very "free" is it, dummy. By the same mechanism that your mentioned actions have consequences, so too was the action decided by consequences. So turns out it wasn't free

>>17817614
Yes, true, humans are extremely fine-tuned versions of the original self-replicating, propagating machinery that just so happened to emerge by chance those billions of years ago, but that doesn't mean that there's anything unique about it, or that we have crossed some threshold beyond which we're no longer it. It's literally just sort of a combination of the body schema and the ability to create constructs from modalities, constructs like them, friends, species, etc. Most animals exhibit those traits. Then from there, all that is left is to "imagine" one such construct right in the middle of the body schema, and you have a "self"

>>17817671
Not "very" free? Actually it is very free as a function of being more free than every other lifeform and the rest of creation. It's logically consistent to say that humans have free will. It's also logically consistent to say this entire perspective is an illusion, humans don't really have free will because everything they see is an hallucination of no importance. The only argument that's not logically consistent is yours. Humans can't simultaneously exist as individuals, objectively be the greatest things ever, AND play no role in their own existence. It makes no sense.

>>17817772
Who says they play no role? The role they play, their will itself is what is determined. Your arguments only support the idea that will exists at all not that is free

>>17817777
That determination, if it exists, can only be viewed from a perspective that leaves no room for human beings or individuality. The more obvious and logical conclusion is determination is taking place in the present and humanity (whether or not you include concepts of self and free will) is part of the mechanism of change, because we're part of the world. Sucks that you can't fly or become a kid again though.

>>17817777
>>17817788
The reason it's incompatible with individuality is where do you draw the line between nonhuman and human? There would be nothing but an unbroken chain of cause and effect. There is no "human" only a stream of matter hallucinating itself. The distinction of living and nonliving or human and nonhuman has no basis in a deterministic worldview, except that we hallucinate it (which also justifies a belief in free will)

>>17817570
>The matter that people are composed of exists.
Kek. I pity you for believing this

>>17817823
no

>>17817826
Yea I sincerely do. Not shitposting btw.

>>17817830
matter exists, I said no to the shitpost

>>17817772
>Actually it is very free as a function of being more free than every other lifeform and the rest of creation
How are we more free? Humans make more abstractions because we're smarter, and make them in the first place because evolutionarily they're beneficial. But creating weird abstractions and stories around our choices doesn't make them anymore free than any other animal's. At the most base level, it's still just cause and effect, but because these causal events in certain regions of space are filtered through human brains, it gives rise to the idea that there is a self making them in this space
>It's logically consistent to say that humans have free will
Maybe if you contort the definition of free will, but by it's most commonly agreed definition, no

>>17817810
>There is no "human" only a stream of matter hallucinating itself
Yes
>except that we hallucinate it (which also justifies a belief in free will)
No?

>>17817823
>>17817830
Let's hear what anon believes then :)

>>17817836
>matter exists
That's what you believe, it's wrong though.

>>17817839
We've reached an agreement if you concede that humanity doesn't exist and nothing dependent on humanity really exists. No morality, no Jesus Christ or what have you. All that is part of the hallucination.
>How are we more free?
In every way lol. Name one, you named our incredible imaginations. Something that can go from earth to the end of the universe in .25 seconds, rip a hole in the laws of physics, and confront the parent reality this universe was born from. That's power, that's freedom. Everything animals do, you can do better and more stylish. In large numbers, people avoid each others' working area and collectively do everything they can possibly do. There are still design limitations, but performing magic spells is not the commonly agreed definition of free will. Free will is something humans do or don't do. (there are many humans without free will, dead or injured or feeble)

>>17817860
no argument
I'm NTOA and don't have strong feelings on matter, but I suspect you're wrong

>>17817869
It doesn't matter, there's no argument necessary, matter has no real existence, being manifest, only the un-manifest has any real existence.

>>17817878
that sounds manifestly backwards QED

>>17817879
Ok so how would you write a word for example if it didn't first exist as an idea in your head? Obviously you can't make anything in the physical word before you have the idea of the thing (ideas are un-manifested). Hence the un-manifested is more real than the manifested.

not to mention if you take away the manifested thing, the un-manifested still exists, totally unaffected. If you, for example. smash every Chair on Earth, the idea of a Chair still exists, completely unharmed by your chair-smashing rampage. The Idea of the Chair exists, the physical chairs never really existed as they were only manifestations of the real Chair.

>>17817903
>>17817910
ideas are manifested, you can only do them with a physical brain
the idea of the chair exists in brains

>>17817937
The idea is not a physical thing, it doesn't spatially reside in your brain, we only say that as a manner of speech. I foresaw that you would make this argument btw.

>>17817944
yes, it's an arrangement of neurons. It's easy to destroy an idea by destroying everyone who knows it.

>>17817946
No, that wouldn't effect the idea at all. You need to think about this for more than 5 seconds. It's a metaphysical thing, not a physical one.

>>17817952
Ideas are human made. Empty space has neither the reality nor the idea of a chair in it.

>>17817863
>humanity
It exists insofar as evolution has progressed to a stage where some local arrangement of matter will now create an idea of a self because this is seemingly beneficial. It doesn't exist in any "poetic" or magical way, which is what it seems you generally mean when you talk about "existing"
>No morality, no Jesus Christ or what have you. All that is part of the hallucination
Yes, true
>Something that can go from earth to the end of the universe in .25 seconds, rip a hole in the laws of physics, and confront the parent reality this universe was born from
Huh? Just to be sure I'm not talking to a 100% schizo, you're strictly talking in terms of how the fact humans can imagine this conceptually demonstrates our very advanced imagination, right?
>That's power, that's freedom. Everything animals do, you can do better and more stylish
The problem is that you're just very far from the definition of free will here. There is no choice in any of this, just causality. To put your point in perspective, and I know it's a silly example but it really is what your point can be reduced to, but it's like observing a ball of glass colliding with a ball of steel, and declaring that the ball of steel has free will because its particular arrangement of atoms survived the collision

>>17817959
Humanity doesn't exist practically speaking. That's what you'd say about free will right? They're in the same class of concepts.

Your point can be reduced to saying the ball of steel exists but it isn't really "stronger" than the glass because something else caused it to be that way.

>it's another people with minimal philosophy and STEM education argue about a conceptual idea episode

>>17817968
poor baby can't use words. give us another meme

>>17817971
>t. has minimal philosophy and STEM education and is sensitive about it

>>17817975
I made a post directly addressing it here >>17816726 part of the discussion is dealing with retards

>>17817968
Its truly distressing, isnt it? The free will side are making retarded arguments for free will, the non-free will are countering it with the completely wrong arguments
Its like watching a drunk brawl

>>17815929 (OP)
what's the practical application of this debate?

>>17817998
ok bot

>>17818006
Determinists want to figure a way to break out of causality, that's metal as fuck. Faustian. Free will is the hard truth, that's cool too, something people need to learn.

Do chimpanzees have free will?
Macaques?
Deer?
Birds?
Fish?
Sea urchins?

>>17818038
They have free will proportionate to their intellectual and physical ability. Nothing mystical here, just what you see.

>>17818038
Down to fish, yes. Sea urchins, probably not. Im cheating though because my definition of free will is really simple, to follow desire. Something that does not have desire cannot follow it

Whole things fucked if the entire universe has desire somehow because i dont want to think about a car having free will

>>17818045
By what mechanism does a sea urchin make decisions that are not determined by its genes and environment?

>>17818051
a couple of nerve patches I think

>>17818056
Are the choices sea urchins make not deterministic? Could a sea urchin really decide it just doesn't feel like eating kelp today, even if everything about its environment is the same as it was yesterday when it did want to eat kelp? And how far down does this go, do flies and worms have free will? How about a sea anemone or a paramecium

>>17818049
>car
The question is largely about your place in civilization. What's your role as someone molded by zillions of other humans genetically and intellectually. How, and to what end do you become a creator? That's where the meat of the free will debate is.

>>17818060
All choices are deterministic because choices are events and events are deterministic. Lots of urchins make bad choices that usually result in falling out of the gene pool, but somebody had to try

>>17818060
>>17818064
After all, the point of developing a nervous system is to predict the future, enabling more complex actions. There might be more kelp over that rock, if you can conceptualize it. That in turn leads to a great many situations where there's no kelp, but the dilemma itself cries out for decisive action. Resources are always scarce, and who dares wins.

>>17815932

>>17815929 (OP)
Doesn't exist. There was an experiment in the 1980s that proved that humans reacted and made decisions before being "aware" of what was happening and their subsequent response to their environment. (PS : There's been more work done since the 1980s too btw)
However, people fundamentally misunderstand determinism because they think it is antinomic to the concepts of individuals. Determinism can coexist with moral responsability, with uniqueness in each humans etc. In essence, even if everyone recognized that we were all preprogrammed from our education, environment and biology, our world would remain the exact same (barring certain anomalies like this post)

>>17815942
at the level of individual neuron, decoherence has already happened and abides by classical physics

>>17816726
You can have responsability for actions in a determinist system, just not in the way you envision it.

>>17818083
>There was an experiment in the 1980s that proved that humans reacted and made decisions before being "aware" of what was happening
so? the decision still happens in context of every thought and action, in the brain of an individual
>You can have responsability(sic) for actions in a determinist system, just not in the way you envision it.
so mysterious! I can't wait to hear your vision.

>>17818090
>so? the decision still happens in context of every thought and action, in the brain of an individual
There's no decision, unless you're willing to call an unconscious choice "free will" (which looses all meaning if you do so)

>so mysterious! I can't wait to hear your vision.
Human responsibility allows for assigning the possession of an act to the individual, but this does not necessarily entail real consequences. On the surface, responsibility would seem to imply some form of retribution within a moral system. If an individual were to act in a certain way, they should be punished or rewarded for their actions. However, this view is not at all incompatible with the declared goal of guiding behavior.

Indeed, if the individual is considered as the outcome of a series of events and influences, there still remains the reality of a causal chain that they symbolize. The serial killer may not be directly responsible for their actions in a deterministic view, but they still represent the logical culmination of destructive acts. Therefore, by considering the individual not as the author but as the work through which actions are realized, a process leading to the same results as moral responsibility can still take shape. The killer is still removed from society, and the thief is still rehabilitated to function within the community.

>>17818113
Maybe my post wasn't clear but in essence, if you take the individual not as the author of his actions but as the cause, you can still end up with the consequences of moral system based on free will

>>17818113
Calling decisions not decisions and thoughts not thoughts will never be convincing. How would people ever differentiate between two similar choices? The outcome is for all intents and purposes not predetermined. Any snap instinctual decision is just substrate, and your argument is just another description of the fabric that makes up the human mind, not a refutation of it.
>Human responsibility allows for assigning the possession of an act to the individual
individuals don't exist. Only the constant discharge of causality with no distinctions or artificial categories (according to a determinist viewpoint)

>>17818134
How do you still not get that free will is not the same thing as making decisions? That's just will, FREE will is something else

>>17818153
What would free will be to you, more magic carpets and time machines?
Decisions are determined by the environment (causality) and free decisions are determined by how much influence "you" exercise over your actions. That's why real determinists argue there is no "you". If there is such a thing as a human being then it has its own little zone of environmental influence if you will. One optimized for independence compared to most living things which are just dumb animals or worse.

>>17815929 (OP)
“Free will” is a phrase that we have come up with to try and describe certain patterns about ourselves that we have observed and tried to understand. It is not a real thing and it is not useful to use it as a term in arguments.

>>17818170
Your sentences kind of contradict one another lil bro

>>17818155
>how much influence "you" exercise over your actions
None, quite literally 0.

>If there is such a thing as a human being then it has its own little zone of environmental influence if you will
And why would that be ?

>>17818134
>Calling decisions not decisions and thoughts not thoughts will never be convincing. How would people ever differentiate between two similar choices?
If you can't make the difference between a decision and free will then I suggest you ask yourself certain questions on the subject you're talking about.
But yes, men have decisions, but their choice is inherently determined by their context and education. That's why it's not free.

>>17818176
Once you admit humans don't exist, we're fine. See >>17816952

It's free because that's the whole point of having a big, strong, independent entity with the moral authority and test necessary to make a wide variety of decisions. Otherwise you could have a nice pebble.

>>17818062
As much as i like to put myself in tough positions, theres almost no reasonable argument for the meat of free will so ill pass. Id have to delve into schizo "i am god, reality is an illusion of my own making" bullshit. At the point, id be sacrificing far more comforting beliefs than free will is worth

>>17818196
Free will obviously exists. The only question is how much you exercise free will during one lifetime as opposed to several spread out across generations.

>>17818183
>It's free because that's the whole point of having a big, strong, independent entity with the moral authority and test necessary to make a wide variety of decisions. Otherwise you could have a nice pebble.
By that logic elephants & lions also possess free will

>Once you admit humans don't exist, we're fine.
Let me guess, humanity is based on free will because of consciousness ? Didn't it also occur to you that we could have consciousness without free will ?

>>17818209
Elephants and lions are some of the greatest animals that ever lived. That's rarified air. Of course they're nothing compared to the mighty human, lions especially are in a simplistic niche.
Humans exercise will by definition, at that point the discussion of causality is no longer relevant. The only question is how free the human's will is.

My mind obviously have special causal powers where I just *do* stuff for no reason (it isn't random either)

>>17818218
>Humans exercise will by definition
I'll bite the bait, tell me, what's your definition of a human ?

>>17818203
My brother in christ, if you are still a pilot after having broken the chains of causality, you need to kill god.
Just deck him when he isnt looking, you are outside his control. Read this to learn your enemy

>>17818220
I don't need a scientific definition here, I presuppose that humans exist. I choose to believe it, (in this discussion) and I can easily argue the opposite viewpoint for clarity. It's an hypothesis, IF humans exist etc. If humans don't exist, in the sense of a discrete category however defined, then determinism may be observed.

>>17818229
You can presuppose that humans exist without free will too. Again, what intrinsically associates humans with free will ?

>>17815929 (OP)
No.

>>17818234
The human doesn't really "exist" and its moral responsibility is illusory without free will. Everything is compelled because everything is a continuous stream of causality under the mask, there is no real human in that scenario. Just a hallucination.

>>17818248
So do humans exist or not ?

>its moral responsibility is illusory without free will
That's because you're seeing morality from an author/punishment perspective and not a cause/prevent perspective

>>17818257
To me personally? It's a yes. If I'm going to use these words, it would be hypocritical to deny the authors their due. I also just feel that humans exist, I've always felt that way. It's a feeling I have. You could certainly argue they don't though

even a centipede is capable of causing or preventing damage to other centipedes, so yes I look at morality in terms of human beings bearing continuous responsibility for years. If you zoom out, it's possible to apply centipede morality to people with some success like other simple principles.

>>17815948
>That's a measurimg problem
>arbitrary imaginary degrees of state
neat

>>17815929 (OP)
Niggers

>>17815929 (OP)
you can bullshit and larp online without any consequences, there is