Thread 24700463

So, is there free will or no really? why?
Skeptics, compatibilists, determinists, religionfags, schizos, all are welcome.
Please state your case alongside any recommended reading.

not believing in free will requires more faith than believing in sky daddy.

>>24700531
how come? Don't you think that the lack of free will comes naturally with determinism?

>>24700463 (OP)
To deny free will is rooted in the seeds of communism from the early modern period.

>>24700581
And yet, the free will debate has been ongoing since time immemorial. Arguments can be made from both a purely philosophical and a physical standpoint.

Free will is limited because you didn't create how you look or your IQ or whether you are a fool or wise

>>24700608
Yes, the first mover argument is simple in a physical sense. It's obvious when explaining physical events what we mean, but what about abstract objects? What would infinite regress even mean in such cases? And then again, why can't the infinite regress simply be infinite, with no beginning?"

>>24700623
yes physical properties seem to be an easy case, but then again what about wiling what we will? Biology is set but if i were to be sat in a room and someone measured the time it took for me to stand up and we could revert time and measure again and so on 1000 times would i always stand up at the same time because of the biology of my body? Is the web of connections made in my body before i reach a decision complex but still deterministic?

>>24700463 (OP)
It depends on what you mean. Biologically, I don't think so. We're just reacting to stimuli, albeit in a way more complex way than say a dog is. Spiritually, I think we do. I could choose to flip the table I'm in front of right now if I wanted to and no matter how much biology shows that my brain made the decision a split second before "I" actually chose to do it, it doesn't change the fact that I willed a table to be flipped that stimuli otherwise wouldn't have compelled me to. What is will power but exercising free will? If I have lustful thoughts and don't jerk off like a lunatic, I'm going completely against what my autopilot wants but it is a decision I have above biological impulses.

but can't a case be made that you didn't jerk off simply because your desire not to do so was stronger than the one compelling you to? We go against out can't a case be made that you didn't jerk off simply because your desire not to do so was stronger than the one compelling you to? We go against our primitive desires all the time, but that hardly constitutes proof of free will. Many people don’t study accounting for years because they love spending their evenings hitting the calculus books. Their desire for a stable job is higher than their desire for more free time. Your subconscious desire not to jerk off could have simply been greater

>>24700638
I think you are determined to stand up, like niggers are determined to cause more violence than whites

But you are also free to choose to change your pajeet ways

>>24700676
>Their desire for a stable job is higher than their desire for more free time
I disagree. The desire isn't to get into a cubicle and work your ass off but rather the desire to create more free time in the future. They are not the same thing. Also, the want to do something doesn't mean that a thing is or isn't free will in and of itself. Just because you don't want to do menial work doesn't mean doing it anyways is a lack of free will.

But I disagree. I don't think the desire to NOT jerk off, if we use that example, is subconscious. If anything it's the other way around. As a human, you're born with organs that function without you having to consciously make them work. So by default, you choosing to abstain is a conscious effort which most of the time implies an imposing of your will.

That being said, I don't think everyone who forces themselves to work is necessarily practicing free will, just that having a desire (conscious or unconscious) to do something doesn't necessarily negate or confirm it's free will by itself.

>>24700720
I see, I think you almost convinced me regarding the argument for masturbation. But still, our brain, when coming to a decision weights in not only physical impulses but also abstract such as social norms. I will not masturbate in the mall but i will in the privacy of my home. I cant think of a situation where i can prove that my decision to abstain from masturbating can be solely my own.

>>24700463 (OP)
The simple reality is that the answer doesn't matter. We are unable to prove it either way, and we have to operate on the assumption that people have free will in our day to day lives regardless. We still have to go to work in the morning, we still need to eat drink piss and shit. If you act like an asshole to people, people will dislike you. If you are friendly to others... well, they might not be friendly to you back but its usually good policy anyway.

If someone steals your wallet, does whether or not they have free will change the outcome of whether or not they should be punished for the theft? If he have to hold people accountable for their actions in this world, then we have to operate under the assumption that free will exists otherwise everything gets stupid fast. "The devil make me do it" as an actual legal argument.

>>24700762
>we have to operate on the assumption that people have free will in our day to day lives regardless.

You don't have to operate on false assumptions because you will live a short sighted life this way

You are limited by your genitcs, vibration, weather, social circle, even country

If you are living some where decent you are going to be another person

>>24700762
true, we have operate like you say, assuming at least some degree of free will. Perhaps our growing realization of how little we actually control has led us to a place where we are relatively more lenient to criminals than most societies in history. I don't think the debate itself is pointless

>>24700785
also an interesting perspective. I often find myself wanting to have free will but don't really know why, this is a common phenomenon across all countries, races etc. I wonder if its only a testament to our self-importance or something deeper about the our nature

>>24700606
Spinoza formalized as central to his doctrine thougheverbeit

>>24700463 (OP)

Is there free will? Yes and no.
Is it possible to live life with the believe that there is no free will? Well, what would be the next action one takes then? What is it determined by? When one is presented with a decision, how will one proceed? It doesn't seem possible to me.

At the same time, isn't everything based on cause and effect? Isn't our every action a reaction to what we perceive? Would we be able to make decisions without seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching anything? Our being is nothing more than the accumulation of countless biochemical reactions.

The decision we make depends on our personality, the way our brain is wired if you will, which again depends on 1) our DNA and 2) under which circumstances we grew up and are living. Both of these are out of our control but are the basis of our character.

While we decide based on our personality, which is dependent on things that are out of our control, this doesn't mean that we have no free will, because that would imply that free will is making decisions that are out of our character. That is paradoxical since we would have to have a personality that allows us to act out of character which then would be in character making it impossible.

Free will means doing what you want. But what you want is dependent on who you are.

Not really. Even in the best case scenario the part we control is negligible compared to circumstances.

>>24700463 (OP)
Knowledge is impossible, so you just can't say one way or the other. This is the answer to everything.

>>24700463 (OP)
Free will can't not exist unless there is a higher self that doesn't have control over your choices

>>24700655
>no matter how much biology shows that my brain made the decision a split second before "I" actually chose to do it,

It doesn't show anything of the sort. All Libet type experiments involve people who, before measurement even begins, have *intentionally* decided to act in a given way in response to a stimulus. It's one of the more ridiculously cringe materialist dogmas that an experiment that starts with asking participants to make an intentional act (cause involving thought) then immediately throws that fact out and focuses only on what it can measure and concludes that only what it can measure must have "been the real cause."

To see that it's ridiculous one need only ask "but would the people have moved their hands at all to the same stimulus if they hadn't consciously agreed to earlier?" The answer is obviously "no," they would have ignored it. There should have been a control group that received zero instructions but it's too obvious that this would produce no results.

All the experiment shows is that conscious decisions to respond a certain way involve the body. Wow.

>>24700463 (OP)
>So, is there free will or no really?

>>24702240
There isn't anything laying outside of consciousness, so the question is meaningless. All things happen before consciousness, so they can't be willed by consciousness nor can there not be willed by consciousness.

Fucking British Philosophers and their penchant for anal.

>>24700463 (OP)
To acknowledge free will (or determinism) is to create structures which take free will (or determinism) into account. It's how we define concepts like human rights, salvation, moral accountability, etc. Even rejecting these concepts require us to say "it's irrelevant" or "it's intentionally neglected"
Rather than believe in one or the other, I recommend creating structures that collapse all possible routes into a single "it doesn't matter" concerning the specific functionalities of these concepts

>>24700608
causality niggers need to die already, thinking the universe follows a domino effect is as dumb as thinking time flows like a river. it's dated, false and it's time we move on from this primitive gibberish.

>>24702401
oh wow nihilism
please… *yawn* tell the class more

>>24702679
I haven't actually read Nietzsche yet does he actually say that because if he does I'm changing my opinion

>>24700463 (OP)
It's one of those topics I feel is fundamentally pointless because determinists lack a meaningful way to falsify their ontology due to everything falling into the category of "determination".

>>24700762
Yeah, agree. I'm personally unconvinced by people who use determinism to advocate for prison abolition or reform because the idea would be universal and not arbitrarily practiced politically or legalistically. Criminals cannot control themselves, but neither can the people who want them punished and choose to punish them. It comes full circle because you wind up with the same results but for completely opposite reasons.

>>24702401
>Rather than believe in one or the other, I recommend creating structures that collapse all possible routes into a single "it doesn't matter" concerning the specific functionalities of these concepts
I would advocate to use language and structures that accurately reflect reality and to not use anything which is inaccurate to reality.

You would already seem to agree on some level at least, since you recommend "it doesn't matter" as a better position or view as compared to "believing" in those other concepts – which could imply an expression that the other concepts are or must necessarily be based on belief alone.