Do you believe in determinism or free will?

OR a hybrid form?

For me, it's free will + occasionalism
>our will is absolutely free
>each instant of this physical world is willed into existence directly by God himself according to our free will
but determinism + free will are also not contradictory if you assume total separation of the mind and the body

>>509906553 (OP)
Both

>>509906553 (OP)
I think we have free will to an extent. I believe more in genetic predetermination. Humans can't create ideas without some from of intelligence given at birth. Think of those who were born severe mental imparments, they don't have free will, due to not having full autonomy over their thoughts and decision making
With a higher intelligence, you are to conjure better ideas and make better decisions.
So in conclusion, you do have free will but it's constrained by your intelligence

>>509906553 (OP)
They are the same thing. It’s a categorical fallacy to suggest otherwise and this has been deliberately done to attack the concept of God. Predeterminism is literally akin to thinking before you act. It’s the basis for proving intent in court. Without it, there’s zero reason for law. If a single thing is true the universe might as well be entirely determined because of that.

>>509906553 (OP)
Those words mean nothing to me

I'm a Calvinist, I believe in both

>>509906735
It’s beyond me why proponents of each cannot agree that a more hybrid (compatibalism).
Of course alot of your actions are determined by past experience, environments, knowledge and trauma, but if that was the case, all humans would be predictable in every facet of life, and cases where people diverge from their environments would be almost unheard of.
The smartest guy I know said 95% of human behavior is determined by 3 hormones(I think serotonin, dopamine and one other that I can’t remember). I asked him what the other 5% were. “I don’t fully know, might be free will”.

Evolution alone is very dependent on the idea of some free will, some noise to throw the entropy out of slight balance.

>>509906938
Yep basically my point. I think it's silly that it has to 100 percent one way or the other. A mixture of both make the most sense

>>509906553 (OP)
Well my country isn't white enough so I think the answer is pretty obvious

>>509907124
>that a more hybrid (compatibalism)
- exists

>>509906553 (OP)
>Do you believe in determinism or free will?
Yes.
>Many of our own newer Theologians and metaphysicians, I don't know how and from what cause, _speak unscrupulously_ about the word of self-authority [note: not "freewill"], but though others of them determined, how this is a rational ability, by which the soul is moved to good, and to evil. But others, how it is a freedom of the soul, by which it wants likewise the good and likewise the evil. But _that these definitions are not right is explicit._ For if though this is an ability, according to which man is moved to good and to evil, first this ability to evil is not, neither is it mainly called ability, but rather _inability,_ illness, and a lacking (according to St Dionysius the Areopagite, _On the Divine Names_ ch. 4), seeing as the soul did not receive the ability to good, but out of inability, and illness, and lacking, of not being able to remain in good, falls to evil. But neither is this ability to evil able to be called reason, but rather, illogical and irrational. For from irrationality does evil occur, according to the Areopagite (as above). Second, that, if man received such an ability for evil, it follows that God must be the cause of evil, giving such an ability, and so man is not the cause using such an ability. And so how does God responsible for this therefore punish, yet the not-responsible man preferred to evil be punished? --St Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Holy Pedalion footnote to Canon CXXIV of the Carthaginian Council

>>509906553 (OP)
Free will is a lie. It's not profound, it's not special, it's not real. It's the last gasp of human arrogance in the face of a deterministic universe.

Every scientific advancement demolishes another pillar of this delusion. Neuroscience, psychology, genetics - they all point to the same cold truth: your actions are predetermined. Your thoughts, your decisions, your so-called choices - they're just the inevitable output of prior causes.

Free will apologists are no better than religious fundamentalists clinging to their "god of the gaps." Both desperately search for ever-shrinking pockets of ignorance to hide their beliefs. It's not philosophy. It's not reason. It's fear.

You're afraid of a world without free will. Afraid of losing your sense of self, your moral responsibility, your illusion of control. But your fear doesn't change reality. You're a biological machine, your actions as predictable as any physical system, given enough information.

There's no magic. No soul. No ghost in the machine. Just cause and effect, playing out as it always has and always will. Your feeling of choice is just that - a feeling. An illusion created by a brain that can't comprehend its own deterministic nature.

Wake up. Free will is dead. It was never alive to begin with. You're not the author of your thoughts or actions. You're just another domino in the cosmic chain, falling exactly as you were always going to fall. Deal with it.

>>509906553 (OP)
free will
determinism makes sense if you buy into the standard narrative, but you can take a step back and realize that causation itself is a lie, it's merely schizo like pattern recognition misfire, as proven by the countless outdated models of mechanistic casual forces that keep getting replaced by new ones which are surely absolutely true this time.

>>509907031
>>509907124
I'm not a fan of these, you're basically saying that free will is just a higher function of the body. But if you assume that the material part of the world is deterministic through the laws of physics, such "free will" could never be actually free. It'd be like saying that a rock will roll down a hill because of the rock's free will. For free will to be totally free, it would need to come from something from something immaterial, such as the soul.

>>509907204
My own subjective experience is a sufficient refutation of a fully material world, at least for me.

>>509907204
>>509907351
Plus the existence of the material world itself. That can't ever be explained using the material world alone.

>>509907258
I’m a dualist. I believe our consciousness, the observer, is immaterial and on a separate plane from our bodies, but is still constrained by the mechanics our evolved ape bodies have.
Our bodies crave animalistic pleasures, while our mind is able to resist those pleasures.

>>509906553 (OP)
i believe
OP is a faggot
it's the one thing that continually proves itself to be consistently true.

>>509906553 (OP)
>>509906583
Time is the result of three types of causes intersecting to produce events. These three types are Deterministic, Uncertain and Agentic

>>509907204
Consciousness and awareness is challenging to be explained by physics and all theories leave so huge gaps that they rather become ad-hoc explanations.
Do you believe a man-made machine can truly become conscious? That it’s aware of its own existence, its consciousness and what could cease its consciousness?

>>509907553
:(

>>509906553 (OP)
Def free will.
Truth is even if you believe in determinism you wouldn't have access to such a knowledge claim because you're belief in determinism or free will is just predetermined.

>>509906553 (OP)
I believe that children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess in side. Give them a sense of pride to make it easier. Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be.

>>509906553 (OP)
ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name

>>509907124
>>509907258
How would either of you define Free Will?

>>509907510
So you believe that the will of the soul can influence the behavior of the body? I personally believe that it can't, considering that our bodies are made of matter and I think that matter is entirely deterministic. Do you believe that matter is not deterministic? Or how do you think that the soul makes the body do things?

>>509907510
>>509907258

tldr; soul lol
And some people have weak souls, indulging in hedonistic tendencies, while others are almost soulless (psychopaths)
Animals have some form of souls too but nowhere as strong as what humans have.

>>509907204
>has no argument, just nihilistic attacks
smells like reddit in here

>>509907672
kek

P1. Effects of physics are neither more true or false than other effects of physics.
P2. Thoughts, evaluations and propositions are effects of physics.
C. Evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects) are not more true or false than other evaluations (effects) and propositions (effects.)
The consequence to this position is knowledge itself.
Determinism runs into the same trouble as physicalism.

>>509906553 (OP)
Free will exists but not for everyone
Especially if you were to interfere with the mission you are here your free will can literally be overwritten completely
Majority of npcs have no soul thus no free will to begin with
The rest are either with a mission, to learn or to relax
Then it depends

>>509907258
I think determinstic physics still allow free will to exit. Do you have full control of the world around you? Of course not, but your ambitions or goals can be anything you want, no matter how unrealistic. Your material body is forced to follow the law of gravity but your mind is free to invision world however it sees fit ( indicating free will ).
To me a soul, is just your deeper consciousness (both primal and congintive )that have been given through your ancestors

>>509907510
>>509907697
Dualism is not enough. You need Triunism. There is the Objective Material (Physical), expressed in Matter. There is the Subjective Immaterial, expressed in Experience. And then there is the Objective Immaterial, expressed in Information.
Information acts as a bridge, mediating between the Physical and the Experiential. It can interact with the Physical because they are both Objective, and it can interact with the Experiential because they are both Immaterial. Energy is the Physical Phenomenon associated with Information and the Physical interacting. Our Perception itself is the interaction between Experience and Information.

>>509907674
My idea is the ability to deviate from our animalistic tendencies. The ability to discipline yourself from your own volition based on your own insights of yourself. To redeem yourself from your mistakes. To resist impulses. To do actions that would violate your sense of self-preservation. Passion.

>>509908087
I would agree with that.
I think that many think of Free Will as "the ability to act without influence", which is a problem for this discussion, as it is a nonsensical meaning, since to be aware of your surroundings means to be influenced by them. So one would not be able to be consciously aware and have free will by that definition.

>>509907697
I see us as a vessel. You can control a vessel and bring it anywhere but you still need to respect its limitations and controls. Sometimes a vessel may go a direction you don’t want so you fight it with all the power you have. You may succeed or not with this.
>>509907987
Interesting take anon. You have a point there.

>>509907882
I don't understand what P1 is saying
>X is neither more true or false than X
huh?
>>509907984
Free will as a function of the body? Not a fan.
>>509907674
I don't know. I'd say it's something like the ability to make decisions totally unimpeded, independently on anything else. Most people will agree with that, but will disagree with just what exactly "unimpeded" means. I think most people are not strict enough. I think that if I do something
>because someone was beating me with a hammer to make me do it
>because I was sad
>because my parents taught me to
>because my body's brain thought hard about it and decided that it was the best course of action
then I think that in none of the cases, it was an expression of free will. It's just something that happened in the material world. In purely mathematical autism, I'd define free will as a function, and the sole input of that function is the problem to decide about. If my body does something bad, and my free will disapproves, and even if there is no material/bodily expression of that disapproval and the soul keeps it for itself, I think that was an expression of free will.

>>509908490
An effect of physics or nature like a tornado is no more truer than a tsunami, this also applies to the brain whatever chemicals are produced and you call this thing a proposition that itself is also an effect of physics.

>>509906553 (OP)
My free will determines what will happen.

>>509908490
>I'd say it's something like the ability to make decisions totally unimpeded, independently on anything else.
>In purely mathematical autism, I'd define free will as a function, and the sole input of that function is the problem to decide about.
This seems like a definition that is impossible on its face. If someone is depending on past experience, are they not free? Is free will only possible for agents never influenced by the material world in any way?

>Most people will agree with that, but will disagree with just what exactly "unimpeded" means. I think most people are not strict enough. I think that if I do something
>>because someone was beating me with a hammer to make me do it
>>because I was sad
>>because my parents taught me to
>>because my body's brain thought hard about it and decided that it was the best course of action
>then I think that in none of the cases, it was an expression of free will. It's just something that happened in the material world.
Here's the problem I see. You seem to separate yourself from "your body's brain". You are your Body just as you are your Mind and Soul. All three are Expressions of the Human Being, just in different Dimensions of Being. And how is it decided to be the best course of action? Isn't that ability to make decisions a sign of free will?

>If my body does something bad, and my free will disapproves, and even if there is no material/bodily expression of that disapproval and the soul keeps it for itself, I think that was an expression of free will.
I don't get it, you think an expression of free will is when you do something against your free will? That seems contradictory.

>>509908458
>>509907987
My only issue is separating experience poses some questions.
During brain trauma, you may lose experience. Does that mean that the material influences the non-material?

My idea is still that the observer(the soul) can only observe what has been manifested materially. If your experience becomes affected from brain trauma, it loses that part and must be re-learned. Most brain trauma do not cause completel removal of such experience. You may still maintain feelings or have flashbacks to memories that feel unreal but familiar.
Kinda like how a file is damaged and unusable on a PC. You as the user(observer) was not directly affected but that file is now unusable even though you have slight memories of that file, how it looked like etc.

>>509908829
The Soul Perceives the Information contained within the Mind. The Mind is the totality of Information contained within the Human Being. Think of thoughts, memories, sense data, etc. These are all influenced by the Body in the Nervous System. So when the Nervous System is damaged, the Mind is hampered, and the Soul's Perception is as well.
I also don't know if "separate" is the right term to use. I think that ultimately the Human Being is one holistic Being. Experience, Information and Matter/the Physical are distinct, but they work together to form the totality of Reality.

>>509908829
>>509908998
Here's a diagram I drew up a while ago

>>509908825
>Is free will only possible for agents never influenced by the material world in any way?
I think so, otherwise they are not acting unimpeded. They must act without influence of the material world or any other world.
>You seem to separate yourself from "your body's brain"
if I get drunk or high, are all my decisions truly mine? If I get brainwashed, if I get lobotomized, was that truly "me"?
>>509909047
>the red "Thinking" arrow
Huh?

>>509909286
>>the red "Thinking" arrow
>Huh?
In my model, the Soul is that which actively thinks, which results in the manifestation of thoughts within the Mind. So the Soul acts upon the Mind through Thinking.

>>509909286
>I think so, otherwise they are not acting unimpeded. They must act without influence of the material world or any other world.
The problem here is that to make decisions, one must encounter choices. To encounter choices, one must interact with the world. To interact with the world, means to be influenced by the world.
Free Will only seems possible by this definition for God alone, so He is what influences the world, not the other way around.

>if I get drunk or high, are all my decisions truly mine? If I get brainwashed, if I get lobotomized, was that truly "me"?
Yes

>>509908998
Doesn't beliving in the soul ( aka the religious or higher-being kind) goes against free will? If your soul is beyond your consciousness, like you physical fleshy body. Then you never had free will or anything close to it, since your actions were always influnced through a force completely beyond the physcial plane. Or is this false?

>>509909585
The Soul is the seat of Consciousness. It is where your Consciousness, your Awareness, your Subjective Experience, your Free Will, all reside.

>>509909452
>To encounter choices, one must interact with the world. To interact with the world, means to be influenced by the world.
I think that my soul can observe the physical world without interacting with it (i.e. affecting it)

>>509909664
>I think that my soul can observe the physical world without interacting with it (i.e. affecting it)
This goes against the observer effect. To observe is to interact. To interact is to influence. The only way to maintain your free will in the definition you're proposing is to be a purely spiritual and eternal being, so God.

>>509909047
there's no soul. choice is an illusion. why? because we don't have perfect knowledge. if we did, it would be possible to determine how someone's life would develop. everything and everyone influences how our lives proceed regardless if we can see it or not.

example: if Chess were 7 pieces, it is easy to determine who would win the game well before it actually ends.

>>509910002
Imagine you're in a room with a person, let's call him Chuck. You both sit at opposite ends of a table. On the table are two plates of food, let's do an Apple (A) and a Banana (B). The scenario is obvious: Chuck gets to choose A or B. That's it.
Now let's imagine you have a Machine next to you. This Machine has access to all the relevant data in the universe about Chuck's decision-making, and can perfectly predict his choices before he's made them. Let's say you repeat the scenario 100 times, each time the Machine will accurately predict Chuck's choice.
Now let's say that before Chuck makes his choice, you tell Chuck about the Machine and that the Machine has predicted Chuck's choice, and that it is perfect in its predictions.
Question 1: Does Chuck change his choice and defy the Machine?

Now let's say the answer is yes to Q1. Now let's propose that you actually input that you would tell Chuck about the Machine into the Machine, before telling Chuck. And let's say that the Machine then accurately predicts Chuck would immediately change his choice, which he does upon being told of the Machine.
Question 2: Does Chuck have Free Will?
Question 3: Does Chuck's defiance fit within a physical deterministic framework?

>>509909653
But the soul being the bedrock of your consciousness doesn't make sense to me. Your consciousness can be altered physical through trumatic events like being in a coma or CTE. Christians believe that soul is a is immutable through physical actions ( like trying to swing a sword at it or trying to shoot it) and can only be influnced through pure or impure spirtual acts. These things on princple are eniterly different and how it may affect a person's free will
It's more logically to conclude that your physical conditons of your body affects your free will exceedingly more, then the unmeassurable spirt

>>509910510
Let me try an analogy. Let's say you're trying to play an online game. First you're playing it on a shitty laptop. The laptop is slow, you get lag, your resolution is low, and you suck at the game.
Then you play it on a modern console, and because the console is more powerful than the shitty laptop, you do much better at the game.
Then you build a high end PC, with 120 fps @ 8K resolution, and you absolutely destroy everyone you come across online.

Did you change? No. But your performance sure did.

No, I don't believe in free will.
I believe in chosing from preprogrammed of potential, essentially which is everything we can immagine now or in the future or ever...

So, I believe there is no free will, and equally that does not remove responsibility and excuse evil and shortcomings because we can chose from the possibility and potential aka the paths so to sepak!

I Hate all potential and everything in it, fuck everything, also, I refuse to chose the dirty rag easy road to loss and lies.
Out of Spite because I am the fucking Light!

>>509906553 (OP)
I'm not fatalistic but I do ascribe to determinism, meaning we have freewill but it's limited by our environment and chain of events surrounding us. Sometimes you can overcome things, other times it's impossible.

>>509910448
Chuck still has free will and that machine was also created by people with free will.

>>509910712
The person in this anolgy has changed though, they have to mentally change to be familar with a new system or console. I know this is sounds anal but mental change does equate to physical change ( stress and depression causing sickness, or nerves tenseing up thinking about weight lifting )
I understand what you are trying to demostrate by using how a person changes how they experience video games and equating it to the eternal soul and everchanging body.

However, a soul needs so many special cavats to work (unchanging, given at birth, related to a higher power) whereas the idea that the body is involved with decison making is a more logically idea to me

>>509910448
The machine knowing what the choice will be isn't the machine causing chuck what to choose, he can ultimately choose whatever he wants and choose not to care about the predictions of the machine, know does not = cause

>>509907170
My view as well. Our will is just free enough to understand the horror and futility of it all. Ultimate suffering.

>>509906553 (OP)
I believe in chaos not sure if thats free will or not.

>>509906553 (OP)
It's both / neither because from the vantagepoint of ultimate reality nothing really exists and nothing really is happening.

>>509906553 (OP)
choice 1: interdependent origination

>>509906553 (OP)
Both, God, knowing our choices puts us in places and positions where with our free will we will arrive at a determined outcome

>>509906553 (OP)
I believe the question is irrelevant as the quantum shit implies it's both.

>>509906553 (OP)
No because consent can be totally manufactured

>>509906553 (OP)

Free wi is a sham. Most of the time even you don't know where your thoughts and decisions are coming from. And their source is usually outside your awareness

>>509910448
Why does the machine only know about chuck? If God (here the machine) is allknowing He knows your decission making as well. And thus would know wether you decide to tel chuck and how you tell him, and incorporate into the displayed amswer. It would know you choose to tell chuck, it knows how chuck would react to that and thus from the beginning determine chucks choice

>>509914061
The Machine is not a stand in for God, because it does not have access to the future. It's just a device for the thought experiment to explore how we can think about free will.
And the Machine doesn't just have access to Chuck's data, I only specified what was relevant to the thought experiment. You could imagine that the Machine has access to ALL data from the beginning of the universe to the present moment, it wouldn't really change anything.

>>509907458
Argument for a Creator based on scientific observations

>>509906553 (OP)
free will
Calvinism is heresy. God is not the author of evil. That is the devil.

>>509914277
Your current argument falls apart with God being "personal". You properly argue for a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, all-powerful cause to the Universe, but this cause can still be a non-conscious one, based on your current argumentation. That's not to say I don't believe in God, I do. And I have my own argument I'm developing, which I don't really want to give away. But I'll give you a hint:
>What is logic?
If you think on this question in this context for long enough, you will be able to prove a Conscious Cause to the universe

>>509914270
But like I said knowing is not causing so you still have free will, it's not a great example to try and argue against free will.

>>509914643
>it's not a great example to try and argue against free will.
I'm not arguing against free will. It's a thought experiment to explore how we think about free will

>>509914620
There is an answer given about the personal.
It must have eventually have decided to create all, as otherwise, if its just a result of the infinite likewise it would have no beginning. But since we observe a beginning of our universe, this universe isnt timeless, and thus must have been caused to exist by choice.

>Logic
>In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God and the logos was God
The all permeating patterns, geomatric/material but also immateral like the laws of physics, cause and effect, the things that create the order in this universe, the logic and reason in it.

>>509914981
>It must have eventually have decided to create all, as otherwise, if its just a result of the infinite likewise it would have no beginning. But since we observe a beginning of our universe, this universe isnt timeless, and thus must have been caused to exist by choice.
What if existence began to exist by necessity? That because existence exists by definition, it could not be in a state of non-existence. This would be more of a phenomenal explanation, with existence as the fundamental force behind reality, rather than a conscious one with God making a choice to create ex nihilo.

>>509906553 (OP)
Sign tapper's...

>>509906553 (OP)
I believe that free will is apart of determinism.

>>509916767
That determinism is so vague that would mean if i piss right i could shit into your mothers mouth.

>>509916976
I mean those needles would have different colours instead of colourless.

>>509906553 (OP)
Quantum mechanics are strictly probable and in no way deterministic, so our will is free. While our choices are limited by our narrow knoledge of the world, we're free to interpret all outside stimuli as we want.

>>509916976
That fable however has to wait until i ve restored my "narrating power" with some potions.

>>509916976
Why are you so angry at this? :/

>>509917334
I forgot two potions in my trusty backpack.

>>509917656
I m not angry i just think this is philsophically stupid. Unless you believe in an allmighty creator and then again that would be stupid too because he woiuldnt tell you and even if he would you wouldnt understand.

>>509906553 (OP)
>determinism
Determinism. Free will is basically 'we don't know yet' But all signs point to determinism. Even in the belief realm, it's deterministic.

>>509917819
It is some kind of over rationalization because he wants to murder them.

>>509907111
Checked, but what word should we use then?

>>509910448
sneed

>>509918222
The ultimate post that exemplifies compatibilism. The perfectly determined post numbers, combined with the defiant declaration of a /tv/ meme, in perfect synchronicity. Beautiful

>>509917819
>he doesn't know about compatibilism

>>509907204

Free willy was a good movie for the right demographic at the right time. There's an edge of doomernomics in your meme post. Your not special, your not profound, yet arrogant in the face of a chaos you fear.

Every scientific model relies on an abstract understanding that we come to understand as being a linear whole yet the very essence of the abstraction provide a warm understanding that it is ultimately a personal. The shape of neutrino or the movement of quarks. If there were no free will then the transferable granular would be more modular. You cannot even see what another is thinking about a subject matter.

One choice is not followed by another, a reductionist proclamation like this is ultimately childish and removed from the body narrative of the body narrative.

There is no God yet your determinism seems to be an abject desire for one.

You are afraid of a world that is fundamentally based in a vassal of chaos, the three body problem unfolds and falls into incomprehensibility within moments and Brownian motion edicts that this movement of matter happens on a molecular level constantly, indeterminately and infinitely.

Embrace the chaos, embrace the utter uncertainty on a macro and micro level. On a personal and global level. Know the unknowable as your friend and embrace the existential freedom that is our utter existence.

Don't sleep friend I give you permission to free yourself from allusions of contraction and nihilistic predictions.
Don't sleep friend and understand that even the illusions of a deterministic card game are dealt in a way that we have no idea how our hand is dealt or how we are going to play it.

>>509907258
“Free will” or an ability to choose is a natural outcome of having more knowledge about the world. It has the ability to grow and take on a wider sphere of influence