Thread 16808809

I know free will exists because I choose not to be like any of the faggots who deny it.

>>16808809 (OP)
Free will is the admission price to western law. People who think they're too clever to accept it should be lobotomized and chemically castrated and/ or deported to the interior of Africa.

>>16808822
free will is meaningless if you arent free from jiggaboos

but it was already predestined that you would make this faggot ass thread, just how it is for me owning you rn checkmate

I always wonder what the materialist idiots think is going on when you walk down the bakery section at Kroger and you remember if you walked up the stairs enough to justify buying a box of cookies.

How is this weekly interaction not proof that we have free will?

If the universe is deterministic you can't control anything and thus don't have free will
If the universe is random you can't control the randomness and thus don't have free will
No amount of seething and coping will change this

>>16808940
The universe is deterministic in that it follows our collective will, it appears random because we don't have the willpower to steer everythin.

>>16808809 (OP)
I choose neither

>>16808936
What even is this argument?
A combination of past experiences, present environment, and physical wiring or your brain led you to make the "choice" to do whatever.

>enter bakery
>stimulus of being there triggers series of logic gates in brain
>eventually hits a point where brain checks how much stepping was done in recent memory
>if "steps estimate" is "high" then buy cookies.

This leads to a whole argument about what "free will" even is and since it's a poorly defined concept these free will arguments are pretty much pointless.

>>16808940
pseud

>>16808981
Enlighten us.

>>16808961
That's exactly why I framed it as that. I think you've either never had a self argument or are just genuinely stupid enough to not understand it.

I bet you know a lot more facts than me.

>>16809059
I just don't think you've taken the time to think over the anti-free-will argument and what is actually being claimed.
Nothing in your post is even suggestive of free will. It's an example of a stimulus triggering logic gates which is exactly what "materialist idiots" think is happening.

I added the ambiguity of free will as a concept as an aside. Nothing about the way you "framed it" supports that. Indeed, you claimed your example as "proof that we have free will."

How do you know it was a choice you made?

>>16808940
Have you heard of voluntary and involuntary muscles?

>>16808940
>>16808941
the universe is probabilistic, and so are we

determinism exists only in the minds of the low functioning autistic

>>16809070
And I think you are stupid. But this was determined.

>>16808809 (OP)
>steps in your way
Btw, free will is just a posteriori cope to make your life make enough sense to not kys.

>>16809083
>all of my failures were predestined

You would have been utterly despise by Socrates.

>>16809083
Much more likely that determinism is a posteriori cope to absolve your life of failed decisions. (This is actually a healthy coping mechanism to continually reboot your life if you fail a lot.)

>>16809085
Didnt say anything about determinism, did I? "Free will" needs several limitations and presuppostions to even work philosophically, turning the actual question more into
>is there kinda free will or no free will at all?
because a free "free will" is nothing more than a fantasy.

>>16809087
If "my imagination can make unicorns" is your idea of free will you are correct.

>>16809099
>>16809087
Imagine your idea of not God is predicating you argue this with me. What a shitty predisposed universe.

>>16809087
What are your insights into a free "free 'free will'"?

>>16809099
Try willing another thing when you will something and there's no reason not to will it.
If will is completely free, independent even, why is every and any will based on a) reality as a human, b) your individual reality as a human and c) not completely random. If will were free, it would the hell not be influenced by peculiarities like reality or your location/physical state, wouldn't it?

>>16809104
I'll make you want to put my balls into your mouth and fondle them with your tongue because you'll have no other choice.

>>16809107
I cosign your philosophical description of determinism as a homosexual rape fantasy.

>>16808809 (OP)
So why don't you freely will yourself to kill yourself?

You not being like any of the faggots that deny it was predictable right from the big bang thoughbeit.

>>16809118
>I know all about the big bang
This post is more evidence that determinists are people whose brain development stopped shortly after reading a children's book about the universe.

>>16808809 (OP)
i know that i deny humans specifically have free will.
now get your ass to work and pay your taxes.

as always I am the only person who has anything insightful to bring to the conversation and as always what I bring will filter 99% of you

>>16809141
>wallpaper of teal deer
>conversation
filtered

>>16808809 (OP)
No, if free will were real you could choose from some infinite set of options besides just being limited to denying it, confirming it, nonsensically redefining it or claiming ignorance.

>>16808822
No, western law gives willpower and personhood to collections of paperwork, are you saying legal contracts of incorporation have free will?

>>16809099
Your imagination didn't make unicorns, the concept of unicorns was imagined hundreds if not thousands of years before you were born, you just learned about them at some point.

>>16808809 (OP)
you're just following your brain's strongest impulse

>>16808809 (OP)
Determinists are retards that don't actually know what will means. Even if you were to reduce decision making to pure chemical reactions, that does not negate a person having agency over their own choices.
Are you making decisions yourself or is another agent? You make your own choices, therefore you have free will even if you are influenced by biology or society.
Also, to say you don't believe in free will presupposes a self with a mind, a mind which can know things and make decisions, therefore the proposition of "I don't believe in free will" is self defeating and an absurdity.

>>16809436
>Even if you were to reduce decision making to pure chemical reactions
That's not what's being done. The working of the brain is reduced to pure chemical reactions. You are overlaying the terminology of "decision making" on that without any basis.
>, to say you don't believe in free will presupposes a self with a mind
No, it doesn't.

>>16809437
>That's not what's being done. The working of the brain is reduced to pure chemical reactions. You are overlaying the terminology of "decision making" on that without any basis.
I'm saying even if that was the case, which hasn't been demonstrated at all, that does not negate the agency of the person.
>No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. Do propositions and knowledge require a mind? If they do, then that assumes a mind and an agent or subject with it.
If you accidentally find out the truth, that isn't justified true belief therefore you can't give an account for the proposition of "people have no free will".
If you do think people can have justified true belief for determinism, then you have the absurd position of somehow having a mind that can know determinism while also being incapable of knowing determinism due to human consciousness being an illusion, which is a contradiction.
If determinism is true, then knowledge is illusory and not even possible to truly have.

>>16808940
No amount of seething and coping will change that both you and OP are gay and retarded.
kill yourself. (note if you don't kill yourself after I proclaimed it, then you have freewill and you are wrong, so the only way to prove ME wrong is to kill yourself as you suck on a dick.)

>>16809439
>that does not negate the agency of the person.
That depends on whether it is possible to overlay the terminology of "decision making" on the mechanistic description based on chemical reaction. If it's not possible to do that, then the notion of agency will be negated.
>Do propositions and knowledge require a mind?
Most words in this question are not well-defined. You can't deduce any robust conclusions by using such vague and ill-defined terms.

>>16809441
If you have free will, kill yourself. If you don't kill yourself, that proves you're incapable of making that decision and so you have no free will.

>Ask ChatGPT something
>Get a reply
>Somebody else on the internet asks it the same, using the exact same prompt
>He gets a response similar to mine, but not exactly the same.
Doesn't that prove that free will exists? LLMs work by multiplying your prompt with its internal parameters and generating a response based on that.
If free will didn't exist, ChatGPT would always reply the same words when it gets the same prompt, because its parameters are fixed, and the multiplications always result in the same numbers.
And yet LLMs don't always give the same reply, which means they have free will to choose which words to use, a free will that can't be explained by science, because science is determinist and LLMs are non determinist

>>16809442
>That depends on whether it is possible to overlay the terminology of "decision making" on the mechanistic description based on chemical reaction. If it's not possible to do that, then the notion of agency will be negated.
Yet you haven't demonstrated this at all, you instead presuppose this to be the case without any justification.
>Most words in this question are not well-defined. You can't deduce any robust conclusions by using such vague and ill-defined terms.
Justified true belief is an ill defined term? Take an epistemology class dude.

>>16809445
>Yet you haven't demonstrated this at all
Which part do you want me to demonstrate?
>Justified true belief is an ill defined term?
Absolutely. Since you mentioned the term epistemology, I assume you are philosophically trained, so I have to tell you - there's a reason no one in the sciences uses terms like "justified true belief" in their work - it's because they're not well-defined and don't lead to robust conclusions.

>>16809443
>REEEEEE
>NO U!!!!!
fuck you nigger, you don't get to uno reverse ME.
I'm out side of you retarded universe, I do as I wish, you little retarded nigger!

Anyways, I was first so YOU have to kill yourself, if you don't I win!

>>16809447
Why would I engage with someone that thinks Justified True Belief is an ill defined term when it is literally clear cut on what it exactly means.
So you don't think science requires justification? If it doesn't, then science is irrational and pointing to a stack of evidence means nothing if it doesn't lead to actually knowing truth.
Yeah if scientists actually took a basic epistemology class, maybe they would conduct actual science with results instead of chasing whatever the current zeitgeist is and having a reproducibility crisis.

>>16809455
Yes, science certainly requires no post hoc "justification", especially from philosophers who still haven't learned anything in over two millennia.
>reproducibility crisis
This "crisis" is only in psychology which is a very primitive science.

>>16809451
Maybe you should use your free will to stop being so angry all the time?

>>16809436
Explain how non-determinism leads to free will

>>16808940
This is logically undeniable but it's a bad definition of free will. If you're not in charge of your actions, who is?

It's your own programming (personality) that determines how you behave. You literally wouldn't be you if you acted differently. The fact that it's predetermined doesn't change your ability to learn and improve and act differently in the future, the only difference is that you were always going to make the choices you made based on the information you had.

You're not a slave, which is what freaks people out when they think about "not having free will". Mercifully, based on our current knowledge, it also does NOT seem like even a hypothetical fantasy super computer could predict what you're going to do with perfect precision, because the universe appears to be fundamentally randomistic.

>>16808940
How does does knowledge and predictive power negate free will? I know if I ask my brother for pizza that he will always want the same toppings no matter what, how does me having knowledge of this mean he did not choose these things?
Knowledge and will in some sense aren't even the same category of things other than they both require a mind. If free will is negated by predictions, does free will all of a sudden become subjective and in flux depending on how good other people can predict, so person A for example makes accurate prediction so you have less will but person B can't make predictions so all of a sudden now you have more free will? Are we even talking about a persons ability to make their own choices or how knowledgeable other people are?

The issue of free will dissolves once "you" realize that there's nobody there to have free will in the first place

>>16809531
Okay, buddhist, go reincarnate into a worm somewhere else.

>>16808940
Determinism vs randomness has nothing to do with free will

>>16808809 (OP)
Imagine ever watching this dorks channel. I got a 99 asvab 148 gt. And I loved the vast majority of my time in as a combat engineer. But who is this nigger fooling? He wasn't intelligence.

>>16810047
Because there is no free will either way despite some people trying to use one or the other as a justification despite both paradigms disproving free will.

>>16809411
Assign probabilities to each of the finite pure options.
The set of probabilities of pure options is an infinite set.
Aside: existence of Nash Equilibrium relies on this.

>>16809436
It's worse than that..the proposition that the universe "obeys" certain laws is also self-defeating because the idea of a "law" requires a judgement by a "observer" to determine the "what" is followed according to predictive equations but since there is no "observer" there's no objective framework for determining that any "law of nature" could be known to exist or followed. The act of observing requires making a free choice of "comparing" some set of observation freely otherwise you have no basis for saying ANYTHING happen according to ANY measurable factors since some other set of factor could be used in a way to always and everywhere negate any observable conclusion hence nothing could be known because without "free will" one cannot choose any framework to "objectively" measure any observation against any other observation and thereby create a model for prediction. The rejection of "free will" requires a rejection of the notion of "probability" itself since there is no "you" or observer to decide what set of variables is chosen in the first place so NOTHING is probable and NOTHING is deterministic because there is NO ONE to determine what determining actually is. Everything is Null including any math model for any conclusion about anything. Knowledge is a choice and without knowledge all you have is ignorance and if one is ignorant then NOTHING is deterministic.

>>16808981
Agreed
He can’t even be coherent when saying axiomatic bullshit

>>16809083
>b-b-but muh Libet
A funny thing about biobots who invoke this pseudoscience is that they can never explain what this is supposed to prove.

>>16809417
Dumb bot. I'm saying if you're a person, the law paints you with free will unless you successfully claim you're insane. Determinist or insane, but I repeat myself, your reward will be lobotomy and castration.

>>16812311
>i have free will because (((they law))) said so
Surreal stuff going on here with these dumb biobots.

>>16812317
>biobots
Indian detected

>>16812317
It sure was nice of the government to legalize us some free will, so that we could pay our taxes willingly and even choose between the red and blue sockpuppet. :^)

>>16812336
It's amazing how much /sci/ discourse is just overstayed summerfags pretending to not understand simple sentences.

>>16812349
What part of my post confuses you so much?

>>16812352
It doesn't. And my bet is that no part of mine confused you, either—you just pretended it did.

>>16812361
>my bet is that no part of mine confused you
If I read >>16808822 as the noncognitive statement that it is, there is nothing confusing about it. If I pretend for a second you were trying to establish something about free will itself, it stops making any sense and looks like an appeal to authority.

>>16812369
It's the admission price to western civilization. Otherwise you're insane and we can remove your balls and part of your brain.

You can choose to do good or evil things. I choose to do good, problem solved. You have lost the argument and I am leaving the thread, that's also my free will.

>>16812374
>repeats his noncognitive statement
Just say what you mean:
>you can't enter my secret club without espousing my opinion!
Or if you're incapable of such basic honest, you can say:
>my belief reflects the philosophy behind our legal system, which underpins our social order
That philosophy being, of course, that if this system pushes some people over the edge, only they themselves are to blame, and everyone else shall clap like trained seal at the spectacle of their ritual punishment. There's really no reason to go full retard and talk as if hordes of goyslop-churning, jewish-media-consooming, election-participating, rule-following, wage-slaving white trash has gained admission to this secret club by virtue of some superior quality.

>>16812374
>repeats his noncognitive statement
Just say what you mean:
>you can't enter my secret club without espousing my opinion!
Or if you're incapable of such basic honesty, you can say:
>my belief reflects the philosophy behind our legal system, which underpins our social order
That philosophy being, of course, that if this system pushes some people over the edge, only they themselves are to blame. Everyone else shall clap like trained seals at the spectacle of their ritual punishment. There's really no reason to go full retard and talk like your hordes of goyslop-churning, jewish-media-consooming, election-participating, rule-following, wage-slaving white trash has gained admission to this secret club by virtue of some superior quality.

>>16812406
Notice how you can't disagree with what I wrote without rewording it into some new, crazy slop that has nothing to do with what I wrote. Determinism is a luxury belief: it only works up to the point where you intersect with reality. Whether you like it or not, whether it's logical or not, you live and die by the grace and enforcement of free will. Unless you live in Somalia, maybe.

>>16812421
Right. Well, I'm sorry for assuming that your vacuous shart had any meaning at all. Maybe in your next post, you can explain concretely what it means that "free will" is an "admission price" to "Western law".

>>16812427
It's amazing how much /sci/ discourse is just overstayed summerfags pretending to not understand simple sentences.

>>16812429
Yeah, I figured that was the fastest way to reach the end of your dialogue tree. 100% success rate with your horde.

The last time someone exercised free will in the shartmerica, Charlie Kirk got owned. That's the kind of stuff you see a lot in Somalia. Somalis have more free will than Americans.

>>16812431
Correct. Pretending not to understand a simple sentence and/or rewording it into hysterical nonsense in order to make a retarded point you couldn't otherwise make are both nonstarters for dialogue. Congrats on your monologue, tho.

>>16812435
You can't actually explain what you meant because you didn't mean anything. You didn't choose those words.

>>16812439
Tell me where in the course of the sentence you get lost. Are you stuck on "Free will" or do you get past that?

>>16812442
Notice how you're forced to loop over the the last entry in your preprogrammed dialogue tree. You also lack the "free will" to stop replying, so you'll address me again, even though I'm now exercising my superior agency to close this 80 IQ thread.

>>16812454
>Punch bug no return
Clever monkey you are.

>>16812406
>That philosophy being, of course, that if this system pushes some people over the edge, only they themselves are to blame. Everyone else shall clap like trained seals at the spectacle of their ritual punishment.
no shit, it's literally a construct from a slave religion trying to explain why disobeying sky daddy wins you eternal punishment

>>16808940
Sure, you are right: no amount of seething and coping will change this. But, what you don't understand is that reality is subjective, so the illusion of free will is enough to satisfy the ego. If you disagree, then I will use my illusion of free will to tell you to fuck off.

>>16808940
>if my made up categories describe reality (even though they self-evidently don't) then my opinion is correct

>>16812543
See >>16812549. What kind of coping and seething does it take to make a dichotomy between two made up things into objective reality?
> reality is subjective
Oh.

>>16812554
Bro, reality is subjective. But, that doesn’t mean it's random. Reality is subjective because reality is constructed by the subconscious via deciphering of sensory data into recognisable phenomena. Actuality exists, and reality is a snippet of that, because knowledge is limited by our senses (for example, try to imagine a new colour.)

>>16812560
>Reality is subjective
Ok, I just... don't really care what anyone who believes this has to say. But the point still stands that the logical counterpart to determinism is non-determinism, not "randomness". Equating the two is just this meatbot's head canon.

>>16812562
Balderdash. Eat shit, faggot.

>>16812564
I realize you're mentally ill, but the logical counterpart to "X" is "not X". No amount of coping, seething and claiming that reality is subjective helps you here.

>>16812566
Reality is subjective, though. Literally by definition. You're not man of science. Just a LARPing cunt.

>>16812574
>reality is subjective literally by my subjective definition
End your own life tonight.

>>16812578
You're like a software update—nobody really wants you, but I guess we have to deal with you.

>nobody heckin' wants you
>i state this authoritatively because reality is subjective and i don't heckin' want you to hurt me again

>>16812595
You're a composite number—two different prime factors, but still not interesting.

>>16812595
>Indian reply syntax

>>16812463
No, its a platonic thing that predates the bible.

>>16812427
>Maybe in your next post, you can explain concretely what it means that "free will" is an "admission price" to "Western law".
Anon already did that >>16812374
What do you think the otherwise sentence was all about, do you think your brain is just an abstraction instead of a concrete bodily organ?

>>16812560
>Reality is subjective because sensory data is objective.
Makes total sense if you don't ever once think critically about it.

>>16812554
You kind of missed the point that the dichotomy doesn't really matter since the outcome is exactly the same either way.

>>16812562
So randomness is a type of determinism since it is not related to non-determinism?

>>16812566
Ok, and randomness is not deterministic, "deterministic" is the opposite of randomness precisely because randomness is "not deterministic".

>>16812578
But you are the one peddling in paradoxes since if life is subjective that means anon's subjective experience that life is objective MUST be correct since that is his subjective experience and you have no claims to objectivism of your own to counterclaim anon since you rejected objectivism in favor of subjectivism which explicitly proves you wrong about subjectivism because reality MUST be objective to satisfy anon's subjective experience.

>>16812585
But you are the one peddling in paradoxes since if reality is subjective that means anon's subjective experience that life is objective MUST be correct since that is his subjective experience and you have no claims to objectivism of your own to counterclaim anon since you rejected objectivism in favor of subjectivism which explicitly proves you wrong about subjectivism because reality MUST be objective to satisfy anon's subjective experience.

metaphysically every elite and university PhD grad at an ivy league or top uni knows free will doesnt exist

its also a well established thing in philosophy >>16815815
everything that happens in the universe is random as we perceive not random to god or whatever higher power exists

if it were random we wouldnt have BS model in finance or able to derive the god equation in physics


in quant finance theres a version like the BS theyre working on in quant funds to determine the future price of PA like BS instead of options its live price so its quite scary that math and physics describe reality quite well

>>16808940
>If the universe is deterministic you can't control anything and thus don't have free will
>If the universe is random you can't control the randomness and thus don't have free will
>No amount of seething and coping will change this

This is 100% correct. However there is still a way to sneak in free will in the latter case, namely the soul, with the following conjecture

Each soul resides in its own / is its own isolated universe where it has total control. Just like dark matter/energy it is invisible, undetectable, exotic, but with measurable effects namely:

1. A soul can observe the normal universe through its associated mind and body by copying information into its universe.

2. The soul may act upon what it observes, freely and willingly, and then output this act as replacing one or more random outcomes in the normal universe in its associated mind.

This is essentially equivalent to non-local hidden parameters, which is unfalsifiable (just like dark matter).

>>16816123
No. pretending you have free will in your own personal imaginationland isn't the same as sneaking free will into a reality where it is impossible, even in your scenario, the soul has not agency over what it observes and it can never do otherwise, it is still bound by external cause and space/time constraints.

>>16809083
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the experiments, but didn't it show that there is something subconsciously happening that you're not in control of that you're only option is to whether or not follow through with that decision made by your subconscious thereby there is still the ability to actively choose before you actually do?

free will is connected to having a soul

but that might be too /x/citing for you /sci/ggers to understand

>>16816963
you dont need agency over what you observe wtf you just need agency over what you will
fucking cope

>>16820448
No, if your will is determined in full or in part by observations you can't control, then it is not free, its still bound by your observations.