Free will thread

1- Godel already said it better.
2- If you have a case for the definition of free will that requieres it to not be affected by the laws of nature for it to not be supernatural, be my guest.

The illusion would be the idea of free will as independent of the laws of nature, which is how we usually operate, even sometimes in science (see superdeterminism). Free will as the set of processes in our brain involved in decision making, which has various degrees of freedom (even if the ourcome is determined), is not.

>Gödel published his two incompleteness theorems in 1931
>Being and Time (German: Sein und Zeit) is a 1927 book by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger

>2- If you have a case for the definition of free will that requieres it to not be affected by the laws of nature for it to not be supernatural, be my guest.

>The "laws of nature" only permit this regional ontology which is confirmed by its conformity to the "laws of nature" which only permit this regional ontology which ...

Shouldn't you be on Veeky Forums?

I am. You can be on two boards at the same time (or at least alternate between them regularly). There are these neat little things called tabs.

There's also a neat thing called reading up on your topic before starting sophomoric threads about it.

I have though. You have not satisfied 2.

Our will, if you deny the existence of a diety, is no different to that of a machine or computer program. No matter how complex and inefficient it may be, our thought process is ultimately a series of impulses and absence of impulses.
We're just as free as the machines we design.

Yes, I agree with that. Although we are peculiar in the sense that we are much more integrated, complex and self-aware. Not that that makes a difference for the point made.

If you don't understand why scientificity is not self-evident or self-revelatory after about a century of everyone in both philosophy and science agreeing on it, and if you aren't aware that attempts at scientific naturalist or materialist metaphilosophies are about as vogue as hoola hoops, there's not much I can tell you. Provide a foundation for your natural vs. supernatural division that itself does not require further foundation to undergird it, and so on in an infinite regress.

You want to play lifeless ontical word games with a regional ontology whose axioms you define based on an ungrounded materialism, word games that have been played by shitty high school students and Reddit atheists for millennia. That's fine. Just don't delude yourself that your inquiry has any wider scope or that your premises haven't been fruitlessly explored to death in tens of thousands of bad books.

Instead of learning about where the interesting philosophy is currently being done, remember to post a lot of threads about it on the internet instead.

I am not a materialist though. I am an idealist, as you can see by my support of the mathematical universe theory and the integrated theory of consciousness, which implies panpsychism.

You're a dualist who hasn't taken the ontological turn either way, and your inquiries will only ever flounder as a result.

Nothing of what I said implies dualism. It would imply dual aspect monism at best.

Biological constructs acting like a lightning rod for a transcendental phenomena. If it can be given by a greater conscious entity/clockwork/hivemind, it can be created by accident, however unlikely. Of course, it would be a fallacy to go "wow what are the chances that we humans would have free will!" because we are only aware of it BECAUSE of consciousness, which is a prerequisite to free will.

Your dual aspect monism includes an awful lot of talk about "particles" behaving "deterministically" and "systematically," and an awful lot of derivative Dennett-tier compatibilism.

I invite you to embrace the shitty epiphenomenalist materialist monism you clearly want and stop disguising it in bogus weasel terms. Then you can jerk off over "scientific consensus" about quanta and rehash the same old antinomies about free will that people were already bored with in 1600 and stop shitting up the board with these pointless threads.

Like I said, if you're completely philosophically illiterate, go educate yourself before making Free Will Thread #90582942893. Enjoy your Reddit thread about Dan Dennett's latest TED talk.

You're arguing off the premise that free will can exist at all in this universe without some form of diety, which is untrue

Why do you get triggered by the use of the word particle? You even oaid attention to the part I said I support the MUH? A string or a point particle is a non material thing and it implies a mind According to the panpsychism (which is a consequence of the IIT).

How does the existence of a deity make free will possible?

It's only untrue if, strictly speaking, you consider anything that is transcendental (our "souls" in this case) to be a deity.

Which is fine with me if that's what you are arguing, just semantics at that point. But if you are trying to make some trad argument then I don't follow.

If consciousness is fundamental to reality within the IIT, would it also be transcendental?

Simply because a diety doesn't "follow the rules"
Logically free will is impossible, but since a diety doesn't necessarily have to follow the logic or laws of our universe it can grant us free will

Consciousness is inherently transcendental because it cannot exist within linear time without changing the definition.

>a deity doesn't follow the rules
not a great start to make a claim this bold when the opposite position is held by shit tons of religious scholars, saints, and philosophers
>logically free will is impossible
prove this, and remember that logic isn't the same as newtonian materialism and allows for the existence of nonlinear time (as does a great deal of theoretical physics and mathematics).

Don't bother doing the above because you can't, just consider this simple counter argument:
Your deity possesses a quality that allows it to "not follow the rules". What stops something else from accessing or accidentally possessing this quality? What about the quality makes it to where it can only be possessed by a deity?

The user you are arguing with is being rude, but he is also completely right.

You can draw arbitrary lines in reality and say "only the things inside this domain are the things we can easily study emperically!" but you can't then take that and extend it to "the things inside this domain are the only things that are real". And if any time anyone says something lies outside that domain you retort with, "no we can't define it like that because of my science" then you come across as caught in a circular ideology. It's called Scientism. It's incomplete.

I would reccomend the guy you are replying to (and any sam harris fan) to read a critique of pure reason.

I also asked for another definition with point 2 and he failed to provide it

That has no bearing on the flaws in your own argument. It's like the old elephant analogy. If three blind men feel an elephant and the one with the trunk says "it's a snake" and the one with the ballsack says "I've no idea" that doesn't make the snake person right. If anything, the ballsack dude is more right for not taking a premature and incorrect guess and closing the debate while excluding the data given unto us by the big fat elephant ballsack and all its sweaty elephant juices.

But proposing possibilities allows meaningful discussion. If everyone was like the ballsack dude, we could never keep probing and molesting the elephant.

Yeah, and the ballsack guy can describe things, like phenomenologically describing free will for example, or providing data about it based on rigorous introspection and metaphysics. This doesn't discount the trunk guy, who can do neurological tests on the plays of the brain that react when that phenomenological sense of autonomy is primed or not. But they both ultimately are part of the same elephant, and so it does nobody any favours to say "unless your description of the ballsack sounds trunkish, I'm not listening".

That STOPS discussion, and instead creates a circular echo chamber a la Dawkins, who by the way is sucking that elephant off like there's no tomorrow.

Not gonna read what you've written because it is most likely pseudophilosophical mumbo jumbo. Individuals have 'free will' but humanity as a whole does not, and it is ridiculous to talk about humans as 'in charge of their destiny' or to use some similar turn of phrase.

But they are, given the definition provided.

I agree that all of those are relevant, but not even that has been provided. People can disagree with my “scientism”, but why not contribute anyway and see how it interacts with the position offered initially?

Because your original position explicitly said that those other points are not what you consider free will, so the discussion instead turned to how stupid your definition is.

You're missing the point of the argument entirely.

Which other points? The supernatural? Why would it be a stupid definition just because it excludes the implied supernatural elements of other definitions?

As an absolute rule, it obviously is a giant leap, but if you have the choice between a natural and supernatural explanation, and have a wealth of natural explanations that were previously supernatural, it would seem more pragmatic to bet on new phenomena being natural

>The user you are arguing with is being rude, but he is also completely right.
He's completely autistic, and so are you. Neck yourself.

You seem to want to define free will without it representing a locus of control separate from biological and natural laws. This doesn't make sense to me, and instead of making an argument about why it is convincing your argument for that definition seems to be, "because it fits into my already established category of things I can easily study." I just don't find that acceptable rationale, especially from a supposedly scientific attitude.

This is a different argument entirely. And sure, you could have that hypothesis that we will eventually uncover natural correlates for every supernatural theory, but at most it's a working hypothesis and it doesn't WORK as such if it means you start excluding and dismissing data that doesn't support it.

Not an argument, you smelly butthurt fuckwad.

Not necesarily biological. The AND biological part is not required. Just natural laws is enough. And it is not because it fits into an already stablished category of things I can easily study, but rather because those things are the only things that we can scientifically study (the natural laws of the universe). Also exactly which data is being dismissed? I see none suggested in this thread.

Although it would be more precise to talk about free will in humans, at least for the definition given. I see no reason why no other substrate could have free will.

But I define free will as something that IS separate from the influence of natural laws (otherwise it is not free, but simply part of the naturally determined reactivity of objects). So by my definition, you could not study the thing in itself empirically.

But if you dismiss that definition, you dismiss information produced from (not my own) metaphysical philosophy that provides an idea of what free will would really mean, and also the reported lived experience of nearly everyone on a day to day basis. THAT is what your perspective dismisses, all of that information.