Haha you don't have free will

Even one's decision to starve oneself for a perceived 'greater good' is the brain's expression of seeking out better conditions and long-term improvements for the human species. It is possible to kill oneself if one wishes to alleviate suffering. It is possible to sacrifice oneself it the brain perceives it as a short-term loss in exchange for a long-term gain. A wild animal might eat its children in order to survive, not because it wishes to kill its children, but because it is programmed to require nourishment.

Truly, you must have the mental capacity of a three-year old, free-will or not.

There's no way to tell if there's free will or not from the inside perspective you idiot! Your statement is meaningless and void. Just as there's no way to tell if you are moving or not, because your reference frame makes it so that only relative motion is detectable. For example, you are moving, because the Earth is spinning and rotating, but since you are moving with the ground you can not notice. There is no way of proving that we aren't all in a Newtonian reference frame accelerating at a constant velocity. How about you read a book and try to understand it next time?

Whether or not we have free will, you just made a stupid statement, either because you were destined to, or because you really are stupid, sir. You are so stupid it makes me nauseous.

*walks away swiftly while maintaining eye contact superiority*

Rape some kids, murder some old people, steal from everyone and when I get caught say "DUDE free will don't exist lmao! I didn't have any choice in the matter lol"

>It is essentially impossible to starve yourself to death

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana

Why the fuck would anyone do anything for the "greater good"? Sounds like a lot of new atheist as hoc nonsense.

I can decide to go on a frenzy. Or I can just straight up kill myself

We are programmed to perceive things in terms of long-term benefits to the species. Yes, our intelligence is capable of recognizing benefits that exist beyond our individual existences.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallekhana

What's your point? Suicide is possible. Malnourshing yourself through a long-term weaning process is a little different than laying on the ground and waiting to die of starvation, which is what I was addressing.

I never denied that. Suicide is demonstrably possible. But starvation by laying down and waiting for death is *essentially* impossible.

If you don't believe me, try it for just one week. ONE WEEK.

I believe in free will because if I'm wrong I was never capable of believing otherwise.

Will you idiots shut up and read this post. All of this shit is coming straight from your asses. You can't prove anything like this so easily. It's not a science, it's a non-provable pondering, you fucking fools. Are you literally 13 years old?

>We are programmed to perceive things in the long term benefit of the species.
How? If anything it points to the notion that we are selfish. If you had to kill you son or 2 other children from across the globe which would you do?

interesting point of view

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill

If our brain believes that the two lives from across the globe provide a greater benefit, and can only provide said benefit if our own son is killed, than most people will end up doing it. But that is such an implausible stretch that it's not likely.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself what comes first...

a thought in your head, or the decision to have a thought in your head.

This my nigguh right here

>Free will doesn't exist if I define it as something not existing
truly the greatest intellectual of our times

>you're five nodes away from free will

I somehow don't believe you. Are there any studies that have been done? Does this phenomenon have a name?

The basic idea is that traits which facilitate the passage of genes are necessarily those traits which continue to exists. The traits which are NOT conducive to passing on genes must eventually disappear (with some strange exceptions).

So, since our brains evolved under a series of millions of "tests" through which it not only survived, but thrived, and became the most developed such organ on the planet, the brain is therefore disposed to seek out those behaviours which continue the passage of genes. Suicide is an obvious exception, right? Well, in order to commit suicide with a gun or a noose, one must only temporarily overcome the built-in instincts the brain has to prevent its own death.

But to commit suicide through starvation, short of quickly and knowingly creating the conditions which make starvation inevitable (such as handcuffing oneself to a post and kicking the keys out of reach), one must stridently fight all of his (brain's) instincts for a much longer period of time, and in the face of the brain instituting its last-ditch emergency efforts towards survival, and he must do so for between seven and twenty days because that is how long it takes to die of starvation.

never forget when theological Mr. Rogers schooled Ben Stiller
youtube.com/watch?v=cDQzijl6El4

Free will the way it is commonly understood doesn't exist. I nod and smile to show that I agree, then beat the shit out of him for being Sam Harris.

Yeah, I get that we're hardwired to survive, but I don't buy that I would get up and walk in search of food. Especially not if I would also be dehydrated since I would only be lying down.

I think you'd be surprised. It's kind of like an addict is sad and in pain and absolutely determined to quit his habit. Something in his brain is pushing and pushing him to get closer to another hit. Well, stronger than any drug is the brain's desire for physical nourishment. If you laid down, the first step wouldn't be "I can't do this, I need to get up." The brain's first strategy would be to send a message saying, "This is stupid and pointless. I can do it another time. For now, I'll just grab a bite to eat."

If that effort fails to get your muscles to conspire to move towards an action that facilitates the acquisition of nourishment, the brain will up its game.

At no point in this exercise will there be some thought or action that comes from anywhere except your brain, which desires primarily to survive.

>Most people will end up doing it.
Any citation for that?

>A thought in your head or a decision.
I don't consciously choose to have thoughts of naked women come into my head when I drive, and yet I can consciously conjure the thought now if I choose to.

Well it depends on how you define free will, while yes it is most likely that what you think is defined by your brain chemistry but it's not liked you're being forced to choose something you don't want to do.

You make your choices, just because they are predetermined doesn't mean you aren't choosing them.

I've never seen such a meaningless discussion before.
read these:

i don't care, as a human bein it's in my nature to believe i have free will, so i have it.

Most people don't pointlessly murder their children. Most people protect and nurture their children.

>I don't consciously choose to have thoughts of naked women come into my head when I drive, and yet I can consciously conjure the thought now if I choose to.

How do you "choose" to conjure a thought in your head? Before you can conjure the thought, there must first be a thought "hey, I want to think about a naked women." And, if free will does exist, there must first be the thought, "hey, I want to think about choosing to think about naked women." And before that, "hey, I want to think about desiring to choose to desire to think about naked women."

In other words, it's an infinite regress without any voluntary source. Your brain spits out the desire to think of naked women as a response of the almost infinite external sensory inputs.

>We are programmed to perceive things in terms of long-term benefits to the species
t. no evolutionary scientist ever

Punch him in the face. Keep punching him the face until he asks me to stop.

Rinse and repeat until he stops saying stupid, self-destructive things.

>we are programmed
we aren't programmed

I hold his hand against a hot stove.

>We are programmed to perceive things in terms of long-term benefits to the species
this is what brainlets actually think constitutes evolutionary biology

If there is an infinite regress then there would never be the thought in the first place. It would never reach the conclusion because an infinite time would have to pass to reach that conclusion.

So what would be the start user? It can't be infinite.

>Being this retarded

He's going to get awful cut by all that edge you have

Do read into my statement a suggestion of intent, because that is only a limitation of the grammar.

We have been programmed by the surroundings in which we've evolved; programmed by the environments which have shaped out brains' interpretation of what is "good" (nourishing, conducive to life and survival) and what is "bad" (harmful, deadly, etc.).

this is bait

>doesn't believe in free will
>is a conservative
Is Sack Harry the most pandering hack """""philosopher""""" of our time?

>[H]ow do you respond?

"I'm a compatibilist" And walk away.

Butterfly! Hello how are you.

*Don't*

How so?

Seriously. Any individual can prove me wrong by laying down and attempting to not eat for one week. Just ONE week. Do it, bitch. See what happens.

>This is your mind on Reddit and pop-philosophy.

lmao one week is nothing, this holy man from india hasn't eaten for 70 years and he's still alive

checkmate

see

One week.

>What is antinatalism?

Pretty good considering.

freedom means lack of constraint. Your will is constrained by incalculable amount of things. It does make a difference.

Is this his actual argument?

What's your point? We've already conceded that suicide is possible and some mothers murder their offspring.

Is antinatalism was a general evolutionary trait, humanity would never have flourished. It's an anomaly with some genuine philosophical backing. But an anomaly nonetheless.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Mihavecz

That doesn't mean there isn't free will, that is just a situation, of course, it's a primal situation, but free will does exist.

>Freedom means lack of constraint
>This black and white of logic
LOL

what is your will free of?

>Humanity would never have flourished.
Vague buzzwords mean jack shit. Flourishing is a subjective term that you of your own free will has chosen to define in X way.

Essentially yes.

Provide me evidence or even a coherent explanation of how it does. What happens first, your desire to hold a thought, or the thought that prompts the desire to hold a thought?

An extremely rare case of someone surviving a long period without food. Completely unrelated to the point. He was locked in a prison. Not voluntarily laying in the street outside a bakery.

And yet you have failed to provide a single shred of contrary evidence. Criticize your idea of buzzwords, criticize my use of the word "flourish". Easy, no problem. But demonstrate for me in any coherent and meaningful way that your will precedes every thought that occurs in your head, and you completely fail.

Glad to hear it.

>What is a hunger strike?

>flourishing is a subjective term that you of your own free will has chosen to define in X way

Yes, I am the one who defined the word "flourished." What a fatuous remark you just made, comparable to: "Well, that's just your opinion."

>this anomalous behaviour disproves the behaviour of billions upon billions of humans throughout history.

I said before, one requires a short-term suspension of their instincts to create a situation in which they are unable to acquire nourishment. People whose brains actually functioned in a way that made nourishment undesirable long enough to die of starvation, in a situation where nourishment could be had, are extremely rare.

>this nigga never gone back to africa
>never lived on the streets
>never been to slums, ghettos, or shanty-towns
>this little niggy sittin back in his house made of gold-plated shit-bricks and talk like he know somethin to the people outside

TL;DR You lack life experience or you're not well-travelled; likely both.

yeah you're right but only teenagers actually care about those sorts of questions. good job retard.

You didn't define it user. Your brain did it for you =)

what is your will free of? You never choose your genes, brains or environment and everything you've ever experienced were the result of these things. Everything from the breakfast you ate this morning to your alertness, irritability, tempature etc. determines how you happen to behave in different situations. The more you look the less there's room for any sort of freedom.

Nice drive-by comeback.

>no contrary evidence
>no acknowledgement of the brain's power over human action
>no recognition of the relationship between ability to acquire nourishment, and likelihood of survival amongst all species.

How does once simply suspend their instincts? Why the hell would the brain choose to voluntarily hurt itself. If you had no free will then it wouldn't occur in the first place.

>the brain's power over human action
what the fuck

Correct. And not just my brain, but the collective interpretation of most of the brains in our early existence, compounding more and more information together to recognize the utility of language.

What is flourish to you user?

Why are you saying "my brain", if you are just your brain then you would be saying "me"

If the brain has a coherent morality - morality being a system of principles that are "good" for humanity and the world at large - it may de-prioritize one's individual life if there is evidence that a demonstration of said morality might compel others to follow said morality, thus bringing about an overall benefit to humanity and the world at large.

But the temporary suspension I was talking about before what the brief leap one must make to secure the handcuffs around the post and kick away the kick. After that, all the neurological will in the world will not provide nourishment without outside assistance from another willing party.

In this context, to flourish means that you, your community, and your species survives and live *relatively* well for a sustained period of time.

Because there is a gap between "me" and my self-perception, and the chemical reactions occurring organically in my brain that truly determine my actions and responses.

>Good for the world at large.
And how do you define that it's good? If you grew up in Nazi Germany would you have objected to the death of the Jews?

this basically.

>you can't choose to think of choosing something before you chose it
>therefore free will is an illusion, buy my books please

>haha you have free will but you think you don't

That definition of flourish is shit user. What if the community contradicts with you the individual? What if the species goes against the community? Which one is ultimately the most important?

No matter which one you choose it means you can shit over the other two to add to the one you don't.

This actually demonstrates my point perfectly. The people had been convinced that "the Jews" represented a genuine threat to the well-being and survival of their race and their society. That is how horrific actions seems justifiable, or, at the very least, tolerable.

The one that facilitates the passing on of the genes. If there is a gene which drives a person to suicide as early as possible, the individuals holding that gene are much less likely to procreate and pass on the gene. Therefore, suicidal genes are a relatively small proportion of genes in existence.

That does not, however, preclude the potential for the brain to respond to external threats with suicide.

But if you concede to that point then ultimately morality is non existent. If I was convinced by my friend that you were a threat to the survival and of my race and society then killing you would be good.

Which is what ultimately? Me, community, or society? No matter which one you pick that gives you the right to shit on the other two at will.

How can you live in a society that is built around the concept of free will in its legal system? Grow some balls and live by your words.

Dunno

Not really. Because our justice system, in general, reflects a nuanced sense of morality. We don't, like the 10 commandments, declare that killing is wrong. because we generally don't imprison people for killing accidentally or killing in self-defense. Similarly, we have measures to collectively assess if someone was being fair, honest, and rational when they respond criminally as if threatened. We have "fit to stand trial" determinations and "temporary insanity" pleas because we acknowledge that, at times, we are not in total control of our actions.

And yet, at the other end of the spectrum, we have stricter punishments for things deemed to have been considered and preconceived, such as fraud, first-degree murder, war crimes, etc.

There is no black and white answer because the brain is a complex organ. It receives billions of input and computes them into a limited number of outputs based on an unfathomable amount of prior and current information.

Sophistry everyone

Yet another response without any contrary evidence.

To add to this: if there were free will, it would not ever be frightening or sickening to perform the act of suicide. It would not be difficult to stare oneself to death because, after all, if it is one's will, what possible impediment could exist?

duh

*starve*

You just showed that the body is reading and wanting to get energy but ultimately the person could still sit down and not get any. If he had no free will he would compulsively get up and get a sandwich, but just because his body reacts doesn't mean his mind reacts.

Kill myself in front of him.