I just got BTFO'd by a Determinist, save me from this existential crisis, I'm in tatters. You're my only hope

there is no free will, but for other reasons than you think

you have to realize that thoughts and ideas are no different from sensory perceptions, they happen to you, they aren't you
if focus on the sounds surrounding you, then move on to the sensations in your body, then to field of vision, you can eventually move on to the very thoughts and as you observe them realize that they are no different
where do thoughts come from? can you decide what your next thought will be? what your next impulse, interest, emotion will be? of course not, those things just happen and you have little control over them
the truth is that there is no self, only consciousness, watching, just watching

enlightenment is to truly realize this and become a perfect mirror, forever reflecting itself infinitely
artist, philosopher, pleb, writer - all off these are just masks you wear, if you take them off perhaps other masks will come into place, but eventually who knows
you can reach a place where you see the great works of art, literature or human thought, and the very worst of humanity has to offer - all of those will become the same, just as thought is fundamentally no different to sensation (insofar as a consciousness experiences it)

You can deny free will while also pursuing goals to benefit yourself. I don't stab myself repetitively screaming "THIS IS DETERMINED THIS IS DETERMINED" because I have no desire to do so.

>punishing people for having braintumors

You have to be at least 18 to post on this board

determinism is comfy as fuck m8

not my fault i'm here on neetbux shitposting i cannae help it

Attached: me irl cute.jpg (800x800, 245K)

david, plz go

Were you in that /pol/ thread? I wanna know who I convinced

no

fuck off tom

Well, our power to make decisions works in tandem with predetermined circumstances. To say that our lives are completely determined, or to say that we have absolutely unbarred freedom seems like an immature sort of "either or" fallacy-esque creation of extremes; a narrow outlook on life. There may be certain instances in time where our power to chose is either freer, or more restricted in certain circumstances.

Now forgive me if I may sound like i'm spouting some social media level philosophy, but I imagine that our direction in life is like riding a wave. You have to abide to an extent by the laws of the wave, but you can still manage to make your own moves whilst cooperating with the water. If you want to ride the wave with a tame and compliant course of action, alright. But if you want to pull off some crazy and seemingly irrational stunts, then good luck.

Attached: 1507695653164.jpg (1016x1016, 454K)

that's essentially what i was arguing, will within constraints. obviously a double below-the-leg amputee can't wiggle their toes, but it doesn't mean they have to be confined to a wheelchair. idk bro's the fact that his argument was so disturbing makes me think he was right. i also think though that determinism operates on the idea that even the answers are not identifiable yet but will be, which sounds alot like the "you can't prove god isn't real therefore he can be" argument. Is determinism really just a clever way to absolve yourself of guilt and responsibility ?

Determinists lack good management skills, like most intellectuals. Because they can understand the higher reality, they refuse to part with it, even if it is more productive to do so in certain situations. It's like trying to use a hammer for every single job because you love hammers.

The subject is fundamentally unknowable, as seems to half realize, but he does not take this thought to its logical conclusion, namely, that since the definite content of the self (which I identify as an instantiation of the knowing subject) cannot be known, it is impossible to determine it along objective lines: for how can the actions of an entity that cannot be described completely according to physical laws be accounted for solely within the material content that these laws give form?

The idea that the self is an "illusion" is very much in line with materialist thinking, because materialists can give no coherent account of the self, other than that it is a mass of perceptions and pre-determined judgments. This is, of course, mere assumption, not something that anyone has proven along materialist lines with any certitude. Usually the arguments run like, "oh well your brain 'knows' what you think eight seconds before you consciously think it, this means all of your thoughts are predetermined." They pay no attention to the fact that freedom, as the faculty of spontaneous generation, aligns perfectly with this fact, for instance.

It's really distressing that there are people on this board right now who get outdone by determinists to the point that they are "in tatters."

Attached: metaphysics.jpg (476x290, 42K)

Attached: neet_chuh.jpg (474x528, 48K)

Determinism follows from causality, which we observe every day. We never experience something without a cause; when we don't know what the cause is, we don't suggest that there wasn't one. This is just consistent with what the universe displays all the time.
However, the only argument for free will is our own inuitive belief in it, because we feel as though we are making choices. But animals probably feel the same way, yet they don't have free will. Once you experience thoughts such as
"Was my action predestined? Is what I'm doing right now predestined?" your intuitive belief begins to vanish, and determinism makes even more sense. Causality is logical; free will is therefore illogical. Free will is only possible if we can self-cause, which is on the level of God. And no one has been able to explain exactly how we would do that.

P1 - No analysis of the concepts of being, substance, event, etc. yields the truth that the thing in question needs a cause.

C - Determinism is false.

Attached: 1400193335333.gif (500x470, 1015K)

A world with and without free will is identical for all intents and purposes because you still are doing what you what. Each desire you have is paired with an action you feel like you decided to do. So either way, it makes no difference.

Attached: euphoric3.png (320x263, 117K)

Determinism is incoherent since if all beliefs are determined, since if all beliefs are determined, we have no way of knowing whether the belief that all beliefs are determined is correct, and no way of explaining why one person believes in determinism while another does not. The only noncontradictory position is to believe that we freely believe, and therefore to believe in free will.

Of course, we can never be certain of the truth of this belief.

I'm gettin' sick and tired of your shit, Hume.

Attached: kant3.jpg (300x300, 19K)

>But animals probably feel the same way, yet they don't have free will.

Good point, but animals lack our capability of abstract reasoning. It seems as though animal behavior is moreso dominated by instinct and attention to bodily functionality than Human behavior is. We have a higher ability to learn, pay attention to, and express abstract ideas, and as time goes by, and we (hopefully) continue to gain control nature to a greater extent, our behaviors will adapt and evolve to meet our higher needs.

This is what makes me believe that we have a degree of free will. We are slowly shedding mother nature's training wheels (instinct) and are improving our capacity to make intelligent decisions, which includes the ability to think and decide for one's own.

i honestly do not understand how you guys don't see that you are literally saying nothing.

Seriously read over your post and try to pinpoint where we move from instincts and rational processes to 'free will' and 'choosing for one's own'. Are you saying that logic is somehow metaphysically different than instinct? Because computers use logic as well.

I think it will be funny in the future when A.I. has free will by most people's definition. The Synths will make us look like monkeys

C O N V I N C E D

>when my science fiction video games come true, no one will laugh at my fedora
Literally the greatest argument determinists have in their arsenal

Attached: laughinghighestdegree.jpg (517x768, 125K)

Of course we don't understand reality fully, so we don't know if determinism is true, but that doesn't mean it's false, either. We're just placing bets on whether determinism (or even indeterminism) or free will are true. Causality is more consistent and the simplest answer to the problem. True free will is inconceivable

Are you scared that soulless machines will be just as human as you? Wouldn't it be funny if they said, " Look, I extend my arm, therefore I have free will"
It will at least demolish the normie-tier conception of free will as "the ability to make choices (decisions)"
Most people arguing for free will think determinists are insane because they don't understand what free will is.