Mfw there are unironically pseudo-intellectuals on this board that think humans don't have free will

Mfw retards still believe in free will

Recent events in life have led me to believe that we do.

Fate sets up situations in your life, these happen totally out of your control and yet every moment in your life has led up to that moment, and yet once that moment has been revealed to you it will fall away to nothing unless you take that leap of action and do something about it yourself, your decision, your action.

To say that all actions even of your own are pre determined seems like, even if it may be true, a very dangerous and somewhat pathetic philosophy to believe in. You take away the power to control your own life and tell yourself everything will just happen out of your control. No thats bullshit, even if it is an illusion, use that illusion to get what you want.

the best way to avoid responsibility is to pretend you don't have any.

It's simple the believes and circumstsnces that led you to a choice apre either determined or completely random, thats it, this doesn't mean that you have to stop talking decisions, thats a retarded conclusion, it's just arriving to the only logical conclusion, that we are a product of external forces and not an eternal omnipotent entity, it's realizing our place in the universe, it's maturity, only pseudo intellectuals like existentialists are too dumb to get it

You seem to be judging things on how romantic they are.

Not really an argument just the same retarded rigurgitated bullshit society wants you to believe

How do you know this?

Yeah probably, but i spent most of my life judging things by how logical and sensible they were, which gets you nowhere, one day you realise humans aren't logical or sensible, and neither is any world controlled by humans.

Just because you have no say doesn't mean you have no responsibility.
Determinism doesn't abrogate punishment, it justifies it.

You have and you don't.
Your free will is easily affected and is never consistent nor independent.
Ads, politics and social media know this and use it daily to manipulate people to their own will.
You have a certain degree of it, its like a form of art: without excersise it goes limp.

Nothing wrong with a cheeky bit of romanticism mate.

Read some Sturm und Drang

|It's a simple a choice either is logical or emotional, either way

A logical choice is 2+2= 3 or 4

So you respond thanks to your intelligence.

So yes in a way it is determined by YOU, but that you (your logical reasoning) is influenced by your genetics, so in a way it's int free, it's determined, it's only apparently free

An emotional choice: Should I tell her I love her or not?

It's determined by your believes (which are determined by the experiences you had in life and your intelligence, determiend by genes) and a bunch of other chemical stuff, hormones etc, all it's determined by something external, so in a way free will is only a superficial concept, which help us work in society.

In order for our society to work everybody needs to take responsability for their actions, at least for most of them,, but free will itself as we've seen is a false concept.

(Continues)

It's conterintuitive to us who live in a world where we had a Christian upbringing and our genereal ideology is influenced by it, even if we are atheists.

In the early Greek world, everyone understands the concept of fate, fate is everything, and that's closer to how things really are actually.

This is why many early Christian thinkers believed in pre-destination rather than ending up in hell or heaven based on your choices.

most of them dont

id say 1 in a million do, are truely alive, have a personhood & true lawful citizenry

...

Who cares? we experience both. I know I have to take a shit, so my future has already been written for me, but at the same time I have the free will to choose when exactly I will take that shit.

What's the point, it's just an argument about definitions of free will.

There is no magical force that triggers your nerve systems in ways that disobey physics. In this way, free will doesn't exist. But if you do lots of word trickery, you may end up with defining free will as something that exists.
And random quantum particle things would only deconfirm the universe being deterministic, it does not allow for the possibility of free will as we understand it. Even if the randomness was determined by our souls, these small random effects are too minor to have any effect in any reasonable timespan, even if we assume we could control quantum physics in ways that would lead to different actions, the delay would be way to big to actually matter.

>he thinks it actually matter

The biggest flaw in the muh quantum mechanics argument is that most people fail to think through how quantum mechanics would actually affect free will, even if you were to prove that they introduce some randomness to neural interactions. It doesn't give you free will any more than letting your every decision depend on a coin flip does.

If you assume that quantum mechanics is determined by humans, it would work. We could assume humans have a part that exist outside the physical world, like a soul, that is only able to influence quantum mechanics. If humans are in control of random quantum mechanics, it works.

It only fully fails, even assuming we are in control of quantum mechanics, when you consider the massive delay between these small, random interactions, and it actually having an effect on the brain. It would be too slow for you to be able to make any meaningful decisions anyway.
Assuming humans are in control of quantum mechanics, the process would be the following:
- input
- part of person not connected to physical world decides how to react to input, using free will
- manipulates quantum mechanics so that it will eventually lead to the correct non-deterministic configuration of the brain
- wait for weeks while the effects build up
- freely willed reaction to input happens way to late to be relevant
Considering how fast we actually react to stuff, free will would almost never be relevant, even if it existed. A reaction to something happening in a day would always have to be automated, or deterministic.

>there are people here who unironically believe that "they" have the magical ability to dictate the movement of subatomic particles
>these people unironically believe that "they" are something other than the sum of many parts that are beyond any single entity's control

Well, firstly that would be a huge assumption.
Secondly, apart from the so called delay and other practical problems (I don't think what you described even makes sense in the realm of physics), you would still run into a chicken-egg situation. Even if you're in control of quantum mechanics and are able to influence quantum interactions in a way that is meaningful to your own decision making, those decisions would have to start to form from somewhere. This would, in turn, make the whole process deterministic.

depends what you mean by free will.

Determinism seems to be true, but that doesn't mean you don't get a choice, it just means you've already made them all.

As in the Trinity... Nona, Decima and Morta.

Determinism is not fatalism.

i would smash that boy's hole

>1534087
I too have a avid determinist as a friend.

The most common philosophical positions that lead to determinism would be positivism, empiricism, and materialism. Typically anything that takes science to an extremely high pinnacle of everything. As far as I understand, newtonian mechanics made it seem like the universe behaved deterministically, but with the advent of quantum mechanics, that changed. Stochastic processes were introduced and it wasn't so sure anymore. However, at about the same time, dynamical systems and chaos theory were developing and this brought a smile to determinists everywhere since it meant that, even though you could never "predict" some systems, they still can be completely deterministic.

As a result, you have individuals who only rely on the results of empirics, science, and the material world who look at the human body--specifically the mind--and see it is made out of matter like the rest of the world, and even though it is complex and you cannot predict anything about it, it must still be a deterministic system.

However what I don't understand is how compatibilism actually works. I have never understood it. In particular "you are free to will, but not free to will which will", which essentially to me sounds like just saying that your will is predetermined and any free person chooses their will, and thus any one chooses a predetermined will which is of course---predetermined. So it seems like you still have no free will and I don't follow much after that.

Can anyone help me understand the compatibilist mindset?

Also welcoming any arguments for or against determinism.

There is no free will in the way that one would intuitively feel there is. "You" are not in charge of your actions any more than a leaf is.

any sufficiently complex system will have aspects of both randomness and order.
free will is part of that randomness but it doesn't mean there is no order as well or they can't exist together.

So then do you personally believe people are to be held accountable for their actions? Why or why not?

>there are people that believe the absolutely overwhelming amount of information and random movement of particles can somehow lead to a fixed determinable result rather than complete randomness of which free will plays a part.

>So then do you personally believe people are to be held accountable for their actions? Why or why not?
Yes. Because past actions indicate future actions.

>Because past actions indicate future actions.
except they don't necessarily
again if determinism was real then accurate predictions could be made in every case, but real life is far too random and there is too much random information for a human to have a set course in life.

you can argue that perhaps humans have no control over their own will, but not that it doens't exist.

I don't quite understand. A leaf cannot be held accountable for it's actions since it cannot choose otherwise. You cannot blame the leaf. Now one might say, "but a leaf is not concious!", but extend this to a living creature like a dog or even a child and people still say in cases they are not to be held accountable for their actions.

If everyone's choice functions are a function of history, then I find it hard to believe that people are able to be held accountable at all.

So could you explain a bit more?

>Yes. Because past actions indicate future actions.
Why

>except they don't necessarily
In the world we live in, they do. We're not talking about necessarily so much as we do statistics.

>again if determinism was real then accurate predictions could be made in every case
Only with perfect knowledge. The best we can do in the real world is estimation.

> but real life is far too random and there is too much random information for a human to have a set course in life.
You seem to be having a misconception here. Determinism is irrelevant to the question. Add any amount of pure randomness to the equation and you're still left with not having any more or less free will than you started with.

>you can argue that perhaps humans have no control over their own will
I'd call this a distinction without a difference. Your will is ultimately not dependent on "you" as the conscious thinker of thoughts. Everything that makes "you" up in the first place is a consequence of subconscious activity that "you" are not even aware of.

You don't think a known murderer is dangerous to be around? Honestly?

No because either way I wouldn't have to prove otherwise

Well it isn't my choice to be around a murderer if I am. And it isn't his choice he murdered somebody. It wouldn't be up to either of us whether he murdered me.

Really, to call something dangerous I need a certain amount of free will. Without the free will to choose to be around him, it's really all in the air.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

>In the world we live in, they do
not even close, else we would actually be able to make decent estimates with the info we have
also being able to somewhat predict random elements doesn't make them less random.

Really makes your noggin scratch dont it.

>Really, to call something dangerous I need a certain amount of free will. Without the free will to choose to be around him, it's really all in the air.
Hurricanes are dangerous. Agree or disagree?

Mate, you do understand pre-crime is something that's actually being tested out right now with some success?

>determined trajectory
>the Universe is made of foamy probability distributions

........

which again is a load of bullshit since how can you prosecute on something that hasn't happened? or discriminate people because of vague possibilities?
predictions are and always have been notoriously inaccurate, we can't even accurately predict the weather in every case and that is significantly less random than the human will.
more on you're ignoring the fact that its not like there is a single stream of information guiding human actions (like God or whatever) but the amount of outside action is so massive and completely random that to imply you can boil it down to a few elements for 100% accurate prediction is laughable.

we can predict trends, we can't predict individuals. show me evidence of this being otherwise or else accept that the universe is chaotic at its most base level and so are humans as all life.

Disagree from a deterministic point of view.

>which again is a load of bullshit since how can you prosecute on something that hasn't happened? or discriminate people because of vague possibilities?
Statistics.

>predictions are and always have been notoriously inaccurate
Look it's immediately clear you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. It's just a matter of fact that one can make judgements based on factors. The entirety of the medical field, which I work in btw, is based on "inaccurate predictions" that predict illnesses before they can be fucking touched as a metastasized lump.

Again, deterministic does not imply that we know everything. Google chaos theory.

>Statistics.
again, group trends, not terribly useful for individual actions beyond the most vague.

I know about chaos theory, having actually studied it. I am not suggesting that prediction/perfect knowledge implies hurricanes are not dangerous.

What I /am/ saying is that if hurricanes are dangerous, what makes them dangerous? The ability and likelihood to cause harm, of course! But since it is entirely determined what harm a hurricane will cause, I don't see how you can really call them dangerous---or anything for that matter.

I'm not arguing for the pre-crime morally, in fact I find it reprehensible, but it's just the reality that one can predict, generally, the tendency to commit crimes based on several easy to track factors.

Or would you disagree with that?

> But since it is entirely determined what harm a hurricane will cause, I don't see how you can really call them dangerous---or anything for that matter.
The fact that we don't know what happens in advance, you dimwit. The entire field of probability doesn't disappear simply because one accepts determinism.

Which I don't, by the way, it's irrelevant.

I am not talking about knowing things in advance. It's knowing things happen because it was determined that way--no free will. It has nothing to do with what will happen, but that things have to happen the way that they do, there being no other way.

It renders "dangerous" as meaningless.

>I am not talking about knowing things in advance.
Yes, you are , you fucking cretin. The entire concept of chaos theory is based around the idea that despite everything being COMPLETELY deterministic, one can have no idea what happens x time down the line. Insert the gif of jointed pendulums.

Go ahead and imagine that you believe everything is predetermined. Do you believe going out into a heavy rain with a metal rod on top of your head is dangerous or not?

>telling me what I am trying to convey
>throwing insults
Do you not understand how to communicate with people?

>Do you believe going out into a heavy rain with a metal rod on top of your head is dangerous or not?
No it is not dangerous. If you went out in heavy rain with a metal rod on your head, it was completely determined to be that way. If you were to get hit by lightning, it would be completely determined to be so.

That is not to say that there is not a statistical probability associated with getting hit by lightning, but it really is irrelevant to the fact of whether you get killed or not. The fact you get hit by lightning doesn't mean it was dangerous, nor would the killing of several people in the same fashion.

The lightning was predetermined to kill you, and you were predetermined to be in that situation so it's not really dangerous to be out there since that is the only way it could happen. You have no choice which means that you cannot honestly consider what would have happened otherwise.

>No it is not dangerous. If you went out in heavy rain with a metal rod on your head, it was completely determined to be that way. If you were to get hit by lightning, it would be completely determined to be so.
Please give me your concept of uncertainty. And if you think it relates to danger in any way.

Define uncertainty.

Not knowing the outcome of given action, or more generally not knowing the state of the future.

You're lucky I'm 4 beers in, by the way, or I would've noticed how you asked me the same question I asked you and expected not to be called out on it.

My concept of uncertainty is having the probability of some event occurring being !=1 or !=0. That is, if P(X) is the probability of an event happening, certainty is knowing that P(X) is either 1 or 0.

Uncertainty is not necessarily relevant to danger in any way, as far as I believe. That is, it is not a necessary condition to danger, and same with certainty.

This is why I insist that I am not talking about prediction or certainty.

You asked for a concept of uncertainty. That's not asking for a definition.

I wish.

>You asked for a concept of uncertainty. That's not asking for a definition.
Fuck off you disingenuous cunt.

>My concept of uncertainty is having the probability of some event occurring being !=1 or !=0.
Next question, do you believe probability theory loses meaning once we accept determinism?

>Uncertainty is not necessarily relevant to danger in any way, as far as I believe. That is, it is not a necessary condition to danger, and same with certainty.
What do you think danger is if it's not the possibility of some negative outcome?

>probability theory loses meaning
It does if you believe in logical positivism/determinism. Otherwise no.

>what do you think danger is
See:

An idea can't have a literal will.

>It does if you believe in logical positivism/determinism.
Please, continue.

Here we have an experiment. I'm rolling a die right now.

Do you have a different answer on what the die is gonna be based on your metaphysics juice?
>randomness
>determinism
Go.

Wittgenstein would put your damm ass into the nonsense box together with tge rest of wanna be philosophers who are arguing against a wall

Have you heard of predetermination you dumbass? This is the base of many religions meaning that oir whole life is already predetermined by God. This would mean we dont have free will at all

>continue
Logical positivism is proven to be absolutely wrong. See Godel et al.

>die experiment that doesn't seem to have anything relevance to my argument which I am just going along with in hopes you get to a point
I don't understand what that sentence ( the one with the juice means, let alone is asking. Maybe it is the beer talking? Could you rephrase it?

Pre-determinism is a spook

Free will doesn't exist, and it's irrelevant, because the fact you believe in it or not isn't even in your control.

They're afraid of nature.

The genetically unfit will always attempt to instantiate a system of totalitarian control to either escape or conceal their declining biology.

>Logical positivism is proven to be absolutely wrong. See Godel et al.
Has nothing to do with what we were talking about, friend.

>I don't understand what that sentence ( the one with the juice means, let alone is asking. Maybe it is the beer talking? Could you rephrase it?
Sure. Say we're playing Russian roulette. I have a revolver aimed at you with one bullet in one of the chambers.

How does what you're thinking about the situation change depending on whether you're a determinist or not?

>nothing to do
You did ask me to go on.

>Russian roulette
Since I am determined to pull the trigger or not, I cannot honestly consider whether it is dangerous or not.

If I am not a determinist, then I can easily have the scenario either way: to quit or not quit, among a plethora of other things, each being a choice that I for sure can make. Due to this I am able to consider the game dangerous or not.

Free will isn't even coherent. It literally doesn't even have a technically meaningful definition.

Definition: a person X has free will if and only if X has a choice function C whose arguments are not solely history.

This is the most popular definition of free will, and I'd say it's pretty coherent and technically meaningful.

>choice

There's your problem right there. It's begging the question in the most desperate way. This is assuming of course we're talking about the ontological concept of free-will.

>we have free-will when we can make choices freely

>well what's a 'choice'?

>It's when we have free will

>Using the word in the definition

Just rename it then "action" or "decision" function. Sorry, english is not my first language.

It doesn't matter if you rename it if you're just using synonyms. You need to actually synthesize different concepts together to form meaning.

action is not a synonym. It is an action function in that it is the function which determines your course of action. This is without referring to free will or having a choice. A rock's action function purely is just sit there for example, letting only external forces move it.

If the 'action function' isn't 'free-will' or 'choice' then you are ostensibly admitting we don't have free will or choice. You basically just said it. We'd be like rocks.

If the action function is free will or choice, then you're begging the question just as I've stated.

>You did ask me to go on.
Go on about how probability theory is meaningless. I've no use for your insertion of positivism, or your namedropping of Godel. If you don't have an actual argument fuck off.

>Since I am determined to pull the trigger or not, I cannot honestly consider whether it is dangerous or not.
'Kay. I'll just say you're a complete idiot who doesn't understand the chaos theory he supposedly studied and move on.

The fact that things are predetermined has absolutely no bearing on whether we consider them dangerous or not. Danger is an assessment of probability of negative outcomes. Probability theory is apt regardless of how hard determinism is in this universe because we don't have perfect knowledge. Get this through your thick skull, you dumb philistine.

>whose arguments are not solely history.
Please explain how randomness - actual randomness as you're implying - is supposed to add to free will when it literally does not depend on you.

I don't think you understand the definition. Perhaps we can start there if you would like?

>probability theory is meaningless
If you assume a false axiom such as the one logical positivism suggests, then anything in mathematics is true---and false. Hence probability theory is meaningless under those conditions.

>complete idiot
>dumb philistine
Great ad hominems. Are you going to continue calling people names and reiterating your position like it is the sole truth, or are you going to actually defend it or attack someone's actual arguments?

Randomness is not an input variable. Stochastic variables might (and I would say probably do) exist in the "action function", but they can exist in a purely deterministic function too where there is no free will involved.

That is, I do not believe stochastic variables prove that there is free will. It's irrelevant to the function as far as I am concerned. I am suggesting that belief in free will is akin to saying that the action function is dependent on more than just historical information.

e.g. from a determinist point of view, all actions are resulting from historical events. So the input is basically all known historical information, call it h. So if A is the action function, your actions you will take is A(h). A(h) could have stochastic variables in it which are influenced by history or not, I don't really think that proves anything about free will. It's still an absence of will.

On the other hand, if there is more to it than historical events, say, things x1, x2, x3, ..., xn, then the action you take is instead A(h,x1,x2,...,xn). I am sorry of the mathematical inspiration is a bit terse. It would help if I could find a way to rigorously state it in english without use of math, but alas! my inspiration was arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079 after all.

I wish less people fell for this retarded bait.

sage, reported

>If you assume a false axiom such as the one logical positivism suggests, then anything in mathematics is true---and false. Hence probability theory is meaningless under those conditions.
Be specific and address the points instead of talking in memes, mate.

>Great ad hominems.
Ad hominems are not a problem, ad hominem argumentation is. Learn the difference, cretin.

>So the input is basically all known historical information, call it h.
Not all information is known, let alone an "input". For fuck's sakes.