When will the meme end, Veeky Forums

>he answers his question even before he asks him
>he still does it anyway
Go america

>Somebody debunks the inane idea of free will using 100% factual science
>"Better call him a pop-scientist!!111"

>this thing makes no sense and cant be explained
>lets believe it anyway

>scientific evidence suggesting no free will
>insist it doesnt show anything
>doesnt explain why not

> posts video of a philosopher peasent
ouch...

>believing in free will
you either believe science is wrong somewhere, or you accept the fact that there's no free will.

have you even read I am a strange loop? where's the difference between a biological result and """"will"""??

It's not even biological. Unless you break and ignore all the known laws of physics, you can't have free will.

yeah I know, but normies usually don't understand that, so I go on an higher level and explain them that even at a "global" level, we still respond to biological inputs.

I just can't get how anyone would assume to have free will, and at the same time believe in science. (I personally don't fully believe in science, because that would be too scary).

They can't help it. There's no free will. Then again you can't help failing to understand how they fail to understand. Oi.

>tfw you can consciously contemplate the fact that we have no free will without being able to break free from the illusion.

I feel great about this.

This is what this board has stooped to? Glad I'm too busy with my Post Doc position to shill around here anymore

>meta-shitposting that you're beyond shitposting

ugu~~~

>everyone believes in free will because why would you have a discussion when you don't.
First of all you don't know what's going to happen, but you do have the ability to experience, so enjoy the fucking ride.
Secondly; why wouldn't anyone be able to convince someone of anything if there's no free will. (If convincing means one brain changing a onther brains thoughts about a subject)

>what about determinism which disproofs free wil?
>hurr durr if actions are made before we are made concious about them that says nothing about free will.

That's not answering the question, that's avoiding it because you dont have an answer.

I a mere lurking dumbass already have found two holes in his logic.

>Secondly; why wouldn't anyone be able to convince someone of anything if there's no free will. (If convincing means one brain changing a onther brains thoughts about a subject)
you can't be this retarded

I guess I am, ellaborate.

The fact that there's no free will, doesn't mean that we won't change our ideas, but that the fact that we will change our ideas is purely based on physics.

We will change our ideas, thinking we had control over them, but instead it will only be the effect of physics laws.

You should check out also the chaos theory. An easy example is the smoke that you get when you put out a match: you'll know you'll get smoke (that physics, it's not something you can evade, you'll ALWAYS get smoke), but you can't predict how it will "flow". you can't because there are way too many variables involved, and basically it's random.

Watch youtu.be/AwT0k09w-jw from 0:49.

That's a double arm pendulum. It only reflects physics laws, nobody can deny that. But nobody will ever succeed in predict HOW it will move.

I think you did not read my post very well. Because that's exactly what im implying. Im asking: why shouldn't we be able to change eachothers mind without free wil.

I have a habit of making sentences almost impossible to comprehend. English is not my first language.

But thank you for trying to convince me, although we were already thinking the same thing. That's what makes life great.

I personally think free will can't exsist because of determinism. If determinism is wrong because of quantum randomness we still can't have free will because we won't make the choises, randomness will. And that's only when a quantum mechanism is responsible for disicion making in the brain.

Saying free will exsists is saying there is an object defying the laws of physics.

>this thread
Why Veeky Forums should not discuss philosophy: exhibit A.

oh sorry then, my bad user

>That's not answering the question, that's avoiding it because you dont have an answer.

That's precisely what he was saying, idiot. He recognizes that there's no smoking gun for either side.

That's a bizarre way to view Med-school, have you met med-students? Personally I'm an MD-PhD student, only have 3 papers so far, but I like to believe I am making important research.
The weird part is how many people on this board criticize med-students for not "doing science" when they themselves have never worked in a lab and are unpublished.

I don't understand why people would choose to not believe in free will.

le materialist reductionist face

i will write this post now
i wil l write some thing free will!!!!!!!! conviced yet?:) :{ {