Does free will exist, or is it merely an illusion that arises from brain phenomena?

Does free will exist, or is it merely an illusion that arises from brain phenomena?
strawpoll.me/10685773

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mL8Lg-YZPk0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I've seen a wild rabbit napping in the sun

Why can't free will be a product of brain phenomena? I can't help but think the whole debate is just a game of semantics.

You are overlooking the illusion part.

It depends on wether a single instance of time or matter instanced can be said to be infinitely reccurent or of a simple monadic essence. If the later, then everything takes it's energy from it's own, if the former, then everything is either a finite-infinite class or an infinite class, where infinity is present in finite events and nothing is dependent on itself.

If infinite finitude idk what happens; if infinite infinite then no free will; if finite monadic structure then free will, as matter is it's own agent so defined.

Note that finite monadic essences would be freedom under it's own conditions of individuated suffering and confination by proxy of newly concomitant monadisms in environmental rhyzomatic environments. Limited agency by agency constituted: agency constituted as either body can be said to be pure limited agency

agency constituted as pure mind can be said limited and self limited agency

angency constituted by pure conscious mind can be said to be limited self limited scientia limited agency

Literally why does it matter? Who fucking cares?

You cared enough to reply.

What does free will mean? Choice made wholly without environmental influence clearly isn't a thing.

Veeky Forums

Show an illusion to a rock and I'll believe that illusion has a useful place in debates about consciousness.

Can you define infinitely recurrent and simple monadic essence for me?

>merely an illusion that arises from brain phenomena

That's like asking if water comes from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen.

Damn, Veeky Forums really is filled with major autists

wtf is this bullshit

Free will obviously exists.

She's a criminal and should go to gaol.

The worst thing about Veeky Forums in the reactionary conservatives (lol, as if there is any other kind, thanks George H. Nash).

The worst thing about Veeky Forums is that you're here

Well this is a patent exaggeration.

Donald Trump is going to make America great again, and that's NOT an exaggeration.

:^)

sure friendo

I DID IT ALL FOR THE NOOKIE

What are you talking about? Are you saying that illusions conjured by the brain don't exist? Also, you missed the point of what I was trying to say. Your original post said that the free will debate is about semantics because free will can be derived from brain phenomena. However, you overlooked the part in the op that said "illusions" from brain phenomena.

free will exists outside of the yes-no dichotomy. either way it doesn't matter to us as lifeforms

I think what he was trying to say is that the problem of free will is entangled in the bigger problem of consciousness. You can't deceive a zombie into having the illusion of free will, because there simply isn't anything there to be deceived. Without the ability to make choices we don't have the ability to invest in our delusions - we just accept everything at face value.

Without an un-physical force there can't be an objective free will.

when was it great?

>free will

It's a stupid question. There is literally no meaningful distinction between the "illusion" of free will and "actual" free will. None. Perception is reality.

Prior to 1863

Calling a force physical or not is completely arbitrary. Would be more accurate to say it's non-deterministic

lol why

dis

I'd go further and say that an illusion of free will is impossible.

this.
now please stop making free will threads, they're boring as fuck.

I guess ghosts are real then because schizophrenic people see ghosts then -.-

We aren't talking about schizophrenic people.

this is completely irrelevant, you're equivocating the word "illusion"

my free will is telling me to fap to more of this art

>muh exceptions to the rule
Nice arguments there xD

schizophrenics experience a different world from those without schizophrenia, and when we say they have hallucinations, it means something different than when someone talks about having the "illusion" of free will.

Are our will and descision making causal?
Experience of the extra mental and the communication and agreement upon shared ideas about nature through scinetific methodologies is very effective at solving problems.
But such an examination comes as a plethora of physical actions which are the extention of our mental operations and imagnation.
We think about something, decide to act a certain way or try something and then we perform certain actions to acheive said goal.
We then compare our results and observations with those of others and the similar results are accepted.
The observable physical world is causal. Our perception divides things into bjects and using certain methods we measure them, agree upon standards and so on.
However, our mental world is not causal. Our subjective experience is not causal. our descision making is not causal. Yes, it is limited by our overall experiences but the process itself, the process of descision making is not causal. It is not divided into parts, it is not quantifiable and is beyond the realm of objective observation.
Our subjective existence in time as we observe it and remember it is causal but our internal subjective expereicne and descision making is not.

youtube.com/watch?v=mL8Lg-YZPk0

It exists

I'm glad they're about equal, gives me hope for this board

We are merely reacting, and we can be aware of this and make ''actions'', but they are based on reacting. If i move my arm because i wanted to move my arm, why am i moving my arm? There is no true action there, just a reaction. How can there be free will if we are only capable of reacting? Whatever choice we make, we make it based on some other reaction, causing us to react. Maybe you could say it's a semantics game, but what else is there when we are talking about abstract themes such as free will. This is why it is an ''illusion'', because we are bound to our own awareness and the inescapable series of reactions with no true ''free'' choice. Feel free to debunk anything i have written. Because as i understand the concept of free will, it is the ability of an active agent to make an action.

there's a difference between free will and a conditioned response. We don't just choose to act, we also choose between two actions/decisions when their presentation offers us no reason as to why one is the more necessary choice. It's what separates us from beasts - free will allows us to make a leap of faith and invest in a choice even while the other is equally as plausible.

But any of those ''actions'' would just be a reaction to other previewed actions which are in fact just reactions, be they organic or inorganic. What separates us from other animals is namely the ability to ''predict'' the future, or to speculate upon it. To see the stream of reactions before it is even there. It is not a leap of faith, it is calculated. We can not explore all of the plausible choices because we can not be effected by all reaction, but by whatever is there at the moment and whatever we can speculate. I don't think there is a difference between the concept of free will and conditioned response, because all we do is conditioned response.

>would just be a reaction to other previewed actions
Perceived*

I'd say free will is an emergent property of the material constitution of our bodies. So it's "real" in the same sense that self-consiousness is real, but not "real" in the material sense. It's an idea.