Whats your opinion on free will?

whats your opinion on free will?

Other urls found in this thread:

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'd answer if i could

It's real. Nietzsche's opinion that it does not exist in BG&E's starting pages can be easily disproved (if one was adept at philosophy)

Otherwise, it does not matter what can be said against it.

Look, if Free Will exists then explains Cats, for FUCK sakes.

It doesn't exist but we have a feeling that we have it. Just because we do not have free will does not mean we do not have volition.
This is the main flaw between free will versus determinism.

Simple. There are three types of brains. Reptilian, mammals and humans. Each individual thought goes through those stages until you express it.
Reptilian is cold and calculating, mammal is empathetic and emotional, and human is a combination of the two with rationality.

Humans do not have free will which goes against causality but we do have a feeling of volition that goes beyond nature and causality but is still influenced by it.

Cats are mammals that feel empathy and connect with whomever. This is why if you feed a lizard, it'll never love you.

I like his opinion that we might not have free will but do whatever you want since it's probably what fate wants, so who cares.

>opinion
>free will
Sounds like a loaded question.

It's fine I guess. Kinda fucks me up a lot of the time though.

>Simple. There are three types of brains. Reptilian, mammals and humans

That is a theory that is accepted by absolutely no one anymore.

>Humans do not have free will which goes against causality

Why on earth would it go against causality?

it is something retards are predisposed into believing by virtue of being retards

no more need be said

it cannot be contended

Does the universe, considered as a single entity, have free will since nothing is acting on it but itself?

no such thing as a free lunch, son

hard work brings home the bacon

I'm not convinced that I don't have it

I used to argue with people when I was in high school about stupid shit like that. This one kid picked up his keyboard an inch off his desk and dropped it, then said "how could I choose to do that if I didn't have free will?" and I'm like "but you couldn't have chose otherwise than you did" and he's like "but what if I had" and I'm like "but you didn't" and as you might guess neither of us got anywhere by that line of argument

so I used to be a determinist because I was a monist and a materialist, but even then, I didn't feel that determinism gave me any reason to feel fatalistic. and now I'm Christian and the Church says I have free will, so I don't see why not

>Nietzsche's opinion that it does not exist in BG&E's starting pages can be easily disproved
Please do so, I'm interested

A God?

one's life is entirely determined by genetics.

Cool digits
Free will is subconciously wanting to be tied up & naked while your mistress teases your cock

Wish we could do more experiments on twins for this kind of stuff. Was always a true american and believed that genetics didnt determine much in your mind but damn those experiments are eye opening

Free will is a myth, religion is a joke. We're all pawns, controlled by something greater: Memes. The DNA of the soul. They are our culture, they are everything we pass on. Expose someone to anger long enough, and they'll begin to hate. All memes, all passed along...

...

I don't see how a system of free will could logically exist. It boggles the mind how anything in this universe could be non-deterministic without involving some supernatural shit.

>something something typical retarded contrarian arguing about quantum randomness

Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with anyone's capacity to make decisions that are completely unaffected by causal influences. I mean, what are people even saying with this kind of argument - that choices are random phenomena? Is this just a red herring?

Freewill has yet to be proven or not mathematically. It's no longer a question of pure philosophy.

Opinion: It doesn't matter either way, we are all living in the moment of continuous time, therefore events will continue to occur at their standard despite if there is freewill or not, and your consciousness won't change either.

Your forgetting the all-important meme

Creeps me the fuck out. Gives me the free willies.

>It's real.

Stopped reading.

there's no free will
only free won't

That depends. What do you think "free will" actually means?

Plenty of people argue ceaslessly without realizing they are talking about two completely different things that somehow share the same label.

My opinion doesn't matter, neither does any other's here. Whether we have free will or not will never be determined as we still haven't determined what free will is in the first place.

Free will kits are avaliable from the tax office if you're interested. They can be pretty dry, litigious reading but, if you know someone who has already written a will you may luck out and they may have bequeathed some pretty neat stuff to you.

To answer your question, I think free wills are a good idea.

The whale movie?

It's an inadequately defined concept.

it doesn't matter

>cats have empathy
>he fell for the cat meme

how stoned are you

There is no omnitemporal god. We do have free will, but nature, evolution, psychology, society does restrain us.

>That is a theory that is accepted by absolutely no one anymore.
If you say so.

>Why on earth would it go against causality?
Because it has to be proven that humans can think in a way that is not predetermined or influenced by outside influence of any kind. That every thought is simply an effect caused by something else. Hence, not free will. There is no will that is free.
However, we do have the sense of volition that makes it seem as though we are above causality and nature. This is center point of all free will versus determinism arguments.
When people agree that everything is deterministic, there is no free will, so why bother, they aren't denying free will but volition. Acceptance of volition is the acceptance of being human and being able to influence the world around you. Accepting that you have no free will, as accepting that you have no volition, is akin to becoming nihilistic.

Cats are assholish little shits and have a sense of mysticism. It's the reason why they're better than dogs. Cats are like humans, in the way the don't give a single fuck about anything, but dogs are tools and nothing else.

>and now I'm Christian and the Church says I have free will, so I don't see why not
>Pragmatism

Mah Nigga

But humans suck because of those things. So cats are irredeemable. At least dogs have innocence and humility

>inb4 Slave Morality

>It's the reason why they're better than dogs
Cats are a bi-polar recluses best friend for a reason, they're not better than dogs.

First off, he contradicts himself in a way by supposing that the 'philosophers of the future' could be exempt from an absent free will. So he's basically praising the skeptics' needs to console themselves in the fact that they have it (page 208.130)

His concept of free will on pages 25 & 26 can be defined as "the [feeling of commanding to action] in relation to him who must obey... the inward certainty that obedience will be rendered... that he believes renders obedience." He posits that this action, or held feeling, is created outside of one's ego, which is then exploited by the one as their free end-product.

He presupposes unconscious instinct for *all* of our actions, giving us the 'illusion' that we freely willed on our own accords. But we do freely will plenty of things against our unconscious.

His qualm with free will in general tends to be its connection to religion, and past philosophers (2.10).

^that was just a rough summary of the paper I wrote for it, but I cant remember what the others said back then. I remember feeling convinced back then though.

Also, to disprove the free will deniers outside of Nietzsche: the future literally doesn't exist. It is simply an idea. Quit acting like dumbass Donnie Darkos and start taking responsibility for your free will

Humans are better exclusively because of that. Cats are irredeemable and useless except for their mysticism. They have nothing to contribute but their own existence and presence. This is what makes them unique and better.

Dogs are valued in their innocence and humility but only become valuable in the sense that they may become tools for a purpose. You cannot train a cat to do anything because it's a cunt. You can only break a cat to become submissive.

The only people that do not like cats are those who cannot break their cats to worship them instead of the other way around. When you can make your cat sleep by your bed, beg to be petted and ask for more when you pull their tail, only then you understand that cats are the best.

Dogs were molded to become tools for countless generations.
Cats will never become a slave unless you forcefully take it in your arms and abuse it. You have to break your cat to make it love you.
An obedient slave is more boring than a broken slave that still tries to resist.

>The only people that do not like cats are those who cannot break their cats to worship them instead of the other way around.


I think you've got Toxoplasmosis brain. You've been breathing in WAY too many cat farts fella

Which is better, a girl that will suck your dick, follow any orders you give it, or a slave that reluctantly follows order, does whatever it wants but still comes back to you?

Says you, I don't even clean my cats litter box. I pay my friend to do it for me.

You're an autist.

My mom and I tamed a stray kitten after a few months of feeding it and slowly being able to pet it/ letting it in our house a few steps further every time til she'd get scared, until eventually she was just our cat and we got her shots/etc.

But then one of my fecking brothers started to get random, serious allergic reactions to her a few years later, so we had to take her to the pound... (she got adopted though)

Cats have advanced biological warfare that makes you love them
> dogs have poo worms that eat your eyeballs

>you're an autist
>lemme tell you a nice story about a stay cat I adopted that has nothing to do with the conversation
Nice story but I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

You're an autist, AND stupid.

I gave you an account on how to tame a cat that does not involve sperging out and "breaking it", you. Dense. Retard.

Their cries mimics the sound of a baby.
Cats overtook the internet, one of the most advanced pieces of technology ever created for no other purpose but to spread their influence and charm.

(disregard that first reply if you werent the same guy, a bit drunk)

The real dystopian future isn't Orwell v Huxley, it was Dogs v Cats all along! We thought we were domesticating and controlling them but have we not become the domesticated ourselves?

I know I added this fucking picture. But which faction is trying to silence me?

>dogs no longer have a purpose to help us hunt food
>keep them around
>cats literally do nothing but eat and ask for attention since forever
>keep them around
At least fishes have pretty colors in aquariums.

>But which faction is trying to silence me?
Depends. Did you silence yourself because you don't give a shit or is Big Brother taking control of everything without you knowing?

Doesn't matter, we're constrained either way. Mull this sentence around:

You can't exist before you exist so that you can decide who you want to be when you come into existence.

You weren't around before you existed and got to choose who you would be, like a character creator. You just became alive and had certain desires, given to you by nature and nurture. Whether you have free will or not is moot. The point is that what you DO with that free will is constrained by your desires, and your desires are something you didn't create.

So no, you filthy nigger.

>implying that cats don't keep rodents out of stored food, having practically domesticated themselves

I distinctly remember attaching the file on the first comment. I assume it was just a glitch... or was it?

Haha. The world is predetermined. But we don't know the future. So you can act upon the world and it can seem like you did. But in the end that's all the world is. Predetermined.

You have three hypotheses.
1- You made the glitch from your incompetence
2- the system is glitched, making you waste time for no reason
3- option 1-2 happened at the same time

>implying rodents haven't become obsolete in locations where there are the most cats
You only see one fat cat in a farm and hundreds of cats in a single apartment. Which do you think is the more useful?

it was settled a few years ago, there is none

>It doesn't exist
becuz i sed so

Your empiricism does not say anything, it is a dead end ideology.
Mathematics does not prove anything.

>2016
>not being a materialist
>not believing in causal determinism

conscioussness is a purely physical property

>Any year ever
>Being a fucking materialist

When will this meme die? It is not predetermined at all. The future doesn't literally exist.

I'm sorry if you believe in magic and ghosts user, but most people are pragmatic enough to see that the world is real

We are pre-destined, to use free will. We have no choice in the matter.

and yet consciousness and perception is legally recognised as being fallible.

something to think about user, before you smugly write it off

Lol. I bet you read Marx and Hegel. Freaking cringe

No such thing mang.
It's all chemical determinism.

Will for free? Sounds like socialist propaganda.

I think that my "opinions" don't matter.

"Will" is a pre-existing notion. Whether it's "free," or not, is a matter of semantics.

What did Veeky Forums think of this?

It doesn't exist, because it doesn't make any logical sense and that has huge consequences for morality. Punishment and vengeance for example are of course never justified, as no person can be held responsible for their actions.

>Subconsciously
You are not a psychologist, so stop trying use psychological terminology.

Depends on your definition of free will.
/thread

It's a geist.

Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants.

...

Free will is pretty easy to disprove

All events take place because of factors
As with human decisions, the decision of the individual will never change so long as these factors don't
Hence, the outcome is entirely reliant on the factors, meaning the individual is a slave to the factors

Free will is simply what we interpret as the complex thought process our brains are capable of, but since it's a phenomenon that isn't independent of predisposed factors, there is no real "deciding" since the decision will always be the same

Nietzsche wasn't totally on board with determinism or free will, he just went after free will more often because more people believed in it. He also didn't like how free will was basically only believed because it was a good heuristic for punishing people. Free will implies that people make choices and as such can be held responsible for them. Abandonment of the idea of free will also means abandonment of our ability to justify our punishment those who offend us forcing us. We still want to punish and as such we still punish, but we would be forced to admit that we punish because it brings us pleasure rather than creating a degree of separation through the abstraction of justice, which in a 'true' form doesn't exist for Nietzsche (something which originates in Heraclitus, where justice exists only in strife).

Anyways, free will is a meme. It probably doesn't exist. But only dumbasses spend too much time worrying about it and only even bigger dumbasses try to proselytize the nonexistence of it. We use it as a heuristic in place of a better understanding of the ways of the universe and considering we will never truly 'get' the deterministic equation of the universe it's doubtful that we will ever fully abandon it.

Apparently nobody has the free will to be intelligent.

meh, not a strong disproof.

>the decision of the individual will never change so long as these factors don't

If this was true, psychohistory would be a real field. There is nothing stopping me from randomly flipping a table in my room for instance. You could argue that the "cause" beforehand like being mad or whatever made me do it, but there's nothing preventing me from just doing it randomly.

It is not impossible for one to act against their unconscious. See my post here:

There is a cause behind the "being mad."

There is always a prior cause.

But I can flip the table for no reason at all. There's an unlimited string of causes going back to the beginning of Space and Time, but there is no future 'en concreto'. It's just an abstract idea used for planning/etc

I'm not denying that understanding all the factors is near impossible because of the complexity of human thought, but after all the logic is sound

For humans, all actions have logical explanations therefore since actions rely on these reasons free will can't exist
It's the complexity of the justifications that make it appear as though free will exists, but in principle you will always do things for a reason, and it's this reason that disproves free will since without it you would not act in that way

"no reason at all" equates to "because I can" -- a cause.

I have made a thorough critique against free will:
1. I am attracted to women/straight.
2. Whenever I am attracted to something my penis gets hard.
3. Traps get my penis hard.
4. Traps are males.
Therefore, by the contradiction, I have no free will.

It's true that you will always do ghings for a reason (even if that reason is no reason), but the antithesis to free will is determinism, which relies on a future that already exists (which is false in actuality, like how math has irrational numbers).

But the fact that there are unlimited effects from every single instance of an event in time proves that there is no determinism in that way.

But I'm biased, as I am a firm believer in the math/science to the multiverse.

Reminder that 59% of philosophers believe in both determinism and free will
philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

things*

Also, that^ in response to this

Being biased is never something to be proud of. It discredits you entirely.

Were Veeky Forumsarians part of the survey?

I don't understand how determinism is false

To every moment is a certain amount of factors
These factors will always have the same consequence
This single consequence will go to affect another thing later as a factor
Hence these actions act as chains, because for every moment there are always the same factors hence always the same outcomes

The future is unchangeable because the past is

I know that to be true, but I was being honest. Even those that seek absolute objectivity are biased in truth

The future doesn't exist yet. It can only be predicted. Some things with great accuracy. Some things, not at all.

Being absolutely truthful all of the time may be a "virtue" but it is not intelligent for survival purposes.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

We can't predict it
But it is entirely predictable, simply more complex than we'll ever be able to solve

They act as deterministic chains yes, but there are different effects which can result from EVERY decision/accident which also exist simultaneously in space.

You need to tie your shoe, and this is your cause to do so, but the timing of it is up to you. You trip a bit on it which causes you to avoid being hit by a car that barrels past you 1 second ahead of where you were going to be. Both of those possibilities simultaneously exist in space

I predict there will be further posts in this thread.