Free will, yes or no? Why?

Define yes. Define no

define "define" bro

>we have the ability to choose. Beyond our genetic code and our environment.
hahaha, no.

even if the universe is not deterministic (which i personally doubt), it's just quantum particles playing roulette that make your 'decisions'. free will is nothing but a useful illusion.

That's my position too

so nobody is responsible for their own actions?

guess it was those quantum particles that made me burn your house down.

yes, exactly. that doesn't mean we shouldn't lock up criminals for the protection of others.

how can you label someone a criminal if they are not in control of their own actions?

if free will doesn't exist, behavior patterns are inconclusive and irrelevant.

>biblic
nonsense

People make decisions yes. The social order demands we praise or condemn people based on their decisions. The problems come when people defend the existing social order as worthy of preservation.

Me? I see society as arising naturally from the lives of social animals.

If a snake attacks you, what do you do, protect yourself and try to smack it? if an animal tries to kill you do you try to kill it back?

>but it was just its nature bro!

Well its in your nature to also destroy the snake as a consequence of your natural self-preservation

If you want to have this discussion with a scientist - know that there are researches in the field which you can access with google.

And there is not sufficient data to even define consciousness properly, yet complex mechanisms like will inside it.

Someone should make a chart with all philosophical definitions of free will - I might do it, but I need to start paying attention to people here giving their own definitions - please if you do so - also back it up with links.

prove that you have free will. prove that you can directly manipulate the particles you are made of.

Do animals have free will as well? What about a stone or a plant? They're all made out of the same stuff.

There is no free will. What is interesting is to study why people make the decisions they make (including the decision not to change their situation.).

Free will is worth chasing. Who cares if it's really real?

No one's addressing this?

G-d is all powerful and all knowing, therefor free will can not possibly exist.

no sorry I'm not addressing a wikipedia article.

if free will exists, why can't i stop breathing on my own so i could die already

eat my autism faggot

>paradox

It would pick the water since you can survive longer without food than water.

god you're dumb

later everybody

but it's equally hungry and thirsty. this implies that it goes like 2 seconds without either it will die

>equally hungry and thirsty

After drinking that water it won't be thirsty anymore. Also if it's truly rational it will ignore the thirst and take sips at time intervals that maximize survival.

don't reply to this, he's trolling now, but only to hide his previous stupidity.

Anyone who engages in discussion about "free will" is trolling. Smart people know it's a waste of time and spend it on more fruitful philosophical discussions.

Free will is one of the big red cocks that underpins philosophy. A lot of questions are derived from it, just like mind-body.

how can we stop ourselves from jailing other people if we can't control our own actions?

dude minority report lmao

>how can you label someone a criminal

Because we are determined to do so. U mad bro?

Where's the paradox?

This happens all the time. People don't know what to do when they can only take one out of two options, when the options are equally good/bad.

>God

The paradox is that people who don't believe in free will are implicitly accepting the fact that the ass will die both of hunger and thirst because it won't be able to make a decision from its own essence

Free will is not time sensitive. You can make a choice today that effects you years later, giving the illusion you have no choice or no free will in the matter when the effects of your choice occur.

Just for shits and giggles lets imagine a world where non-time sensitive free will exists, but happens in non-linear time. Choices you make in the future can effect your life right now or even in your past. The effects of this are not perceivable because even tho free-will is non-linear your memories are not.

I believe in a variant of nonlinear free will.

I really wonder what the exact boundaries of our will are.

If we all have free will, why do we not rarely self-sabotage our success? Why are we often not able to bear the pain? Why are some people able to? Just what are the limits to this? How are they defined in our brain?

I'd argue that the biblical sense of free will is closer to the notion of identity; the identity of sinners resulting from an identification of their self with their own desires whereas the identity of the godly resulting from an identification of their self as one with god's will. When the bible criticizes sinners for choosing wickedness, p sure they just mean that their consciousness is just an island in an archipelago instead of the entire ocean + the land itself, ya see? Doesnt really have that much to do with our intuitive notion of free will.

>Believe in free will

>Don't believe in souls

>shits and giggles
urban redneck detected

No. At least for any meaningful definition of free will.

Ignorance.
Hypocrisy.
Delusion.
Calvin Klein.

Please respond.

>free will is not time sensitive.
>proceeds to define free will in terms of non-linear time
nice

No one said it was a human's simulation

50/50 we either have it or we don't.

What's your velocity then user?

heres the thing about metaphysics

take for instance, the unicorn.
It is an imaginary creature representing purity and magic and freedom.

Now I ask you if unicorns exist.
You say no.
I say but surely there are instances of unicorns, to find one all you need to do is open a book play a video game and you can see a unicorn.
then you say but I can't touch a unicorn.
Then I reply not yet. But they have CRISPr technology and I could just genetically engineer a unicorn for you.

thats the thing about abstract concepts like truth, justice, freedom.

they are dreamed up, and wait inside the minds that have hope and wonder. Until the day comes that we can make it a reality.

you can really test to see if free will exists.
you can only test to see how free will operates.
We may not have complete free will, or free agency. but i think if we progress in the right way we can attain it.

Why is it suddenly a binary thing? Why not have a limited amount of free will? Or free will only within certain time frames or situations?

you can't test to see if free will exists

Realizing the illusion of free will is babby tier.

Now realizing that your conception of self and ego is an illusory construct retroactively created by brain your is the next level.

When you appreciate that the perception of you as separate to the rest of the world outside of you is an illusion created by your brain and your identity centered on the illusory self melts away, that's what enlightenment is.

Happened to me yesterday, it was like I had stepped outside the universe and could see everything.

>free will thread on Veeky Forums

No we don't have free will.
You can see this for yourself, you don't need to have it proven to you.

Try and notice where thoughts come from. They simply appear out of nowhere in your mind. Stop thinking for a moment and try and maintain, just notice what happens. You notice you're constantly bombarded by thoughts that you have no control over.

Now go and make a decision. Let's say you go to the fridge and you're choosing between a Peanut butter sandwich or a ham sandwich. Whichever one you pick, you really didn't have a say in, despite how much it feels like you did. Say you pick peanut butter, why did you?
>I felt like this one more
Why? Did you have any say in that?
>No I just like peanut butter more
Well why do you like peanut butter more? Stop liking it as much.
You can't. Now at this point, the contrarian always says
>"Even if I feel like Peanut Butter more, I could pick ham!"
Okay now why did you pick ham instead?
>'insert whatever reason given'
Say this reason is to prove a point in this argument, or it's because they think ham is more filling, or it's going to go off soon. NONE of these things, were up to them, and the motivation to finally pick ham because of these reasons, wasn't up to them either. Their body and brain simply fed them those reasons.

Simply notice the feeling of making a decision. Try not just saying pros and cons in your head, try and notice what it feels like finally coming to a decision. It simply *clicks* all of a sudden, and you just finally know the answer, and it feels like you just came to it. But really why did that one click??

Free will isn't an illusion, the illusion of free will is an illusion. We just haven't been bothered to pay attention to our thoughts.

>free will
>noun
>1.
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
and how exactly does one act against the constraint of necessity?
if an event happened, the one and only out of multitude of possible ones, there must be a sufficient reason for it's happening, which necessarily leads to the previously mentioned event.
now, on a scale of single individual, for the definition of free will strongly implies its appliance to one, it is no different in the principle, but only in way of execution, namely, by the subject.
say, we have a situation, which involves the subject to make a choice, thus necessarily leading to one event, i.e. outcome.
if this event happens, there must be a reason for its happening, that is a deliberate choice of a subject, which acts as a necessary cause
now look back at the definition, which implies disobedience to the necessity
now about the choice - actually, a man undergoes the inner fight of his motives, the strongest of which necessarily wins, which illustrates the impossibility of individual's free will.
however, one's motives, outer causes and circumstances are not known precisely at any given point of time, which in turn, leads to such misconception

Just because people have reasons for their decicions, doesnt mean they dont have free will

from our perspective yes, from the perspective of an observer that doesn't give a shit about time, no

the universe in deterministic

You have completely misunderstood what I said. I'm saying the REASONS they have, they don't really decide. Everything you do like and don't like, or want and don't want to do is not up to you, it doesn't matter why you do or don't, the point is that either way you don't choose. Try and choose right now to "like" being shot. You can't. You don't want to get shot because you don't want to die, you can't change this fact, so you'll always avoid getting shot. You're not free to choose otherwise.

Then you'll say "Maybe one day I might choose to shoot myself though". Yes and if that happens, the reasons why you want to and choose to are not up to you, they simply are, and your subconscious makes the choice for you.

Anyway studies have already solidified this. They've shown they can through brain scans know the decision someone is going to make up to 10 seconds before the person themselves know. Google these, the actual studies are pretty complicated so I recommend science news websites summarising them nicely.

and how would he know that user?

Let A be a situation in arbitrary conditions which requires a deliberate action, namely choice from the subject out of two possible outcomes: B and C.
Let [b] and [c] be possible deliberate actions of subject which lead respective to outcomes B and C as a sufficient reason.
According to principle of sufficient reason, each action must necessarily have a cause, namely a motive (b and c respectively).
It's a well-known empirical fact that in reality one and only one of outcomes is brought into existence.
There we have two causality chains:
A-->b-->[b]-->B
A-->c-->[c]-->C
Motives b and c are brought into subject's conception where they are elaborated and the strongest one necessarily wins, according to subject's inborn character and experience.
Ex.: A = subject saw a person accidentally drop their money
b = motive to pick up the money and give them back
[b] = action of picking up the money and giving them back
B = person thanks you, you feel good about it
c = motive to pick up the money and keep them to yourself
[c] = action corresponding to c
C = PROFIT

Question: is the choice of subject dependent on "muh free will" or was it because of his character?

Reasoning is the mode of causality, that as such annihilates any sort of freedom

This brit is a pretty cool guy

>le wikipedia isn't reliable meme

All that matters is that we believe we have free will; anything else is besides the point.

Nonsensical. If you give a person a gram of coke, they'll act hyper and do dumb shit. Therefore action and thought are modifiable by physical constraints and excesses.

>but criminals

The information they are made up of, the extra data that information parsed, and the environment intertwine.

You can only convince and change men who are primed and ready to be convinced and changed. Instead of thinking about free will, you should asking "How do I modify motivation and action to produce superior results?".

If you put a person in a room with only flourouscent lighting, they'll get tired over the day because a lack of UV radiation doesn't tell the body to stop producing melatonin.

It'd be interesting to see if daytime pot smokers have higher levels of skin cancer. Melatonin also signals/activates skin repair processes so...

But anyways, telling a worker he's "lazy" and "stupid" in such an environment is cruelty.

At the same time if environmental stress causes YOU to act violently in the midst of peaceful people, you're going to be locked up or put down. No analysis will save you.

latam fag detected

I'm just bored about this endless semantic debate...

Holy fuck..

Why do you keep asking these stupid questions, when you can create a model of reality where humans have free will, then compare that model to reality and see if it fits.

Fuck sake what do schools teach you these days when you can't answer simple af questions like this by yourself.

right there with you, except not bored, just not giving attention to it really. Would you like to do something actually useful with me?

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LatinoAmericANO

partial free will which is technically not free will.

define partial free will

>define partial free will
Not him, but humans have a certain level of understanding about how our current actions will affect our future state, and that whatever state we're in influences our actions. From this, it can be seen that humans are capable of understanding how to influence their own future actions by their current actions. In this way, we do achieve some limited measure of control over our future actions, though it's not complete and thus technically not free will.

take this thread, right, and
shove it up your fking ass underage popscientist

don't blow his mind up
plebs can't even begin to approach the subject of a nervous system existing in other animals

What makes free will impossible in a simulation?

don't discourage him, he just wants to throw out buzz words like a monkey does their own waste

>if free will doesn't exist, behavior patterns are inconclusive and irrelevant
and why is that so? I believe they have some causal relations in them, and ever since you implied people are free, namely are capable of disobedience to causal laws, will BEING free must make these patterns irrelevant

cont'd
>how can you label someone a criminal if they are not in control of their own actions?
>what is motivation
are you braindead? for each individual's action there must be a cause, namely a motive introduced to them via perception(conditions), conception(possible concequences) and later chosen out of multitude of others depending on it's suitability of the person's (here: criminal's) character

It isnt. Can you cite it as source in murrican universities or what?

this thread is such bullshit.

you try and explain actions based off of perception.

but a person goes through life bombarded with tons of perceptions of day.
so what is it that out of all those perceptions, during all that time, they finally attune to something that interests them.
be it the sound of a finely tuned engine
a cool looking comic book hero
the smell of sawdust and grease
the feel of a bolt of fabric.

I mean sure you could say they were "primed" to attune to those things.

but what about when something like that is completely alien to the person?

how do you guys resolve buardins ass?

how do you resolve "perceptions" or "previous actions" that have equal discretionary weight?

I think none of you know what the decision making process entails.

sometimes you have to make solutions instead of just finding them.

>I'm saying the REASONS they have, they don't really decide
Yeah, of course people will be biased. That also doesnt mean they dont have free will

not him, but there isnt really a choice if there is no free will

>dont have free will
>had no choice to type this
>but i know i dont have free will

PENIS

>it was determined in the universe for me to type this. I didnt choose to, the universe made me do it

look

what is the difference between free will and instincts and reflexes?

well, I guess it boils down to the semantics of "choice"

rather to disassamblement of individual's action:
if you do this, you are left with no place for "free will",
otherwise, namely ignoring of the principle of causality, you are led into delusion of "free will"

that's why I'm against jail and for therapeutic measurements.

it's the other way round

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

The picture becoming clear scientifically is that there are elements of randomness and determinism. With an element of randomness in our lives the paradoxical example no longer applies concretely.

Are we a slave to our own free will?