Does free will exist? Any books that deal with the subject?

>The only really good arguments for free will are mystical and/or religious tb h

lol no

If you agree that people should debate rationally, then this is a great short proof of free will. Read the objections too if you're feeling unconvinced.

spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/fwill.htm

Books. Most of them. All of them?

Enjoy discussing Fame in the Brain with Quine then I guess

Here's to another century of rehashing Leibniz: THIS TIME WITH QM

"The minimal free will thesis (MFT) holds that at least some of the time, someone has more than one course of action that he can perform."

This is just plain wrong by default, because there isn't any choice in doing what you did, in fact, do.

Saying that there are more than one course of action, is only using language to say that you *hope* that a person could've done differently, not that they actually had the ability to, because whatever happened, is what happened.

>Enjoy discussing Fame in the Brain with Quine then I guess

Muh epiphenomenalism.

You're misunderstanding English desu
Determinism by definition means that you are only capable of one course of action, MFT is the first step above that, and needs to be true for any stronger form of free will to be also true.

>Determinism by definition means that you are only capable of one course of action

No, it means that whatever course of action you chose, was meant to happen.

Relies on misleading language play. Not a convincing proof at all.

Specifically he messes around with the word “can”. No one denies that, from a natural human perspective, there seem to be many “can”'s at any one moment. We get the impression that we can act in many different ways; we are born with this impression. This is, in fact, the very thing that determinism denies. It states that what seems possible isn't necessarily so, because in reality there is only one course of action that we will take. So you have two different definitions for “can”; what seems possible and what *is* possible from a deterministic perspective. Steps 2 and 5 use the first can. Step 6 uses the second. When you assume that determinism is true for the reductio ad absurdum in step 6, you must assume the existence of those two different definitions of “can”, and consequentially the conclusion in that step cannot follow from the premises.

>from a natural human perspective, there seem to be many “can”'s at any one moment

If you actually look deep enough, it really doesn't.

I don't think I fully understand what you're saying, can you explain it again?

The main argument for free will is
>b-but Hitler

Those mean the same thing, just because you perceive choice doesn't change the fact that determinism is when you are only capable of one course of action

>just because you perceive choice

Which was exactly my argument here moronYou are perceiving choice where there is none. You just hope, or believe that it exists.

I can not see how you've added anything to the discussion. You're confusing first and third person perspective. The sentences are equivalent except you insist on a first person perspective while in the definition the author uses a third person perspective. What am I missing?

Yes, what I mean is that we are born with the notion of libertarian free will.

>can
Not sure if this was a joke or not but anyway

As this user put it, just because you perceive choice doesn't mean that there is more than one course of action available. This is central to the idea of (incompatibilist) determinism, which states in fact that the perception of choice is irrelevant and you NEVER have more than one course of action.

When the author proclaims in premise 2 that "ought" implies "can", what he's really saying is that "ought" implies a *perception* of possibility/choice.

This is a different sense of "can" than the one in premise 3, where the author proclaims that, under determinism, "whatever can be done is done". When we speak of "what can be done" from a deterministic perspective we are not speaking about all the outcomes that we as human beings perceive as possible. This should be obvious, given that pure determinism argues that only one outcome is truly possible; that is the outcome that we talk about in a situation like the one in premise 3.

What the author is ultimately doing is treating two meanings of the word "can" that have important distinctions as equivalent. This is an error.

>I can not see how you've added anything to the discussion.

That's because you literally didn't even address my main criticism which was this:

>"Saying that there are more than one course of action, is only using language to say that you *hope* that a person could've done differently, not that they actually had the ability to"

yes. I freely decided to post ITT

probably not

It doesn't

I do not know whether I have free will, but I have calculated the chance to be 1 in 250000 +- an order of magnitude.

>People thinking Will, free or not, exists

Yes it does. You are the captain of your soul.

It's impossible to know. Anyone claiming otherwise is retarded

I wrote a 30k book about free will while I was on LSD. Read it weeks later, didn't understand any of its logic.

Freetherichnutchis&i'mallyourscunnhtttt

amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

The last two episodes of Neon Genesis Evangelion

there is a free-will (-) or (+) it doesn't matter lets just use FW*

free will is a null thing to look for but FW* does exist or rather the assumtion of the existence of free will exists, this says nothing about free will itself but we have to assume FW* exist to operate the way we understand ourselves and our world

It follows from giving up the idea of free will and to embrace determinism wholeheartedly that perceived causality (apple falling from tree because gravity etc.) can only be a psychological certainty since for a determinist's causality to be demonstrated we need to be aware of all the variables and algorithms that make up the universe and since nobody knows and probably will ever know all the variables, let alone the algorithms and how it all fits together, there is no certainty or truth to be found (at least "as of yet" like they'd tell you) outside of our psyche's box of tricks including all strong correlations, all future evidence etc.

If you say a determinist's immediate plan to shoot himself would -certainly- kill him, the perfect determinist should respond saying "you can't prove that I won't chicken out at the last second" even if he is clinically depressed and suicidal.

To be psychologically certain means, paradoxically, to believe that you are certain without a doubt and for a sane person who is conducting a self-experiment this means for all practical purposes they can observe and/or repeat something familiar ad infinitum and get the same results given comparable mental state and knowledge and so on. And of course this ceteris paribus is itself only valid for practical "human" purposes, no one and no thing really stays the same but hey who isn't happy to take that leap of faith when they are convinced of causality except for our perfect determinist.

Anyways as a consequence the perfect determinist has to be on a rational level uncertain in all areas while his psyche he might say is playing tricks on him because of repeatedly strong correlation between events etc. as mentioned above and he is thus "allowed" to be psychologically certain but he -knows- it's just a trick and not to be taken at face value.

I will take a shortcut here (sorry) but is this really how it works in practice though? Is it not rather the case that real life determinists unwittingly concede that my criticism is correct when they say "Free will is an illusion and a dated concept". This indicates that real life determinists are enjoying state of certainty beyond the -admitted- psychological. This doesn't surprise me because apart from my imagined perfect determinist we are all human including Sam Harris.

But for a perfect determinist to be rationally free of doubt of -anything- including that psychological certainty of something is indeed a mental trick rather than a truth as true as truth can be perceived by humans, that determinism is tenable and free will is an illusion they need to know what they don't know and they know that they don't know.

Choose to believe that which you can trust and which empowers you. Not as God but as human.

Post it.

>itt fuck off we don't know. also nobody is gonna recommend anything from the long history of the debate other than the sam harris meme book

which one?

Go to bed Witty

So there's a quantum phenomenon which randomly (by which I refer to the randomness defined by laws of quantum mechanics which are the only truly random events in the universe) produces a high energy wave which physicists call cosmic rays. If a cosmic ray hits a piece of your hard drive or RAM it can switch a binary bit of information from 0 to 1 or vice versa. The changed binary bit may be of no importance and may result in an error messege popping up or it may crash a life-changing video you're about to watch and you may never come across it in your life.

So, the fact that the event leading to your inability to watch a video which WOULD change your life was caused by true randomness may suggest that the we aren't governed by hard determinism principles. The free will part stays the same (questionable), but according to the above mentioned example the opposite (hard determinism) may be as questionable as free will.

Thoughts?

Philosophy of the Mind by Edward Feser does not deal with free will specifically, but it's easy to find good recommendations on particular schools in there. For a materialist there can be no free will. You can simply deny that premise and work from there. He lists 10 or so related works for every of the 20 or so views on the mind. Hence, find a school which you find interesting and read that stuff.

why not quantum determinism

Because randomness can't be determined.

Indeterminism doesn't give you free will either.

I didn't say it does.
>according to the above mentioned example the opposite (hard determinism) may be as questionable as free will.

Meme question. How will knowing the answer change the way you will perceive the world?

Jacques le Fataliste by Diderot treat of that subject and it is well written

>people saying free will doesn't exist
A classic example of how reading more than actually living can fuck your mind up.

You have to be incredibly deluded to think that there is NO free will, period. In the present moment, we all have varying degrees of free will. I am far more free than some poverty stricken person who feels a deep envy towards those with material wealth every day. I am far more free than those who live in third world countries and are starving and cannot function. I am even more free than a Scrooge who amassed immense wealth but became paranoid and lets his paranoia dictate his life and cut off all his relationships. I am not as free, however, as someone in good physical shape who does not suffer from asthma like I do.

People ignore the present when they try to factor in the whole universe and spectrum of time and say that what you do in the present was determined, therefore you had no free will. But that is not the absolute reality. You don't fully grasp the implications of perspectivism if you don't see how that is.

He was right doe.

Wait, indeterminism should give you free will, because your actions aren't determined anymore.

Mainly a view that free will doesn't exist ought to change how one views revenge, and the criminal justice system. The basis for revenge/retribution seems harder to justify if you accept that the person with whom you which to seek revenge could not have acted differently, and they (as in their ego) are really a victim of their physiology, which the did not shape.

Where does the free choice come from if everything is random?

That's stupid. A system that puts that much into consideration becomes easily exploitable.

How does that even affect anything anyway? You're not going to punish people then, since it's not "really" their fault? Sounds good, let pedophiles and serial killers off the hook and give them a comfortable island resort clinic to stay in for a few months instead before releasing them back into the world, since they obviously had no control and just need a little but of therapeutic vacation time.

The very idea sounds anti-individualistic to me.

What is left if both free will and hard determinism are flawed?

What do you mean?

As I understand one can either believe that one has free will or admit that everything is determined.
The conclusion that everything in the universe is determined lead us to believe that we don't have free will for every single of our actions and decisions are predetermined.
But following this user's argument that a truly random event can lead to a shift of your future actions and/or decisions thereby rendering hard determinism obsolete.
If the very idea which lead us to believe in the nonexistence of free will is flawed, doesn't that mean that free will exists? It certainly doesn't prove the existence of free will but, by rendering obsolete the arguments made against free will, free will is as likely to exist as it is not to.

>that a truly random event can lead to a shift of your future actions and/or decisions

Yeah, but this doesn't mean you have free will. This would just mean that you can be influenced.

Randomness doesn't imply free will anymore than everything being determined does.

>Determinism implied the nonexistence of free will
>Quantum Mechanics debunked Determinism
>Free will is free of flawed deterministic arguments
>Hence free will is as likely as it is not

Which part did I mess up in the longer version post?

Are you saying I am using a poor definition of free will?

...

The topic of this thread was on the existence of free will, not on the specific validity of determinism.

And either way you cut it(hard determinism, or hard indeterminism), free will doesn't make sense.

>free will doesn't make sense.
Why not?

You should elaborate on how what I said doesn't apply to multiple definitions of free will.

If "free will" means will not constrained by necessity, what I said still applies. Because "necessity" here is established by the past, but the perspective of the present takes limited consideration of the past, or no consideration at all. From that perspective, there is no necessity in the act. Only from the perspective that considers the past is there necessity constraining all action.

It was always meant to be this way.

Only good post ITT.

If there was a computer which could gather every variable in the universe, it could predict absolutely everything.
If there was a computer which could gather every variable effecting you, it could predict your whole life.
Variables effecting you includes everything starting from your hormonal balance to your neighbors to your and every other person you're interacting or will interact with brain's neural structure and chemical interactions their neurons make.

>Why not?

Because if something is completely random, how do you have a say in it? If every choice you do, is simply a matter of the dice, then it's really not *you* choosing freely is it?

Since when is everything random?
How can a choice be random unless you coin flip? It doesn't make sense by definition of the word choice itself.

See, but what you don't get is perspectivism.

Because different perspectives are possible, what you're saying is not absolute. It is just one of many perspectives.

To an omniscient being like that computer, all action may indeed appear constrained by necessity. Not every being is omniscient though, and awareness can be turned off.

Awareness of perspectivism is a type of awareness you seem to have turned off as well. Unfortunately, philosophy is not so linear as you're making it out to be. Hence why a "truly" "omniscient" "being" will only exist in fantasy.

>Since when is everything random?

By invoking QM, you sort of gave me that impression.

I agreed with the other user that some truly random phenomena can affect a supposedly determined course of actions rendering them indeterminable. You can predict a ball falling if you let it go but you can't predict the EXACT point in which it will fall because of the random nature of quantum mechanics.

It doesn't matter op. Focus on another question.

Nope.

Your DNA limits the range of reactions you can experience, think and feel during your entire life. Therefore your thought isn't unlimited, so therefore you don't have a free will.

Besides, everything you think or held own is due to socialization by, for example, your parents, your culture, your friends, media, your religion.

I should also add that your perception is a function of your senses. Your senses are limited, so your perception is limited.
#try to think about new color
#try think about world without time or space
#try to think about world without orientation e.g. gravity pulls you down, your head is up

This assumes all variables are collectable. If chaos exists in at least one place that this computer needs to collect from then those calculations break down.

OP we will never know if free will exists, there is just not enough information available to humans for us to know that answer.
I will suggest some sci-fi for you to read that has free will elements in its story en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)

please post it I love that kind of shit

Chaos is a concept invented by humans to describe something they can't comprehend due to high amounts of interrelated and/or interdependent variables acting and changing at the same time. There can be no chaos if the computer is powerful enough.

I don't get it. What difference does my perspective on the subject matter make? You can look at a mountain from countless angles but it won't change the nature of the mountain nor its properties, in fact the mountain doesn't even acknowledge your existence because it's not self aware, just like the idea of free will.
I just explained free will using a hard deterministic example, doesn't mean I'm constrained by it. I'm open to new ideas and, despite my delayed reply, would genuinely like to hear your answer.

I didn't say that people shouldn't be jailed, but we would look at a criminal or bad actor the same we looked at a wild animal, so if locking up that animal was the best for society we should, but now it doesn't make much sense, if say you are effected by this wild animals crimes, to hate that animal personally.

Pretty much you become more compassionate, and less revenge-driven

>What difference does my perspective on the subject matter make?
Well first of all, you are never NOT looking at things from a perspective. "Objective lens" don't exist - unless you were everything in the universe, at the same time, for all time. But you're not, you're a fleshy body, occupying particular space and time. You interpret everything from this particular position through these particular organs.

Now, that said. The ideas of necessity, fate, and determinism - and these are just ideas - they are all a result of your perspective, your interpretation, like anything else.

Which means they are NOT universal constants. They are not fact... from my perspective.

If you go down this rabbit hole where I'm from, everything both is and isn't - but ultimately is what *I* say it is. Free will is relative; it is and isn't, it comes and goes, in varying degrees. Necessity is an idea that exists only in certain interpretations, and it's up for debate as to which interpretations are the best. In my opinion it is situational. Sometimes, you need to feel that you are in control. You'd fail many things if you never felt this way - sex probably being one of them.

And a computer will never be omniscient. It will always be limited to what human intelligence can create.

lol at this idiot

emotions aren't justified rationally, and I am perfectly in my right to hate a criminal even if his behaviour is determined biologically

it makes more sense, in fact, to hate someone who's "evil" by nature than it does to hate someone who makes a choice to be that way, as the latter could actually be redeemed and altered

Being and Nothingness, you cunt

Say you'd place a human next to this computer, and say you'd ask the computer to say what the human is going to think in 10 minutes. Once the computer figured out the answer, the answer would be shown in green letters on a bright screen, visible to everyone including the human in question.

What do you think would happen?

Of course, this guppy thread gets the most comments. Fucking pseud cucks.

If the human in question was to see the answer he'd act differently because the answer made a difference. If you were to ask the computer the same question immediately after it gave an answer it would provide a different answer.
Bottom line is that you can't predict something's/someone's behavior if the very prediction alters their state.

The argument of perspectivism would matter if we were arguing about, say, politics, marxism, religion, etc, but in this case, we are arguing about ideas which indeed are universal constants. The very idea of hard determinism is that we and our behavior is governed and constrained by the same exact laws of physics as the rest of the universe because we are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe and possess nothing that would prove otherwise (i.e. a soul).
The idea of free will (as I see it) is the opposite of hard determinism, which says that we are able to counteract the forces of nature and act based on our will but the this idea is only backed up by subjective feelings. For example right now I feel like I am writing this response by my own will and nothing is forcing me.
On the other hand, hard determinism is backed up by centuries of observations and empirical data which leads any logically reasoning entity to believe in it, just like we believe that mars orbits the sun.

I believe it won't be very long until we make a powerful enough computer able to simulate a brain of a mouse alongside the whole laboratory in which it will live and the objects it will interact with. By doing so, it'll be possible to test whether a mouse has free will or not.

Also, I understand that we, as people who perceive the world with our sense organs thus rendering everything we will ever observe subjective, are not able to grasp reality the way it is. But other than our sense organs we have a part of our brain which is responsible for logical reasoning and with it using empirical data we're trying to come as close to objectivity as possible (at least I am, and that would be my perspective, I guess).

>we are arguing about ideas which indeed are universal constants
You have about 500 years of philosophy to read and catch up on.