> free will is following your desires within the bounds of your physical and mental limits
> you dont chose your desires or physical and mental limits
> expanding those limits (like getting stronger) is merely a desire you couldnt help but have trumping another (the desire to be physically attractive finally beating out the desire to eat garbage food in bed all day)
Have any writers credibly refuted determinism?
how is determinism not a comforting lie?
wow omg that picture made me really think it makes me think
woooowwww BOOKS N SHEET MAKES ME THINK
Dostoevsky in the underground man
For starters it isnt a lie. Second its not very comforting, it can be useful as a tool for dealing with people that are difficult to deal with though. Its not true because its useful, its true because its true... well probably, maybe someone like will convince me. Thanks by the way
I didnt expect the picture to convince anyone, it merely was the first picture i saw that fit what i was posting about and i literally have to post a picture to post the first post. If you were truly confident in your ideas you would present them or even just not post but ad hominem attacks are very low and show you have no real way to disprove what i said
It isn't.
It can be comforting though. If you're anxious about the future for example. There's no need to worry because whatever will happen, will happen. It forces you to be more accepting of life.
Also how can you be sure determinism is true? It is not confirmed at the moment, even though the evidence points towards it.
Augustine--The Free Choice of Will.
>it's an argument by definition episode
Oh boy, this will be enlightening.
> you dont chose your desires
Why not? You're going in circles with this point because you're assuming determinism to make this point.
determinism is true, but you have to look at it from a non-retarded viewpoint.
determinism doesn't disallow chosing your desires. it just says that, if time is turned back before your choice and let to flow again with no augmentation - you'd make the same choice. If you threw a coin and got heads, you'd get heads again, in the same example. So that means everything can be predicted, given enough information (impossible for use to do, however)
t. mindless Sam Harris fan drone
i've never read harris
Well, you bear the stamp of his idiocy and ignorance regardless.
why
Enlighten him/me, fampai
I don't know the series of events and circumstances that brought you to this sad conclusion--how could I? Better to ask 'how might I be better than I am?'
>sad conclusioni
How is it sad?
To be of Sam Harris' stamp is to be marked for sadness. Not in the way that all of us are marked for sadness, but the particular mark reserved for those ignorant of their state; the sadness of the pitied.
>To be of Sam Harris' stamp is to be marked for sadness
I don't know him you can stop namedropping him.
The rest is bullshit. I'm pretty happy with myself and the direction I'm going.
Being permanently stuck with the thinking of a 16 year old, though... now that's being marked for sadness
The most painful irony of the ignorant is just the irony of their ignorance.
And their ignorance if their irony.
nice dubs
>remains unanswered
>implying this is a thread for answering and not reckoning
>how...?
>it just isn't
...
Another marked one.
embarrassing
True, true.
definition =/= causality
And all of Aristotles grammars cannot change that.
Keep hewing that wood.
>he keeps embarrassing himself
>he still doesn't get it
>he thinks this isn't embarrassing for him
>he STILL doesn't get that he can never not be the butt of this joke until he stops replying
Free will exists.
Determinism needs first to be proven. Even at the lowest possible level our current theoretical level the quantum mechanic defies determinism.
>he has no idea what's going on
>still most ignorant of what he's most assured
>you are a brain that is controlling a body
>your personality is partly defined by your genetics and by the input your body received and send as electrical signals to you (the brain)
>this means you don't actually "think" but rather a chemical reaction based on earlier inputs results in your convictions
>this means while you have the illusion of choice, you don't actually have free will.
repeat after me:
em
>you are a brain that is controlling a body
>the brain is separated from the body
discarded
!determinism != free will
Exactly. I was talking about determinism, quite clearly.
>>you are a brain that is controlling a body
How do you know that's 'you'? ;)
still waiting on that 'em', boi
Now you've bored me. Sorry, gg up til now.
Good decision desu
I'll refer you back to this post while I very conscientiously and deliberately stop posting, fully cognizant of the implication.
You were just TOO CLEVER for me you MASTER TROLL, you. WELL DONE.
And thus you have outsmarted me. Congratulations. All I ever wanted was a peaceful discussion...alas.
ignore this post
free will exists beyond the physical and mental you brainlet
Not them but, considering how we can model most physical conditions within a fair margin of error, and that margin of error reduces as better models reflect whatever it is you're basing it on, wouldn't that mean there is at least a kind of implication of a deterministic aspect of reality?
It has more value as an argument than otherwise
Well it is symbiotic, sure but all things considered your body is little more than a vehicle that your brain uses to gather resources like food and air. your brain can function without your body but your body can't function without your brain. (for a limited time at least. In the end the brain needs it's vehicle to survive)
So technically your body is a "meat-mech" piloted by you, a brain.
>brain isn't part of the body
do continue, by which i mean DON'T you fucking idiot
No it isn't.
But we can't model consciousness
How do you know the brain is you?
My brain is also made out of meat.
THE BRAIN SAYS SO! FIGHT THE POWER! DRAIN THE BRAIN!
Because if the brain dies, you end.
kek topmao my friend
now, who is this 'you' that's ending? the brain ends, yes.
Mostly fat and nerve tissue, actually.
You're second premise is a non-sequitur. You just said that free will is following your desires, which I do, regardless of the fact those desires weren't chosen.
I actually explained the one way that sort of agreed it was comforting. everyone ive ever spoke to agrees free will is a comforting thought
So youre all saying i could choose to like or dislike something? How does common sense allow you to take this position? Even if i choose to avoid something forever and take up different interest thats an emotion i couldnt help but have arrising in the one place it could, the emotion producing machine of the creature experiencing the emotion. If i like reading YA romance novels, i cant help but enjoy them as i read them (ie guilty pleasures). I can "choose" to stop reading them to be seen reading classic lit on the bus instead but that "choice" is my shame about reasing those books and desire to be respected overcoming my desire to read what i enjoy most. Psychology has been quite clear people dont chose their likes and dislikes so this isnt some baseless by definition assumption. Even if a person decides to try and be more accepting, say of the sight of their fat body in the mirror, its a desire for happiness and acceptance over powering the desire to look good. Theyve just finally reached a breaking point of suffering. What makes one person vomit might make another pop a stiffy and neither chose their reaction. A video of children being murdered would strike revulsion in nearl y everyones heart and in an unlucky few a great joy. Those people can be identified by causal factors in their formative years and in brain scans both of which are beyond their control
see the above proportion of my post. also how is it freedom to pursue the goals you didnt choose with your limits which you didnt chose in a society you didnt choose to be born into? is that not like saying a slave is free to pick cotton? they didnt choose it but they still pursue it with the level of rigor demanded to prevent another beating
Your 'definition' of 'free will' precludes the very possibility of freedom. You've set the terms in such a way that you are able to draw the conclusion you desire, i.e. you are arguing from definition. But free will is NOT defined as simply 'following desires within certain prescribed boundaries', but is rather, colloquially, that capacity to choose between alternatives. Desire need not enter the equation at all, as in the choice between two options to which you are indifferent. The capacity to choose is a necessary and possibly a sufficient condition of free will, while desire is neither a sufficient not necessary.
Run along now.