Is free will a lie?

I hope that free will is a lie, otherwise I'll have to take responsibility for the things that I've done. That would really suck, man.

If free will is a lie it also means all of science can't be trusted since the scientific method is predicated on freely being able to draw a conclusion from evidence. Anyone who asserts free will does not exist also asserts that the science that backs that idea up is untrustworthy.

yes i can play lol all fuking day till I die
and ignore peoles suffering
also dubs

>the scientific method is predicated on freely being able
No it's not.

Explain to me how you can be sure your judgement that the facts support the conclusion is correct without free will, this should be interesting.

Probably not, because I seem to not have any control over myself whenever these shitty threads are posted, despite them being bait and the OP usually being a moron.

>your actions are your "choice"
>your brain "does the choosing"
>your brain's decisions and perception are affected by chemicals that don't choose to do anything
>your brain is made of chemicals that don't choose to do anything
>the chemicals that your brain is made of are products of an unending chain of causality that began with nucleosynthesis following the big bang
>your body just a collection of chemical elements
>"you" is just a pattern of electricity flowing along the paths of least resistance in the circuits on a meat computer

Unless electrons have the capacity to choose I'm forced to say free will doesn't exist. Nonetheless, the emergence of the illusion of free will is very interesting.
It may be simply be a consequence of our uncertainty about the future. If I don't know what you're going to do - hell, if I don't even know what I'm going to do - then perhaps the entire concept of freedom of choice is superimposed on the universe by our own minds.
The brain, subconsciously, is computing the probability that certain events will unfold. But subconsciously the brain knows that it is wrong. It rationalizes its inability to predict the future by creating a sense of free will, which we see in others and in ourselves, as a theory of mind. But that would, quite literally, mean free will is a meme.

When the conclusions are logically sound.

>religion
>god
>will
>alive
so many memes, so little time
yes,
each life is a predetermined dream that was scripted by god, which was you after your last 'death'

And how do you determine what is logically sound when you have no free will? If your perception of your will being free is illusory then your logic probably is as well.

>And how do you determine what is logically sound when you have no free will?
You check if they (conclusions) follow the rules of logic.

>If your perception of your will being free is illusory then your logic probably is as well.
That's a non sequitur.

A computer can determine the validity of logical chains. Does it have "free will"?

>nucleosynthesis
>following the big bang
which of course, was caused by... uhm
>can't say god, mind, magic
necessity, chance; cause multiverses, all dumb luck

>You check if they (conclusions) follow the rules of logic.
Rules of logic are arbitrary without the free will to determine whether they are actually sound or not.

how many humans have you seen hitting their teeth with hammers?

Long story short it doesn't matter whether our will is "free" or not - we always choose the actions percieved as optimal. This seems like a terrible handicap to an actual free will

>Rules of logic are arbitrary
Correct.

>without the free will to determine whether they are actually sound or not.
Non sequitur.

It's not the rules of logic that are to be deemed sound or unsound. It's the conclusions (or rather propositions).

It can come to incorrect conclusions based on faulty logical sequences and has no ability to think "Hey wait a minute 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3" if those processes are faulty. If you have no will then you're no different. It means you can come to incorrect conclusions based on logic you can never know is false because you've been preprogrammed to accept certain presuppositions as fact. Sorry buddy, if free will doesn't exist, the very foundation of science is gone. Can't make choices, can't make your own conclusions then whatever you decide is arbitrary based on a foundation that has badly programmed you like a computer spitting out nonsense from flaws in its internal logic.

even if it is, who cares?

You'll die if your internal logic is faulty because it drastically diminishes the usefulness of brains.

But I see you are firmly entrenched in the "we can't know nuthin'" camp, so have fun with the rest of your empty postmodernist life ^^

FATALITY

WILL WINS (define it)

Which require will to be followed.

>Which require will to be followed.
Perhaps in the strictest sense, it does require a "will", but it's not free in any sense of the word.

>You'll die if your internal logic is faulty
Not really. Your brain plays perceptual tricks on you every single day designed to assist your survival but muddying your objective view of reality. Your internal logic IS faulty, that's fact, your brain will not allow you to see objective truth even it's as simple as letting you perceive the fact that A and B in this pic are the same color. Without the freedom of will to pick and choose which of your perceptions are illusory and which are not then everything crumbles.

I don't get Mickey's argument at all. Anybody care to rephrase or explain it?

>Without the freedom of will to pick and choose which of your perceptions are illusory and which are not then everything crumbles.
If the conclusions are logically sound, nothing "crumbles".

I agreed with everything you said, but then you've lost me again at the "therefore free will"
It is not needed to decide whether of your percepts you should follow

>I see you are firmly entrenched in the "we can't know nuthin'" camp, so have fun with the rest of your empty postmodernist life
I believe free will exists. My only goal here is to show that the idea that free will does not exist is logically irreconcilable, since the arguments that it doesn't are based on conclusions that came from automatons with no choice but to believe flawed models of reality we have no way of determining are correct. Having free will is a logical necessity to make good arguments, without it then you don't have anything to stand on because by your own admission you're not making the argument because you think the evidence supports it, you're doing it because your programming is forcing you to, and that goes for everything in your life, everything you think you choose to believe isn't because you have good reason, it's because it just happened that way.

Personally I find the entire concept absurd. I don't really understand why so many people are so desperate to argue that they're automatons making bad arguments because their brains forced them to rather than just accepting, yes, we do make our own choices, we do have a will of our own.

>free will
magic belongs to

>If the conclusions are logically sound, nothing "crumbles".
You can never know if the conclusions are logically sound because you're preprogrammed to accept results and reject others based on the arbitrary logic of your brain.

>It is not needed to decide whether of your percepts you should follow
It is if you think that they're the right ones. You can't point to any evidence that supports your point because your point rules out the idea that people can accept evidence based on it's merits in the first place. Bit of a problem isn't it?

Somehow you make "supported by evidence" and "predetermined" out to be mutually exclusive. They aren't.

>Without the freedom of will to pick and choose which of your perceptions are illusory and which are not then everything crumbles.
It's the logical conclusion.

Robot dogs make choices too. I guess they have free will as well.

>You can never know if the conclusions are logically sound because you're preprogrammed to accept results and reject others based on the arbitrary logic of your brain.
Again, a non sequitur. Everyone in this thread has been telling you that your statements do not follow. I can determine the validity of a conclusion all while being predetermined to do so. There's no logical inconsistency in that set of propositions.

So what? Your argument is that sometimes someone might reach the correct conclusion by dumb luck? I don't dispute that, I'm saying you have no way of determining whether the conclusions you reached are actually, objectively, correct or wrong based on erroneous logic built into you. You believe what the programming of the brain says you will believe, nothing more, nothing less and whether those beliefs are congruent with reality doesn't matter because you have no idea what conclusions are right and what conclusions are wrong and never will. You're playing a game you can never win.

>I can determine the validity of a conclusion all while being predetermined to do so
No, you can't. The logical processes of your brain make the conclusion and you have no ability to tell if those processes are flawed.

Define "actually, objectively correct" and I'll answer you. Yes I assume that something has to be logically consistent for it to be correct. So do you. There's no way to prove that logic is "actually, objectively correct". Any attempt at showing the opposite would invoke logic so it's a dead end. It's literally the basis of human thought. And by using logic (and empiricism, also assumed to be correct), we have come to the conclusion that there is no free will.

Let me explain. If I write a program with erroneous logic so that it spits out incorrect results for inputs, does the program ever 'know' it's giving out the wrong results? Given you're just as much as an automaton as the computer program based on your stance then how do you know YOU can't coming to incorrect logical conclusions based on logical processes that are incorrect? Without free will you never know.

The ability to CHOOSE is absolutely necessary to confirm the validity of results. If you have no choice then you will every time come to the same incorrect conclusion because you were predetermined to. If the computer spits out 1 + 1 = 3 every time according to it's internal logic then it does NOT mean 1 + 1 = 3. If you come to a conclusion over and over it does NOT mean your conclusion is correct because your internal logic is flawed and you're just running along the rails according to it.

by your definition free will is entirely predetermined lmao

Dunno how you got that since I haven't even said anything regarding my own beliefs other than I think free will is a real thing that exists and we are not automatons bound to the biological processes of the brain.

If 1+1 = 3 is consistent with its own logical system, then yes it's "correct". According to our mathematics, it's not correct. Whose logic is correct? That's a non starter.

>If 1+1 = 3 is consistent with its own logical system, then yes it's "correct"
It's generating an incorrect result that cannot be trusted. If results cannot be trusted then there's no point to empiricism because the choice between A and B isn't actually a choice, the programming of your brain determines whether you choose A or B and if it picks B when the evidence actually supports A then tough luck your brain just tricked 'you' into believing something incorrect based on it's own arbitrary internal logic and there is literally no way you can ever know it.

So you think there is more going on than physics and chemistry in the brain? Even though we know brain consists of only physical components you think it's somehow capable of metaphysical powers ?

>It's generating an incorrect result that cannot be trusted
"Correct" is relative. According to its own rules it's correct.

As for everything you said about "A or B" and your brain forcing you to choose one, that's all absolutely correct. Excpet for "there's no way you can never know it". You might revise your conclusions and see the logical inconsistency. This is what science is all about.

Anyway, none of this says anything about free will. This whole thread has basically just been "You cannot know nuffin' therefore free will"

You think you're a biological zombie? I guess you're free to believe that if you want, but I know I have a mind and I'm skeptical of any conclusion that says I do not, or it is in some way illusory. There is no argument that can be made against it because the very presupposition that you have no free will means you have zero objective evidence to support your position. You're like a robot trying to prove it's point when it's been programmed to come to arbitrary and incorrect conclusions. Thanks Mr. Robot but I'll trust my mind over your flawed argument that refutes itself.

>According to its own rules it's correct.
You're never going to get a correct conclusion from your own arbitrary rules. You need ones that are congruent with reality. Unfortunately for you there is no evidence you can bring to bear that your own stance doesn't automatically invalidate.

It's okay. You are just pre-determined to deny basic logic and science and choose magic instead. Some people are like that it's ok. Tell the folks at your church I said hi.

1. Logic and empiricism are correct.
2. Empiricism and logic dictate that there is no free will.
3. Therefore there is no free will.

Most of your actions are based of your socio-historical background and why you grew up to be such a brainlet faggot

you only percieve reality through your senses, so it is possible that everything you see is a lie, because the reality you see might be a lie. therefore all knowledge cannot be proven. it is imbossible to prove the existence of others and anything. so you cant know if your brain is just chemicals. .... its a religious or matrix arguement desu

Ah, I see. Thank you.

>Empiricism and logic dictate that there is no free will.
By your own admission you were unable to come to any other conclusion than the one you did because your brain made it that way. How do you know logic and empiricism ACTUALLY support your position and you didn't come to this conclusion because you're an automaton who had no other choice? Your stance is not based on evidence, if you are correct, it's based on the fact you are incapable of believing anything else. Again your position refutes itself.

The universe is predetermined. Every single atom, molecule, cell, energy and mechanical waves act on principles that we can describe mathematically and we know are entirely act upon those laws.
Causality and predetermination is something you can't just escape without rewriting all the known laws from the newtons law of motions to e=mc2.

The universe is fundamentally probabilistic, not deterministic.

>I'll have to take responsibility for the things that I've done.
You already do. Well, you do for the things the law defines.

>The universe is predetermined.
what is probability

what about quantumphysics? why cant we correctly predict it? is there another unkown force ?

Can you predict a coinflip or a dice? If you can't does that mean it's magically random ?

I have to go to sleep so this is my last response for tonight.

Yes I could be wrong and free will could in fact exist, but this is highly unlikely according to current models. There are other ways to show that free will doesn't exist without invoking empiricism. Anyway, good night. You're the same user I was discussing this with earlier this week or last week. I hope to continue the discussion sometime.

G'night user

>magically
what do you mean

I dont believe in god, i just meant forces like gravity.
Besides, like the other anons said, you can predict a probability but we cant even predict the probability of quantomphysics, i believe was quite some time ago i've read about it.

Magically as in there are forces beyond physics.

Can you predict the result of a dice throw or not?

yes you can predict the probability

Can you predict a coinflip right now then?

List all the variables that effect the throw of a coinflip from the muscle structure of the person throwing the coin to the coriolis effect. And tell me how you factor these all in and get a result.

Our universe is the only type of universe (100% or perhaps 99.9% deterministic) in which any semblance of free will can exist.

If the universe was not deterministic, there would be no basis on which to judge the possible outcomes of future actions. Everything would be tossed to the wind. Nothing would link the past to the present or future.

The thing is user, you can't say if there is or isn't a force that sort of "randomizes" events on a microcosmic level.
Quantoms surely have something that we can't explain yet, and that may be a force of the universe.
So you can't say "the universe is predetermined", because the predetermination is still hidden from us or not present at all.

you can predict it after it's thrown but by default it has 1/2 chance of resulting in either sides

You have no evidence of anything that randomizes stuff. You just don't have the equipment to analyze and understand quantum scale interactions and you're wildly trying to insert "randomness" stuff that has no basis and goes against every law of physics we have uncovered.
Causality and predetermination on the other hand are proven and used on a daily basis and we structure our entire laws of maths, physics, chemistry, applications, engineering software, astronomic calculations on them.

But the funny thing is, even if there was something magically "random" you still wouldn't have any free will since you can't control randomness. It would act just like any other agent in laws of physics that you and your behaviour are a slave to.

Calm down user, that wasn't all to wildly.
Though good thinking you have a point there.

I don't think you understand the meaning of free will

If you're ameriburger, yes.

>Is free will a lie?

I used to think it was, but then decided to change my mind.

>You don't have free will if you're not alive.

How can you possibly know that?

That seems to be a surprisingly common thing in this thread.

How could it not be? No one would say a primordial or unicellular organism has free will. Track evolution forwards in time and you get increasingly complex organisms. At which point is "free will" developed? It clearly isn't, and is just an illusion resulting from complexity.

If you don't know the outcome, is the difference distinguishable?

Define free will.
Free will to some may be omnipotence.
Does someone fully paralyzed have free will?

Does it matter?

>is free will a lie
yes and no. we don't have free agency to enact our will but it seems like we do.

>do we have free agency?
no. our brains make decisions based on biology. that sense of "I" or "me" is a false identity. we're just programs carrying out our code.

/thread

not really, if you want x do y else do z
x is task for y money or kill yourself, or any other escaping strategy. however we are biological maschines so free will is not very likely.

thanks for jaypeg

Really make the will to shove a sharp object through your butthole. Most people will fail at this no matter how hard their will is to do it. As soon as there's the knife cuts through tissue, your brain will send override signals (pain) to stop doing what you're doing.

Don't philosotards have better things to do than ask the same questions every time?

Define free

>Is free will a lie?
No. Most people blame others for their own problems. They do not accept responsibility for what they have done, do and will do or would do. They are "out of control." They believe "they" are the center of the universe. Unlimited arrogance.
They believe the environment defines them when their environment is but a presentation of their own cold, dark hearts. And I'm not perfect either (degree of ignorance is irrelevant) Until I accept my freedom to choose I'll never control my destiny. My own ego and arrogance will kill me.

Hello, someone smarter than all of you checking in. All of the things i'm gonna base my argument on are not proven, but are our better understanding of the subject at the time.

Short answer: we don't know yet, but probably not.

Long answer: we know that consciousness and free will are emergent fenomenons meaning that at some point you put together certain things with very specific characteristics in a very specific order it will emerge, it means it's more than the sum of the parts that give it it's structure. But there's a problem with it, perception is inherently flawed and it could be that the emergent fenomenon it's not free will in itself but the ilusion of it, we have no way to be sure.

Now, we know that the mind is conformed by parts that have nothing close to free will or even consciousness, and we can percibe ourselves as having free will. Thing is, for the knowledge that we have this two facts are irreconcilable due to the fact that we have reasons to believe that those parts can't create something that defies their most elemental characteristics such as determinism, and given that perception is flawed we have that of those two facts that we stated the one with less basis is the perception of free will in humans.

As of the guys that argue that if we were to believe this we couldn't be sure because one can't trust a system with no free will. You are making a baseless asumption, and you are giving this possibility negative implications probably because you think we would be inferior to what you already see us if this were to be true, we have no real reason to believe that a system without free will can't have perfectly valid capacity of reason. Guys, there's no intrinsic value in anything really, and even if there was and we were inferior if we didn't have free will, it doesn't matter, we must impose scientific rigurosity to any foolish sense of inferiority.

You didn't make that argument of your own free will so it's meaningless. If I wanted to read what an automaton 'thinks' I'd visit a chatbot. Call me when you have the ability to base an argument on evidence and reason and not an internal programming you cannot disobey.

Yes, the universe is deterministic

Please everyone make fun of the idiocy of this person.

I'm right though. It's not my fault your position is inherently contradictory. You claim you're an automaton with no free will but simultaneously you're somehow able to freely make an argument based on evidence rather than a series of biological logic gates that predetermine your opinion on the matter? It's impossible to make any argument for the non-existence of free will without automatically invalidating your own argument by saying you didn't choose to make it in the first place and therefore it's an arbitrary conclusion based on nothing more than how particular neurons in your brain are linked.

Reminder that the idea of free will is a red herring. All musings are equally pointless without defining the Subject first. You are all spinning in circles inside the maze of Linguistic formalism and prescriptive word clusters.

>Free is not possible
Jew detected

Skinner, please go.