How does Veeky Forums reconcile free will with cause and effect? If we agree that everything needs to have a cause...

lActually we can show that one event repeated will yield the same result, Hume. If everything is exactly the same and we repeat an even ad infinity we will always have the same result. We do this everyday with machinery.

Free will exists a priori

& Humanities was a mistake.

Nothing /exists/ a priori.

>Nothing exists outside of what we experience

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

There is no test that can prove that anything works infinitely long.

Even if we test some given scenario for 200 trillion years, that does not imply if will work for infinity. Dont you know what infinity implies?

Define experience. We can potentially observe, or experience, everything within the universe.

this

Infinity is not literal, because it does not exist, it is used to describe a state with no foreseeable end. You're not refuting determinism, by the way, if anything you're helping it by showing that it is falsifiable.

More onThese tests that last 200 billion years or longer only prove that any given scenario is only
99.99999999999[top over the last 9] % true.
Nothing can be guaranteed [ironically this is the only guarantee]. I know, huge blow to your world. Fap and youll feel okay, then go about your small life.

If your perception is so limited them how do you know your perception is limited?

I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument that nothing exists a priori.

You're actually not adding anything, you're just repeating yourself.

He only understood your initial a prior comment after responding to you twice.

It means yes if you properly define experience.

No, you're mistaken.

>Dont you know what infinity implies?

MOST people cannot grasp infinity. They were taught limits and boundaries but they never "l-earned" intelligence and open-mindedness. Though lots of people babble "life-long learner" on their resume; but they also put down "multi-tasking," as if they have two brains (when they don't have a working one).

I presume . I can't see through walls etc

Then don't make definite statements.

What are you, the statements police?

my god you are dumb. As if self-perception implied perception it's unlimited.

Can we at least agree that "willpower" is something that exists?

>it does not exist
>it is used to describe some state with no foreseeable end

So it does exist, in some sense?

I get it, infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define.
But nonetheless, we can ignore the solipsist argument that it is not somewhat true because we cannot be fully sure of it.

Listen i am not refuting determinism competely. I am refuting it wholly. Splitting hairs, i know, a fine line, but a necessary line. I accept that the vast majority of the universe is predetermined.

But there is a small minority that is subject to chaotic and utterly unpredictable forces of chance. My argumentation borders religious (and let me make it clear, i am atheistic [but i am an agnostic before i am an atheist]).

And this small minority of the undetermined destroys complete and total determinism. We cannot know infinity because it is incomplete, impossible to define. Per Wittgenstein, we cannot attempt to communicate our feelings, our very being, because it is not static- it is not a complete and total thing.

It is always somewhat incomplete. Listen user, keep going down the Sam Harris path, but what you will find that there are some things determinism wishes it could account for, but it cannot.

Godspeed, friend

It is a statement delimited and determined by my own perception that I consider limited. Stop inserting here your point of view

It doesn't matter if a priori is independent of experience.

free will and determinism are human constructs, therefore we dictate their truthfulness.

>So it does exist, in some sense?
As a concept, not physically.

>I get it, infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define.
But nonetheless, we can ignore the solipsist argument that it is not somewhat true because we cannot be fully sure of it.
That isn't an argument for the physical existence of infinity. You're saying we should just live in a state of unsureness despite our evidence showing it to be far more likely that infinity cannot exist within our finite universe?

>Listen i am not refuting determinism competely. I am refuting it wholly. Splitting hairs, i know, a fine line, but a necessary line. I accept that the vast majority of the universe is predetermined.
Good. But you can't refute anything by merely stating a possibility, without evidence, that it may be false.

>But there is a small minority that is subject to chaotic and utterly unpredictable forces of chance. My argumentation borders religious (and let me make it clear, i am atheistic [but i am an agnostic before i am an atheist]).
We don't understand those things, such as quantum theory, enough to know there is no law there.

>And this small minority of the undetermined destroys complete and total determinism. We cannot know infinity because it is incomplete, impossible to define. Per Wittgenstein, we cannot attempt to communicate our feelings, our very being, because it is not static- it is not a complete and total thing.
That doesn't destroy it, see above.

>It is always somewhat incomplete. Listen user, keep going down the Sam Harris path, but what you will find that there are some things determinism wishes it could account for, but it cannot.
Sam Harris is no determinist.

Even if that were true, the illusion would still be real for us. We would still proceed through our lives indulging in the illusion of choice, and reflecting on the ramifications of the perceived choices we experienced.

It's about what is true, it doesn't matter if it changes anything.

Thank you for responding coherent thoughts

>as a concept, not physically
I agree with you that the idea of infinity is unprovable. Perhaps the idea of infinity is unfalsifiable? Maybe this is already some theory that i am unaware of, if not dont steal my thoughts
Inb4: google it user lmao pleb

>I get it, infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define.

Correct, i agree with you that infinity as a concept is impossible to fully define

>But you can't refute anything by merely stating a possibility, without evidence, that it may be false.

Ah but i can. The very possibility that the universe is determined or is indeterminate is a belief, is it not? I guess i dont operate under the assumption(see:belief) that rationalism/logicism is the only way to come to a conclusion.

>We don't understand those things, such as quantum theory, enough to know there is no law there.

In a sense i agree with you, we can never be fully sure. However, because quantum teaches us that we cannot be fully sure, this destroys our hopes of being completely sure. For example, research quantum superposition, or Schrodingers Cat.

On the whole i agree with you that determinism is unproved. Really our quibble boils down to which description of the universe we feel is more accurate, which can never be proven, because the universe is not done, it seems to be infinite

(See how quickly i insert my point of view? I am unavoidable)

>Sam Harris is no determinist

He sure acts like it.
>have you ever meditated and perceived the contents of your conscious? If you do you will realize that all of your thoughts are entirely not of your making, and that all of your thoughts are developed before you even have a chance to interact, perceive them

Ok Sam. At what point do we hold bodies resposible for their actions? If a murderer commits a crime, do we say "oh his body reacted so fast he didnt have a chance to intercept it, therefore "he" isnt guilty, his body is"?)

One must accept responsibility for ones body, even the hairs that instictively and uncontrollably grow on ones body, despite one having very little control over them. (After all, one has control: one could commit suicide).

>Perhaps the idea of infinity is unfalsifiable?
I think it is at least falsifiable within our universe as we once we finish our expansion, followed by our contraction, and the death of the universe. Infinity outside of the universe? Not subject to our physical laws, so impossible to say anything about it.
>The very possibility that the universe is determined or is indeterminate is a belief
More of a theory when speaking of determinism. It's not like either of them are backed by no evidence, however.
>In a sense i agree with you, we can never be fully sure.
It's not exactly about being fully sure or not. We can never be without any doubt, that is impossible as long as our perception of the world around us remains fallible. But we can be more sure of things than others, and currently our understanding of quantum mechanics does not give a better indication of what to assume.
>it seems to be infinite
No, it is almost definitely finite.
>At what point do we hold bodies resposible for their actions? If a murderer commits a crime, do we say "oh his body reacted so fast he didnt have a chance to intercept it, therefore "he" isnt guilty, his body is"
How do you separate him from his body? What is him?
>After all, one has control: one could commit suicide).
Being able to commit suicide no more proves one to have free will than the ability to clap or jump.

Stop thinking of the mind "self" as a singular 1 dimensional pointalistic particle, and you may discover the secret to the answer.

read kant fucktard

It's really more of a contemporary issue. Kant has nothing to say on neuroscience and quantum mechanics, which are essential to the debate.

That's just like saying free trade isn't a thing because corporations'/agents' actions will always be aimed at getting profits. Economic agents are responsible for judging where the worthiests profits are.

neuroscience and quantum mechanics philosophically are equivalent to mechanism
you can't disregard philosophy in favour of a scientific absolutism, science and philosophy are seperate and mutually complementary disciplines! also kant was a cosmologist

That is not at all apt. Not even close. The problem of free will is that cause and effect, in the laws of physics, render it theoretically false.
The thing is, without quantum mechanics we can observe that free will is false. But when we consider quantum mechanics we see that order in the universe is much hazier.

So whay would you say makes human decisions not free?

*what

>free will is an illusion
Free will can't be an illusion. At best/worst it's a bad metaphysical concept. Illusion is when something is different from what it seems. It's an illusion to hear or see what's not there and this is relevant when we are talking about the sanity of a person's senses but is not relevant and even a category mistake in regards to the content of the seen or heard. The imagined duck quacked and offered it's sage advice to me. When I see the duck in relation to its advice it is impossible for the duck to be an illusion, that would be a category mistake. It's only an illusion in relation to my very illusory sensory perception of it. The duck in all its wisdom doesn't exist in the empirical realm, that's the illusion. Analogically something can be according to my will or against my will even when there is no man inside the machine. After all it's not the man("me" in casual speech) who chooses, it's my free will.

The rest is a matter of convention in labeling but I get the feeling people are very caught up in their habitual use of words such as freedom and selfhood and aren't very considerate of alternatives. That sucks.

Cause and effect implies infinite regress.
So, as far as I am concerned, cause and effectis not a valid.

No it doesn't, infinity does not exist either.
That they are bound to cause and effect, meaning that they are not independent, or free.
People will commonly say, in defence of free will, that free will seems to be true to them, it is an illusion.

>people will commonly say
are you making arguments in behalf of others?

This thread was also posted on /pol/, look at the responses in the archive.

so what? you are still making arguments in behalf of others and not discussing your own idea

It's a closed loop, user, no beginning and no end. All the pieces inside impact each other, but there was never no pieces.

The big bang theory has led you astray.

I'm discussing the idea that free will can be called an illusion. It is something false that people believe to experience, therefore an illusion.

>That they are bound to cause and effect, meaning that they are not independent, or free.
Why do you equate independence and freedom? Something independent has no causes. Causes lead to what it is and which cannot be another way. Every human action participes in what it is and cannot be changed as much as its consequences do. Will, or ability to make decisions, are straightened into what it is. When we talk about indetermination in human actions, we ain't talking about the same kind of indetermination that could be said to exist in what it is.
A decision will lead to an unchangeable state of things; once there, it will be absurd to talk about any other possible or hypothetical way of confronting the decision, and a revisited tale of the decision and the action will have to close the door to any other possibilities, since they are no longer possible. The only possible state of things is the current one, the one that was caused by the action, the action is ineluctable now and we can give causes for it.
But even tho, the action was free because it was born from a decision. How can a decision not be free? It certainly isn't independent, but since it is a decision it can be confronted in different ways.

>People will commonly say, in defence of free will, that free will seems to be true to them, it is an illusion.
If they say free will "seems" that way as to imply it's compatible with and they subscribe to a empiristic worldview, I agree. Our sensory perception of free will is illusory. However cause and effect doesn't apply to the inner system of what you put on paper, only you putting it on paper. People are justified in knowing they have free will as this system, e.g. a conceptualized will that is acted against, has obvious effect on the empirical world including their own neural networks and so forth. People are not acting from illusion when they do this as that would mean the system hinges on being there in the empirical world. It doesn't, only the ink, paper, a more or less narrow interpretation based on individual education, culture. There is much more to be discovered on that paper than what you are adapted to see in your current form, much more.

>Why do you equate independence and freedom?
Because an individual's will must be able to exist independent of external factors to be considered free by definition.
>But even tho[sic], the action was free because it was born from a decision.
That simply does not follow. You are, for one, presuming the decision to be free, when it is determined by external factors affecting the neural activity of the individual decision maker.
>How can a decision not be free?
If it is the product of a set of circumstances within the brain and cannot be independently formulated. It means that, when there is no free will there is also no free thought.

>However cause and effect doesn't apply to the inner system of what you put on paper
Do you mean the neurology behind motor skills or the expression of thought? Both are deterministic.

>Because an individual's will must be able to exist independent of external factors to be considered free by definition.
That's absurd. Human will is the faculty of reasoning and judging the external, the present and unchangeable state of things. Nothing that can be called will, or freedom, falls out of there. You're, once again, failing to recognize how independence and free decision apply to different ambits.
Also, you're stablishing a distinction between cerebral processes and will/decision that doesn't really mean shit. They're the same. They both areb what makes a balance of the situation and makes a way of acting seem more appealing than others.

>Human will is the faculty of reasoning
I suppose you could say that.
>and judging the external
No, that's not the will we're referring to. We mean the will to reason and act on said reason.
>You're, once again, failing to recognize how independence and free decision apply to different ambits.
Neither of them exist, so it is moot.
>Also, you're stablishing a distinction between cerebral processes and will/decision that doesn't really mean shit. They're the same.
I'm not, what made you think it that? I said that will and decision stem from processes in the brain.

>No, that's not the will we're referring to. We mean the will to reason and act on said reason.
That's just what I said. Judging the external and adopting an attitude towards it basing on that judgement.
>Neither of them exist, so it is moot.
They exist at less as different concepts , which you're mixing up.
>I'm not, what made you think it that? I said that will and decision stem from processes in the brain.
You're affirming that as a way of expressing that human will and actions are pushed by X (in this case, neural shit) and therefore not free. Neural shit is just the same as decision. It's evaluating the state of things and the ways it can be confronted, ranking them by their preferability. They keep the same place in the great scheme of things, determination and human actions. They're an undefined value and we can only talk about their consequences and offspring once they are effective and ineluctable.

Should have mentioned action, you basically just repeated yourself.
I'm not mixing them up, unless you think originating from the same place is mixing it up.
Not so much evaluating as it is a reaction. More like a reflex than anything.
The point is that as a reaction they wholly depend on a cause. They cannot be expressed independently of their cause so they are not free, if we define free as the state of not being bound or under control.

>I'm not mixing them up, unless you think originating from the same place is mixing it up.
>originating from the same place
What are tou talking about there?
>The point is that as a reaction they wholly depend on a cause. They cannot be expressed independently of their cause so they are not free, if we define free as the state of not being bound or under control.
Consummated actions cannot be free or unfree because they're ineluctable. The decision between doing them or abstaining from it is free.

The brain.
No human decision can be free unless you've got a contrary definition of free to what I posited.

Your definition of human freedom is mixed with your definition of causal independence.
I define human freedom as, just like I said before, the capacity of judging the current state of things and recognizing different ways of approaching it. Every action made in those circunstances is a free iniciative. Its results, or the consummated action, isn't free or non free as it isn't be blue or red. It's causal and necessary.

its called existentialism

>implying the mind exists because of the brain

laughing at you

No, I'm talking about the freedom of the development of an idea, be it human or otherwise. The brain cannot act independently, meaning it acts at the behest, so to speak, of external forces. That is not free by the definition I posited that you did not rebuke.
>I define human freedom as, just like I said before, the capacity of judging the current state of things and recognizing different ways of approaching it.
But that is not human. You should rather say it is the freedom of electrical impulses in the brain acting in a chain of cause and effect with external stimuli.
>Its results, or the consummated action, isn't free or non free as it isn't be blue or red. It's causal and necessary.
The effect of the cause is irrelevant. We're talking about how free the impulses in the brain that determine will are.

where to start with the motherfucking knight of faith?

With a thorough understanding of Kant's transcendental subject.

Define both, please. The mind, consciousness and all that entails, is generally understood to be a product of neural activity.

Revolution.

>generally understood

yeah by fucking retards who think empiricism is valid

>The brain cannot act independently, meaning it acts at the behest, so to speak, of external forces. That is not free by the definition I posited that you did not rebuke.
The concept of freedom doesn't apply in this case to the lack of causes, but to the recognition of possibilities.
>You should rather say it is the freedom of electrical impulses in the brain acting in a chain of cause and effect with external stimuli.
Well that's what I said. You're the one that insists on contemplating neural shit as a node for the subsequently consummated action instead of the source for freedom of decision.

Mira, me estáis tocando la polla ya.

So how is the mind, consciousness, independent of the brain? What is your issue with empirical data?
>The concept of freedom doesn't apply in this case to the lack of causes, but to the recognition of possibilities.
Why is that? The recognition of possibilities does not necessarily confirm a choice, either.
>Well that's what I said. You're the one that insists on contemplating neural shit as a node for the subsequently consummated action instead of the source for freedom of decision.
I've mentioned action in the definition of will, you seem confused. There is no freedom of decision if it is controlled by external stimuli.

Níl uacht saor in aisce ann

you are a little baby

the essence of the mind need not to be existence to exist

She looks exactly like some Korean girl I didn't sleep with once.

(pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/index.html#Note 6)

''Define a function d as the identity function over all elements over the manifold M, excepting a small neighbourhood (topology) H belonging to M. Over H, d comes to differ from identity by a smooth function.

With use of this function d we can construct two mathematical models, where the second is generated by applying d to proper elements of the first, such that the two models are identical prior to the time t=0, where t is a time function created by a foliation of spacetime, but differ after t=0.

These considerations show that, since substantialism allows the construction of holes, that the universe must, on that view, be indeterministic. (Relativity)''

''Imagine a ball sitting at the apex of a frictionless dome whose equation is specified as a function of radial distance from the apex point. This rest-state is our initial condition for the system; what should its future behavior be? Clearly one solution is for the ball to remain at rest at the apex indefinitely.

However, this is not the only solution under standard Newtonian laws. The ball may also start into motion sliding down the dome—at any moment in time, and in any radial direction. This example displays “uncaused motion” without any violation of Newton's laws, including the First Law. And it does not, unlike some supertask examples, require an infinity of particles. (Newtonian Mechanics)
''

Also please source on the OP.

>The ball may also start into motion
So it is an unmoved mover?

I'm not some drunk chick you need to impress.

I think you should check out the link my man.

And I also think you people making these threads need to choose different pictures for the OP.

Archive it.

You don't like gooks?

No, precisely the opposite.

Because you have a spirit that is immortal and separate from the events you experience. When confronting the world it allows you to make decisions among the available choice to you.

>Because you have a spirit that is immortal and separate from the events you experience
Bold claim. How were you made aware of that?

You start by assuming we have a meaningful existence and then find the necessary component to that.

What happens if you assume a meaningless existence?

I'm not interested in knowing.

top kek

It absolutely matters. At that point, truth becomes relative - the "truth" which you are attempting to unveil would be a truth which would never be true in man's experience, and therefore, only relevant to beings outside of the human delusion.

Free will IS the cause.

When an outside cause affects you, the effect is 'making a decision'. This decision is made by your free will, which is shaped by your personality and informed by your past, and your decisions becomes the cause of an effect on the world.

It's pretty simple really.

>does not understand that those decisions correspond to activated neurological structures, which operate under the laws of physics and biology.

>Doesn't realize that which neurological structures are activated are your own choice
You have my pity, letting your Id make your decisions for you.

So your "choice" exists in a non-physical realm outside the structures of neurobiology? So you are a spiritualist?