Environment, genetics and events make us react

>Strawmaning what I said and oversimplifying it to the point where it adds nothing to the discussion
Do you understand what strawmanning means? Because what I wrote was not that. All I did was write out another possible interpretation of your statement.
All the factors that "decide" our actions, including those scary atoms and laws of nature, are either a part of us or a part of our environment. Thus it's just as accurate to say that mass and energy acting according to the laws of nature decide our actions as it is to say that who we are and the situation we find ourselves in decides our actions. And since we are "who we are", then it follows that we decide our actions with some influence from our environment.

>All I did was write out another possible interpretation of your statement.
An overly simplistic one that you can debunk more easily. Why is it so hard to accept that you committed a logical fallacy and move on?

>All the factors that "decide" our actions, including those scary atoms and laws of nature, are either a part of us or a part of our environment.
Saying "we are the environment" doesn't really make it any better. We're aware environment in the worst of cases and that doesn't leave behind the fact that we are purely reaction driven with no control whatsoever over what we can or cannot do because everything we do is a product of what we are composed of and what our surroundings give us. It's pointless to have ambition, drive, hopes and dreams because unless you are born with the specific set of circumstances that will propel you to wherever you will undoubtedly be, you're just gonna exist. I'm willing to bet my testicles that in the future, technology will reach a point where it'll be possible to mathematically determine where you will be and what will you do.

>An overly simplistic one that you can debunk more easily.
go ahead and debunk it then.
>Saying "we are the environment" doesn't really make it any better.
Good thing that's not what I said.
>doesn't leave behind the fact that we are purely reaction driven with no control whatsoever over what we can or cannot do because everything we do is a product of what we are composed of and what our surroundings give us.
What we can and cannot do is exactly equal to what we will and will not do.
All environmental factors being the same, we could not have acted differently because who-we-are decides our actions, and we would not have done anything differently because we decide our actions based on who-we-are. Both statements are equally true.
If you would not have acted differently, then does it matter whether or not you could have acted differently?

How would we have to decide on our actions in order for you to accept that we have free will? Would our thoughts have to come from some spirit-world? Would they have to be completely random?

Suicide isn't free either though what you need is some chemicals to change your genetic tendencies, and thereby help you cope with your environment.

>go ahead and debunk it then.
Debunk what? It's mockery, not an argument. It's a logical fallacy.

>Good thing that's not what I said.
>Backpedalling
K.

>What we can and cannot do is exactly equal to what we will and will not do.
Which is determined by things that escape our control. Ergo we cannot do anything and can do nothing that isn't reacting to what others (who in their turn react to circumstances different from our own, but react nonetheless) do.

>If you would not have acted differently, then does it matter whether or not you could have acted differently?
That's an unfair question. "If you would" implies being put in the same scenario, with the same environment and genetics and everything that lead you to that scenario. The only thing that would change the outcome of your reaction to it would be the post-knowledge of its consequences, really. The "who-we-are" thing implies (or rather, you imply) that we are a prime-matter and not an overall product of the work being done over that prime-matter (which is what I'm saying).

>How would we have to decide on our actions in order for you to accept that we have free will?
I've no alternative to offer. If I did, I wouldn't be having this dilemma and bitching to Veeky Forums about how it ruined my day. The only scenario that occurs to me is a vacuum type thing but even then, we react. It's edgy to say we're aware beasts, partly because that will trigger the Humanists telling me we put a man on the moon and partly because it's not fair to reduce humanity to it, but I can't help it.

Wouldn't those just be part of the same reaction-reaction system? I'd rather have the hard truth that I'm a servant of fate than lie to myself and pretend I'm not, as much as it pains me and probably will lead to a premature death.

>make us react
The problem with your observation is you've separated yourself from the environment, genetics, and events. They don't "make you react" because you are them. The sooner you realize this the sooner your "plight" will vanish.

Why is it a problem to not have free will?

Your brain is lying to you all the time. There is nothing wrong with using technology to adapt. Hell you might as well stop eating farmed foods I guess.

>choosing to believe you can't choose

I've already addressed this in a previous post, user.

So what, I just let myself go an drift with whatever happens? If I die a lifeless, childless, miserable NEET because I stopped moving is because "it was fated to be so and I had no free will to change it"?

Perhaps. It's not like I didn't do all matter of drugs when I was younger, but I stopped because the line between what was real and what was stoned ramblings was blurred.
But still, I'm trying (and failing) to find a reasonable solution to this without drugging myself.

>Implying I chose

Don't bother. Your brain is nothing but drugs in a sense. I take mirtazapine and fluoxetine and it makes my life immeasurably better; instead of asking abstract questions like you are, I'm studying actual, practical solutions to what stands in the way of my peace and power. Anti drug shills just don't want to give up their only excuse for failure.

I've wrestled with this issue before. I don't really trust psychologists or psychiatrists because at the end of the day they're still people. It's anecdotal indeed, but people I know who went to psychiatrists and had pills given to them came off worse than they went in. Especially the anti-depressant crowd.

It's not like I'm in bumfuck Africa, we have quality therapists here. Plus, the stubbornness of trying to work shit on my own will probably kick in. I seriously considered visiting a therapist with the express purpose of getting some pills several times and backed off at the last minute.

What do you suffer from that removes you from your concentration?

>So what, I just let myself go an drift with whatever happens? If I die a lifeless, childless, miserable NEET because I stopped moving is because "it was fated to be so and I had no free will to change it"?

Yes. It's the most liberating feeling in the world if you are capable of coming to terms with it.

>I've already addressed this in a previous post, user.
No you didn't. Not properly at least. By understanding that we are inseparable from the universe we eliminate the freedom vs. non-freedom dichotomy from the observation entirely. Will is neither free nor unfree, these are both projections, incomplete observations of the Self, due to the error of fragmenting it off of its true holistic form with the universe.

>>The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the halfeducated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen’s, pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will” and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his “enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify “cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts, which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation.
>The "un-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills. It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in a thinker when he senses some compulsion, need, having-to-follow, pressure, un-freedom in every "casual connection" and "psychological necessity."
Nietzsche, BGE

>Your brain is nothing but drugs in a sense
But this will always be a stupid remark, because what causes certain chemicals or hormones in the brain to trigger?

>don't trust psychs because they are people

Dude come on you trust the airline pilot not to crash your ass into a mountain and he is a person. It isn't people just coming up with drugs and giving it to you, established research methods and rigorous testing with millions of satisfied people are what makes those drugs happen, why the doctor prescribes them. If you had cancer would you just back out of a cancer treatment to save your life? Seriously your depression is obvious to me as I have it too and it's time to do something about it indeed.

>what causes?
Stimuli. Chemicals, optics, pressure, vibration.

>Stimuli
And what causes the nature of the exchange? What IS the nature of such an exchange? Why do people react to the same stimuli differently?

>That's an unfair question. "If you would" implies being put in the same scenario, with the same environment and genetics and everything that lead you to that scenario.
>The "who-we-are" thing implies (or rather, you imply) that we are a prime-matter and not an overall product of the work being done over that prime-matter (which is what I'm saying).
Your problem is that you're looking at things one-directionally. You say that we are the things that make up our body, but you don't realize that this relationship goes both ways. If we are the atoms that make up our body, then the atoms that make up our body are us. We are matter and energy, we are elementary particles, we are atoms, we are molecules, we are cells, we are organs and bones, we are individual human beings, we are cell-equivalents in the human-society and biosphere superorganisms, we are a part of the universe. All of these are equally true statements.

The fact that we could not have acted differently is both caused by and the cause of the fact that we would not have chosen to act differently.

>why different
Subtle differences in their chemical, genetic structure; various conditioning and circumstances which we can only guess at. Science doesn't ask what is the nature of such an exchange in the essentialist way you are; and you should stop doing that if you want to know fuck all.

But I don't wanna be a NEET. At the same time I have the knowledge that I won't achieve whatever my dreams are, and settling for the middle ground accepting that it was "fated to be so" just kills me.

How do you cope with this shit?

An airline pilot can't invade my psyche and fuck me up in methods I don't even know about. I have some radical political opinions (they fluctuate with me, sometimes I'm deeply invested, others I get to this point where I care about nothing but coping with this), what if I get a therapist that will medicate me to the point where I forget who I am? It's that kind of thing I fear, to be honest.

>Seriously your depression is obvious to me as I have it too
I had no idea it was transparent that I feel this way. I try not to draw attention to these things as not to sound as a special snowflake begging for attention. How long did you go without treating your illness?

>By understanding that we are inseparable from the universe we eliminate the freedom vs. non-freedom dichotomy from the observation entirely. Will is neither free nor unfree, these are both projections, incomplete observations of the Self, due to the error of fragmenting it off of its true holistic form with the universe.
So it's like the creation of "divines"? We imagine omnipotence and omniscience, but neither are possible or even real outside our conception. It's the same with free-will? We just imagined it, it's just a symptom of being and coping with conscious reality?

>Nietzsche
I fucking despise this man with every thing in my bone (like most Continental Philosophy), but that made sense as far as things regarding this subject go. It's still half a solution, though.

Scientific data is incomplete. It is mathematical, based on models that are not really in the world like zeroes. The data is incredibly useful and helps us to further our capacity to manipulate the world, but it does little in the way of helping us understand it. You should get where I was going with that, the reductionist method of scientific minds to turn everything into "chemicals" is a lie about the world that may be useful in certain calculations but is a lie nonetheless. There are far more factors involved in the exchange of forces in the world.

>It's the same with free-will?
Yes, as well as unfree-will.

So to your view, the fact that we are made from the same matter our environment (and the things within we react to), individually, liberates us from having to worry about such things? This thread helped me make light of some things, but I'm not yet satisfied, for I yearn for something that is entirely born from myself with no external influence. Not possible, from what I see. You basically came to terms with the fact that there's no actual free will or that it's a silly concept considering the uniformity with which we all exist in the same canvas, but I can't.

To deny it is, yet again, to be edgy and claim I'm made from something else.

>The fact that we could not have acted differently is both caused by and the cause of the fact that we would not have chosen to act differently.
Still, knowledge of outcome changes that. Repeating a scenario ad infinitum with the same set of circumstances and circumstances which lead to it for everyone involved isn't proof that we wouldn't have acted differently with more or less given to our individual selves. I understand your point and it makes sense that we would act the same every time, and I suppose I am indeed welling in a bit of "What if", but there's no way of knowing and it's impossible to recreate such an experiment.

That was mildly helpful to this unrest. Any literature you'd recommend on the subject?

The map may not be the territory but it can get you where you want to go.
I went years without treating it, thinking the same way as you do that I would lose myself; I experienced ego-death with psychedelics and gave up on my self completely, realized eventually that I had to construct and repair it constantly and decided to try the drugs which work for so many people because I'm not a special snowflake after all and..after a few trial and error runs it is working for me. Also the pilot can literally turn you into a pile of burnt up gore if he decides to do too much cocaine before the flight.

>Years
Aside from a shrink I went to in HS when I was a young lad, I never went to another one. She said I had "bipolar tendencies" but never fully diagnosed me because I left before she could and stopped going. I don't want to self-diagnose, so I won't say I suffer from any illness until it's confirmed.

Still, what you're saying is very familiar. The ego-death and letting yourself go to ruin, it's almost cyclical at this point in my life. I'll probably break at some point and finally go.

>Pilot
If we're being honest, I'd rather have my body spread through 30km throughout the Swiss alps than suffering an unmitigated depression for years.

>How do you cope with this shit?

Cope isn't the right word in this situation because it's implying an act of free will to overcome the acknowledgement of a lack of free will. You're not going to be able to "cope" as long as that inconsistency exists in your mind. Once you get rid of that inconsistency you won't need to cope. Good luck.

>Once you get rid of that inconsistency

Bad wording on my part. Should be "once that inconsistency is gone". You don't get to do shit sorry.

>Once you get rid of that inconsistency you won't need to cope. Good luck.
That's fantastic, I can actually do something from within to erase something from existence, as much as it is a reaction it's closer to an action than an--
>You don't get to do shit sorry
God damn it, user.

Yeah I was shortening the story a bit for brevity, it was a cycle for me too, an addictive one but futile nevertheless. I have found that when I am happy, basic cognitive functions and motor skills function closer to optimal; it isn't just losing that subjective experience of dread and discomfort it is far more basic than that.

>So to your view, the fact that we are made from the same matter our environment (and the things within we react to), individually, liberates us from having to worry about such things?
That's not how I see it but it's close enough for now.
>This thread helped me make light of some things, but I'm not yet satisfied, for I yearn for something that is entirely born from myself with no external influence.
What you want is not for the will to be free to choose according to its own desires, which is what I care about, but for the will to be free to define itself.

>misrepresented determinism
>therefore suicide
You should commit suicide for being dumb instead.

Think about it. How could a completely mechanical universe with orderly rules come into existence for no reason, yet have consciousness within it? Consciousness and freewill comes first. God created the universe as a large toy-box, a machine, in which smaller versions of Himself can progressively work towards enlightenment and be reabsorbed into Him. Just because the world appears to be mechanistic, does not preclude the idea that a conscious creator created it, and included possibilities of redemption within it.

Just because causality seems to hold true in everything we see and do, does not preclude that an acausal creator who does not conform to causality created an apparently causal/deterministic universe.

Religion is learning to wake up from this determinism and gain freewill. Your crisis is actually proof that you have the potentiality of awakening.

>>/x/

Also, causality cannot be strictly true, because it doesn't account for a first cause. The logical proposition that "Every event is caused by a cause and itself causes another event" contradicts typical logic, because it suggests either an infinite chain of causes and causes of causes extending into an infinite past, or an uncaused first cause. Your supposed logic is actually anti-logical.

Don't think I can be happy, but functional is where I'm aiming at the very least. Can't function if I think everything's pointless.
Thanks for your words, user.

I merely want something removed from influence, something I can say I did without anything else behind it.

But I suppose consciousness is matter and matter is me and I'm the same as everything else. Disheartening to say the least, but at least its limitations are clear.

See >God
Stopped reading there.

That's another depressing thing apparently thinking to much can get you closer to realize painful truths which can lead to depression and depression can lead to a short life is like our own biology threatening our own lives if thoughts go through a certain direction

You will be surprised how little content happiness requires when your brain is functional. Maybe we've reached the epoch when technological intervention via drugs now but optically driven molecules later are necessary to process the pleasure that is bombarding us at all times. Would your grandfather shake his head at such a state? Yes, but he is dead or dying and who cares. It's like the Native American proverb about how in order to protect your feet you could cover the entire forest floor in leather or you could just cover your own feet in leather.