Does free will exist

>proving metaphysics

In short, I believe it exists as a probabilistic framework that we can influence to some degree. We are still bound by the laws of nature and chaos, but not to such an extreme that it is purely deterministic.

>2017
>not objectively proving your metaphysics correct

Fuck off! You look like a total pseud pasting that with no context.

Also, that kind of proof shoul've died with Spinoza. God is himself the posibility of that proof. That's why I hate analytic philosophy. It has rigor and may seem thorough, but always misses the ontological aspect of philosophical questions.

Yes and no. You're free to make a decision now, but ultimately the universe just cycles through all possible combinations.

>From the narrow, restricted viewpoint of the present, you always have infinite choices (= free will), because choice is a mental process we use to imagine and decide upon possible courses of action, and hence can make as many of them as we want — whereas at the level of the universe you only have a single one: the one you'll end up making (= determinism), because the concept universe includes the concept time. Thus does the Overman solve, in a single sentence, problems that have frustrated mankind's greatest thinkers for millennia.

>HBD advocates say "there is no free will because your brain controls you". But my brain IS me. Like saying "there is no free will because you control you". I.e. there IS free will. Retards confused by wordplay.

is there a universe where I decide to do x and then I do y instead?

>tautologies

yes but you can only get there by killing yourself

I'm 15 yo and this is deeeeeep man

I read Althusser, so I don't think it does.

So it wasn't his fault that he strangled his wife?

Free from what, exactly?

Depends on how you define free will.

>The ability to make choices unhindered by our surroundings, environment, and peers

No

>The ability to make independent choices by filtering and considering possible options given by your environment

Yes

he had severe mental illness and spent about half his life in mental hospitals. It seems even the law says people like him are not responsible when they go crazy like that.

>The ability to make independent choices by filtering and considering possible options given by your environment
even then your decision is just dependent on your brain chemistry and and all your past experiences. You can do what you want but you can't do what you don't want.

How is Ben Stiller intelligent and successful? He actually doesn't have good movies, only forced comedies.

>your brain chemistry and and all your past experiences.
You are your brain chemistry and all your past experiences, though. These are not separate from yourself. Dependence on yourself makes no sense.

Exactly. So your decisions are not you, they are the playing out of chemical and physical laws. There is no locus of agency outside of this.

>coherent formal systems=metaphysics

posted this on the other Harris thread that died out

If volitional action comes from unconscious processes, what's the purpose of the conscious mind? Is it just there to observe our body as it moves along space and time? Then it's ultimately useless since it can't inform our behaviour.

Harris makes the claim that your will is never free from the train of cause and effect thus free will doesn't make sense. Yet he also claims that choices matter, that you MUST choose to perform an action (albeit based on a limited number of choices). But how can this be? If you don't have a stake in the next sequence of events, how do you then CHOOSE to do something? You clearly have no choice if it's already decided by forces outside of our conscious mind yet he insists that choice is a real thing.

And if everything is determined, doesn't it necessarily mean that fatalism must also be true? The domino pieces must fall one way mustn't it?

It seems to me that biological determinism has many holes in itself and seems paradoxical. It's still an open question among philosophers and neuroscientists but Harris tells us that it's settled on both fronts and that he's right.

>your decisions are not you

but they come from me and no other person besides me is manifesting these chemical and physical laws in such a way

>You can do what you want but you can't do what you don't want.

is this meant to be an argument against free will? because it seems like it supports it

only once you pass a certain threshold, and even then, it oscillates

dubs decides?

Yes, but there is only one correct Choice.

>God gives you free will
>But he knows what you will choose

?

He knows all possible choices you can make, but not the one you will pick.

so he isn't omniscient then?

No

>he doesnt understand Ben Stillers genius
KEK

It's not a two-option choice. There is only one option, and that's God. Either you choose God or you negate the question. Therefore he knows what we choose, because there is only one option, and each of us takes it, usually through some indirect faulty method. Idolatory is still choosing God, but in a way that doesn't sustain itself, that is, in a way that doesn't provide grace.

>Exactly. So your decisions are not you
God damn, this is one of the best cases of poor reading comprehension I've ever seen.

Does water have free will?

Your body is 70% water

checkmate

...

>tfw taking a class taught by the dude who created compatibilism
Nice dude but wow what an intense class. As an undergrad who's never been challeneged in my humanities courses, he is such a contrast.