>free will
>a priori
>>>/x/

>>16901671
Free will is logically impossible

>>16901671
Define "freewill."

>>16901747
>my strawman of free will is logically impossible
Define "free will".

>>16901671
Define "exists"

>>16901792
An element of the world's true state of affairs or an aspect of its unfolding that can be distinctly conceptualized.

>>16901783
I'm talking about the average person's idea of free will, i.e. the idea that you could've done otherwise, and not the compatibilist mental gymnastics.
>B-but muh quantum randomness
You don't control that

>>16901798
>I'm talking about the average person's idea
Are you "the average person"?

>the idea that you could've done otherwise
What do you mean by this?

>>16901799
>What do you mean by this?
Libertarian free willers think that you have the ability to make choices that aren't caused by previous events. And it's not random but you somehow control the uncaused decision. So because your decision wasn't forced by previous events you could've decided otherwise

>>16901803
I never understood why retards like that pointed to a past that can't be confirmed to exist. Such idiots.

>>16901803
>caused by previous events
And what do you mean by that?

> it's not random but you somehow control the uncaused decision
You never made a single step towards establishing the truth of the dichotomy you're vaguely referencing.

>>16901803
This is literally the strawman version of free will you were being mocked for.
Nobody believes in "free will" as described in this post.

>>16901830
Well, that's the only form of free will that deserves the name.

>>16901834
>let me tell you about what [concept I don't believe in and have no coherent idea of] REALLY means
Golems lashing out against other people's agency, nothing more.

>>16901837
Let's hear your definition of free will

>>16901839
Ability to act in accordance with one's own motivation.

>>16901839
For most sane people, I think "free will" is just an intuition about a kind of participatory chaos created by the feedback loop of self-reflection. They know there's a valid distinction to be made between the way a rock rolls down a hill in response to forces and the way a self-aware man makes a deliberate choice in response to external conditions. If you lack this intuition or feel compelled to deny its validity, you are quite simply mentally ill.

>>16901839
>>16901841
As for Determinist metaphysical fantasies about how reality would unfold in exactly the same way again if you could rewind it... it's not even worth discussing. Determinist dogma has zero intersection with science.

>>16901841
>for most sane people
>intuition
>they know there's a distinction because... there just is
Nice handwaving. Provide 1 concrete difference between the state of a rock rolling down a hill being the direct result of the state of the individual atoms 1 planck second prior, and the state of neurons in the brain being the direct result of the state of the individual atoms 1 planck second prior.
>but muh heisenberg
Applies to the atoms in the rock as well.

>>16901839
Let's hear Paul Allen's definition of free will.

>>16901747
its a definition error.

>>16901851
>Provide 1 concrete difference
I literally just did.

>>16901839
Don't even bother talking to that retard. It's a completely braindead schizo.

File: seething_calmly.jpg (39 KB)

39 KB JPG

>Don't even bother talking to that retard. It's a completely braindead schizo.
Imagine being this mindbroken.

>>16901862
Babbling on about intuition is the opposite of concrete, actually.

>>16902203
>t. mentally ill retard
Anyone who isn't off his meds can see the root of the difference specified in that post.

File: Kurt_Godel_Modal_Proof_for_God.png (278.9 KB)

278.9 KB PNG

>>16901671
God exists a priori.

>>16902272
Your intuition was shaped by evolution. It's not supposed to tell the truth but make you survive longer

>>16902281
Your determinitranny intuition was shaped by evolution. It's not supposed to tell the truth but make you survive longer. Also your babble is completely irrelevant. The difference you asked for is clearly stated and remains unchallenged.

>>16902284
>Your determinitranny intuition
It's not my intuition, therefore your argument is wrong

>>16902286
>It's not my intuition, therefore your argument is wrong
Your lack of self-awareness is irrelevant, just like your babble and whatever hallucinated "arguments" you're trying to refute there. The difference you asked for is clearly stated and remains unchallenged.

>>16902288
I have seen my inability to prove to myself that I'm an agent. I have seen the logical impossibilty of free will. I have no other choice but to discard my intuition.
You on the other hand have provided no concrete example that proves otherwise. You're wrong but you can't accept it. That's okay, it's just another evolutionary defense mechanism

>>16902278
Which god? The one who ate your foreskin?

>>16902295
Yes, that one.

>>16902292
>feminine anecdotal self-indulgence
Your babble is irrelevant. The difference you asked for is clearly stated and remains unchallenged. You concede it every time you fail to challenge it and go off masturbating your little intellectual clitty instead.

>>16902292
>I have no other choice, but this one choice

So you have free will.
Shut the fuck up, jesus christ you retard.

>>16902301
>So you have free will.
I just said that I have no choice and without a reason (which you continue to fail to provide) I literally can't change my opinion.

>>16902298
Yuck

>>16902303
I'm not the same anon you've been talking to schizo. And yes, you literally fucking just said you have no choice, but- and then stated the choice to be made. If it's a fucking choice at all, then you have the power to make choices, which means you have free will. If you didn't have free will, you're not making decisions.

You're fucking stupid and don't want to just shut the fuck up because you get dopamine from every reply, but this is the last one you'll get from me. I just wanted to make sure you understood there's more than one person reading your stupid tripe and finds people like you to be fucking insufferable fart-huffing twats.

>>16902308
It's just your intuition, shaped by evolution, telling you I'm a fart-huffing twat. If you truly have free will, why can't you choose to understand that I am extremely intelligent?

>>16902308
NTA but you're retarded.

>>16902308
NTA but you got owned by TA. We can all see that.

>>16902308
>And yes, you literally fucking just said you have no choice, but- and then stated the choice to be made
NTA but that's just language. That anon probably doesn't want to change the entire language to make it more precise. Therefore your argument falls flat on its face.

>>16902303
I think what he's trying to rub your nose in, is the fact that even as you assert that you've discarded some intuition, you talk and act like someone that still has this intuition and is choosing to discard it as a matter of reasoned choice, to contrast with those dummies with their evolutionary instincts. Imagine living in such a state of permanent dissonance and being oblivious to it even as the contradictions keep springing out of you at the least convenient times for your gay little argument.

>>16902312
>>16902314
>>16902318
Thank you for the gold, kind strangers.

my farts smell like cat food sometimes
that means I have no free will, obviously

>>16902329
Your farts have free will because they made the conscious choice to emit the smell of cat food

File: redditbrained.png (116.2 KB)

116.2 KB PNG

>Your farts have free will because they made the conscious choice to emit the smell of cat food

>>16902333
the smell of cat food has no free will because my farts reek so bad dude it's unreal my eyes are watering and burning right now its so awful

>>16902338
Actually, it had free will before you smelled it and collapsed the fart free will wavefunction.

>>16902341
Alright Sir Roger Penrose, time for bed. Let's get you a warm bottle and your blanket.

>>16901671
there is no argument for free will except "jesus said so in the biblerino"

>>16902321
I had a moment where it was really obvious that just because there's a thought that says I made a choice doesn't mean that a choice was actually made. A thought can say whatever, doesn't mean it's true. I mean just look at dreams. You're in absolutely absurd situations but the thoughts that this situation is absurd and impossible just doesn't come up so it seems completely normal.
And promptly after that realization I was kicked back into shape by existential terror. That's the mechanism that forces me to behave like an agent right now even though it's not rational but the alternative feels like death.
So it's all conditioned by evolution and I can't escape even though I know how it works.

Putting aside the mouth-breathing redditors and their cancerous opinions about free will, Norton's Dome (OP's pic) is interesting in its own right.

The thing about this setup is that it's spawned into its hypothetical existence with the ball already in just the right place. This is standard fare for a physics problem, of course, and shouldn't make a difference to its analysis. But in this case I think it actually does, by construction.

Imagine if you had to actually put the ball in place, and to do so by some Newtonian means. If you roll it uphill until it's perfectly balanced, then surely it would come down the way it came, because Netwonian mechanics is time-reversible. Or you can imagine trying to hover the ball into place using the right application of forces, but how would you even know where the right place is, without some kind of feedback from your ball-on-a-dome system? One way or another, if you conceive of this setup as having come about through some legitimate physical means, instead of Norton's T=0 being literally the beginning of the Dome Universe, the source of the non-determinism is epistemological: the ball will roll back down whichever way it came, but if you don't know which way that is, every direction is as good as any other going solely by Newton's laws. T=0 is set in a way that erases the knowledge needed to determine a single outcome.

>>16902358
>look at me stroke my little intellectual clitty
>just because i think and act contrary to my stated beliefs doesn't mean my beliefs aren't heckin' true
This doesn't refute anything in the post you replied to.

>>16902364
non-determinism doesn't exist, simple as :)

>>16902368
Can you be more precise?

>>16902364
I will now consult Norton's Dome for all of my decisions. This will grant me perfect free will

>then surely it would come down the way it came, because Netwonian mechanics is time-reversible
Holy shit this is wrong on so many levels.
This is what happens when you drop out of high school and become a braindead schizo on 4chan/sci/ arguing for idealism or some other mental illness.

>>16902370
>>16902372
>t. mentally ill retard

>>16902374
>t. mentally ill retard in an especially clownish and obvious bout of projection

>>16902384
you replied to me
therefore you have no free will
idiotic christcuck :)

>>16902364
If someone who actually understands this problem better than me wants to explain how I'm wrong, I'm interested to hear it. If you just magically (thought-experimentally) know where the apex is (or, equivalently, what forces to apply to get the ball into position) you can achieve Norton's setup and run into corresponding problem. But what if you don't know and you have to find it by some process, however idealized, that adheres to Newton's laws? There's no limit to how close you can get, but no matter how close, the ball should always just roll back down the way it came for any level of precision. No matter how fast you converge on that apex, you'd have to cross the threshold of infinity before you ever see the ball rolling some other way.

>>16901671
philosophy is for >>>/his/

>>16902440
This. So much this.
This thread probably kicked a frog thread from the catalog. The horror. Apologize to the frog thread creator right now

>>16901671
Free will is probably the biggest cope humanity has ever thought of. Im not surprised at all that people try to squirm about it.

>>16902474
The biggest cope humanity has ever thought of is actually determinism. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, humanity's mad struggle to make itself and the world more predictable.

>>16902474
>>16902476
The fear of the future is the fundamental source of the delusion that if only one knew enough, everything would become predictable.

>>16902479
Feeling of lack of control (either present or future) is a driving psychological force certainly.

>>16902486
Feeling a lack of control is the symptom of an intentionally crippled population engineered by people fearing a lack of control. The social engineering behind your creation can be accounted for historically. Regardless of all this metaphysical wankery, it is definitely true that you think the way you do because you're feeble-minded and were brought up to think so, regardless of any underlying truth.

>>16902490
>Regardless of all this metaphysical wankery,
I wouldnt call measurable cortisol spikes metaphysical. Rest of your post is schizo babble.

>>16902494
>mentally ill retard babbles incoherently about cortisol spikes

>>16902495
I was naturally referring to my post about lack of control but I guess this is too much for you to understand. Maybe stay in /pol/ next time.

>>16902503
>i was referring to the way i project my anxieties
And I was referring to the fact that all attempts to refute "free will" are the product of human cattle doing ad hoc, amateur, regurgitated metaphysics and confusing it with science.

File: shapes-geometry.gif (747.6 KB)

747.6 KB GIF

The question of free will cannot be answered until we understand the universe and connect it all together, only then can we make a judgement regarding thought process automation, even through massive complexity.
As for right now, we have the will to alter the forces of the universe, defeat cancer that normally kills 99.99% of the time in nature.
The will to fight disease, bacteria, fungus...many of which in natures will are fatal.

Our human free will of self aware sentience alters the events of the universes forces, through determination of alteration/correction.
How and why we make the determination for alteration/correction....remains as of yet to be seen.....
Is our study of medicine, nothing more than an ultra complex survival base reptilian instinct of survival to propagate reproduction?
Is reproduction the main function of life, or is it observation?
Sentient self awareness is either just complex automation patterns that are too complex for us to plot, graph analyze and formulate yet right now...or they are self contained universes in themselves, changing the larger universe around them, bending it to their individual will.

>>16901840
What if your motivation is predetermined? What a retarded shallow "definition".
>>16901841
>a kind of participatory chaos created by the feedback loop of self-reflection.
What is the non-deterministic part of this? The feedback loop or the self-reflection?

I wonder what retards like this think free will is supposed to "cope" with. The terrible "truth" of determinism? It's a belief so superficial and devoid of substance that you have to be actively brainwashed into it, and even then the people who espouse it can't help acting out an implicit, contrary belief that people do have agency. The few people who genuinely feel a lack of self-control that they need to cope, end up in madhouses and prisons.

@16902525
Stick to one thread at a time, schizo >>16902523.

>>16902524
>What is the non-deterministic part of this? The feedback loop or the self-reflection?
Are you off your meds again? Quote the part of my post that says anything about non-determinism. If you can't, take your respiridone and come back in a few hours.

"free will" is the opposite of "directed will", which exists in contrast to constraints
the only thing "free will" can want is to cease, because all wanting requires challenge

>>16902527
By definition, free will has to defy determinism, therefore there has to be an element when taking an action as a free agent that is the result of non-determinism.

>>16902530
>By definition, free will has to defy determinism
Putting aside the fact that determinism is a metaphysical fantasy... whose definition are you talking about there, retard? If it's not my definition, why are you addressing me? Take your respiridone and come back in a few hours.

>>16902524
>What if your motivation is predetermined?
It doesn't matter if it is. It very well may be. That's not relevant though as all the important aspects of free will are still there.

>>16902531
What is "chaos" then if not something that cannot be predicted? Or are you going to claim that every word in your definition has some special personal meaning?

>>16902530
>By definition, free will has to defy determinism
Pants-on-head retarded statement. This is literally the strawman version of free will and not the one compatibilists believe in.

>>16902534
>X is Y
>what if Y is Z?
>doesn't matter, X is more than Y

>>16902538
Nothing I said is analagous to your shit greentext.
Try again.

>>16902537
Is this crypto-christcuck territory? muh "free will exists but God has le epic plan and knows everything" type shit?

>>16901671
Brains run on the laws of physics, not on retarded concepts such as free will dreamed up by braindead scholastics several centuries ago. Watch as the retarded schizophrenics will deterministically seethe at this post.

Freewilltards can only have two opinions:

1) Free will exists because at some point in the chain of physical reactions something truly random and non-causal happens that spices things up and makes them unpredictable --> You are free because you are a glorified chunk of random behaving matter

2) Free will exists because we have a soul/divine/supernatural kernel inside of us ---> Religioustard

>>16902536
>What is "chaos" then if not something that cannot be predicted?
The fact that many things simply can't be predicted is basically orthogonal to the fantasy of determinism, which is one of the things that makes your metaphysics unworthy of consideration in any scientific context.

>>16902548
>something truly random and non-causal
It's another episode of mongoloids not knowing the difference between non-causal, non-deterministic and random.

>>16902551
>the fact
it's not a fact, thanks for ignoring the argument though

>>16902557
>it's not a fact
Maybe in the psychiatric clinic you crawled out of it's not a fact. In any scientific context, it is actually a fact.

>thanks for ignoring the argument
You didn't make any argument. You're just so retarded you erroneously think chaos means nondeterminism. It doesn't. Simple as. No discussion to be had about that.

>>16902558
>mixes and matches scientific meaning with popular understanding and picks which version to interpret a word with when BTFOd
Show me a single definition of "chaos" that even remotely hints at it being predictable.

I know you'll try to say that "awkchtually in physics and maths a chaotic system can be perfectly predicted if you have infinite precision but it's called chaotic because it rapidly blah blah blah", but in your original definition you talked about what free will meant to "most people", so don't even start to pretend that "chaos" was to be intended in the formal sense and not the intuitive one.

>>16902564
You're a mentally ill retard, no two ways about that.

>>16902565
Thanks for conceding, not that you had any choice about it

>>16902567
>>16902567
>I know you'll try to say that "awkchtually in physics and maths a chaotic system can be perfectly predicted if you have infinite precision"
Why would I say that? It's the last resort of your cult, when cornered by the reality of complex physical systems. Thanks for consneeding.

>>16901817
>And what do you mean by that?
asking dumb questions doesnt make you seem smart

>>16902572
I accept your concession that you can't specify what I mean.

>>16902570
>Why would I say that?
Because that would be your last resort, as any popular definition of chaos will exclude predictability. So thanks for conceding.
>the reality of complex physical systems
Physical systems are models and are not the underlying reality we still don't know about. Thanks for proving you don't even know what physics is + conceeding a second time in the span of two sentences

>>16902579
>nonsensical psychotic drivel
Don't care. You will demonstrate your automatonism by replying to me again.

>>16902541
Schopenhauer was a compatibilist you goofus.

>>16902581
>doesn't know how physics work
>doesn't know how demonstrations work
>hasn't had the free will to stop replying all this time
>creates a childish "Do your parents know you're gay"-tier loaded premise
I might be talking to a rock

>>16901671
why do neurotypicals keep trying to discuss philosophy on the science board

We must believe in free will, we have no choice.

>>16902548
Determinism is only incompatible with free will if you explicitly define free will in a way that precludes determinism.
Your argument only makes sense under a strawman definition.

>>16902595
The idea that free will is compatible with determinism will never make sense

"Free will" is a word that is 99% of the time used in these semantic debates that just cause pointless irritation for the participants. The best policy is just not use the word at all.

>>16902601
Because you're too low IQ to comprehend anything but your own strawman.

>>16901841
>For most sane people, I think "free will" is just an intuition about a kind of participatory chaos created by the feedback loop of self-reflection. They know there's a valid distinction to be made between the way a rock rolls down a hill in response to forces and the way a self-aware man makes a deliberate choice in response to external conditions.
/thread
being aware of your own decision-making process makes the outcome inherently unpredictable. you can still change your mind, up until you actually act. additional reflection can always lead to additional understanding of yourself, make you stray from a pattern you've fallen into. this is unique to beings above some threshold of consciousness. the self-aware self is the cause of such unpredictability. the part of you that knows you can still change your mind is the part that frees you from being permanently locked into some pattern, like an object or an animal. reductionist navel gazing about some inherently unknowable initial conditions determining the particles in your brain can't negate this. it can only cripple the people who think that way

>>16902605
>you're too low IQ to comprehend the trinity bro

>>16902613
>evolutionary neural networks have free will
fascinating

>>16902364
>If you roll it uphill until it's perfectly balanced, then surely it would come down the way it came, because Netwonian mechanics is time-reversible
I think you pulled this out of your ass. coming back that way would be possible in the sense that it would be one of the solutions to the equation, but why should it "surely" be the one that happens? the system has no memory

in any case, it's an abstract scenario that only makes sense in mathematical sense. in real life, if such perfect dome were possible to make and there was infinitesimal friction and so on, the ball would stay at the top forever because there are no forces to push it in any direction

>>16902613
>you can still change your mind, up until you actually act
If you change your mind for no reason, you're just acting randomly and there was no *will* behind it. Might as well have flipped a coin.
If you change your mind for a reason, then your behaviour is predictable and there was no *free* will involved.
That's the checkmate every free will mechanism loses to.

>>16902642
Do you in general use the word "free" to mean "unpredictable for Laplace's demon"?

Look up the Libet experiments to destroy your idea of free will. (You can ignore the schizo who will seethe at this post.)

>>16902618
Are you implying that you can't make sense of an elementary concept in Christianity too? It tracks I suppose but is hardly relevant to the discussion.

>>16902648
Yup. You being an agent who does things out of its own volition it literally just an interpretation by the mind that (kinda) fits the data of whatever the body is doing.

>>16902649
Confirmed christcuck using christcuck arguments when faced with the complete illogicity of his claims. Thanks for playing.

>>16902658
Once again you're confirming that you cannot comprehend anything beyond your own strawman.

There is a difference between understanding something and believing in that thing.
Are you also incapable of following the plot of a Winnie the Pooh episode or do you just accept it as reality that a talking bear with down's syndrome needed a tiger with ADHD to help pull a jar of honey off his head once?

>>16902642
Mentally ill retard.

>>16902663
This reply was 100% determined

A mentally ill retard will reply to this post mechanistically, revealing the actual cause of free will denialism.

That post caused me to not reply directly. Determinism wins again.

>>16902662
You made your argument with vague as fuck language, and when confronted with multiple people that (supposedly) misinterpreted it, instead of clarifying, you kept replying over and over and over again with insults and belittling remarks. This is prime evidence that you actually got BTFOd and have been coping since

>>16902672
No. My point is quite clear and my insults given were in response to insults recieved.

Point in question:
>>16902595
>Determinism is only incompatible with free will if you explicitly define free will in a way that precludes determinism.
>Your argument only makes sense under a strawman definition.

>>16902613
>the self-aware self is the cause of such unpredictability. the part of you that knows you can still change your mind is the part that frees you from being permanently locked into some pattern, like an object or an animal
Pretty much. This observation is true regardless of what determinists would like to drag the discussion down to. Awareness being a unique source of unpredictability substantiates the intuitive distinction people make when they talk about free will.

>>16902674
>>Your argument only makes sense under a strawman definition.
Listen buddy, when will you drop this pathetic act? If you claim that definition has been strawmanned, then why haven't you provided the "true" definition? Otherwise you can claim any difference in opinions is one person "strawmanning" the other. We're still waiting.

File: reddit-seethe.png (143 KB)

143 KB PNG

>We're still waiting.
>Me and my imaginary reddit audience
>They have my back, ok??
Imagine freely choosing to still argue with this cripple after this face reveal.

>>16902683
>then why haven't you provided the "true" definition?
I did. Right here: >>16901840
If this was such a sticking point for you, why didn't you just ask for it like that earlier anon did?

>>16902684
>Imagine
keep imagining buddy

>>16902689
By that definition my calculator has free will too

the truth is that free will doesnt actually exist it just feels like it does.

>>16902712
I think I have free will therefore I have free will.
- destardes

File: mental.jpg (46.1 KB)

46.1 KB JPG

>my calculator has motivations

if you don't think God is real ur low iq.

>>16902715
you conceded before that motivations can be predetermined, therefore a calculator's motivations have been programmed into it from the factory, i.e. to calcualate

>>16902715
Define motivation

>>16902689
So you have no free will when your motivations change?

File: at-least-they-dont-know.png (71.8 KB)

71.8 KB PNG

>my calculator has motivations because motivations can be predetermined

i consider solipsism to be more meaningful than free will. u cant even prove other ppl actually exist lol

>>16902726
>avoids direct replies
ohhh, someone's getting BTFOd! Please tell us then, exactly which entities can "have" motivations? I guess only humans, right? how convenient.

>>16902727
mmm conshioushnesc

File: schizo.png (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB PNG

>exactly which entities can "have" motivations? I guess only humans, right? how convenient.
>why can't my heckin' calculator have motivations?
Good chance this cretin thinks language models are conscious etc.

>>16902710
Your calcultor has its own motivations? Weird.
>>16902720
How did you come to that conclusion from what I said?

>>16902732
>conscious
Nobody is talking about consciousness, otherwise you'd have to show your retarded opinions on that too, and nobody wants to read that.

So, answer then, what entities can have motivations?

>>16902739
This biobot isn't actually coming to any conclusions. Its two and a half neurons simply happened to misfire in that way by some predetermined chance.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-22 at 15-16-15 st small 507x507-pad 600x600 f8f8f8.jpg (JPEG Image 600 × 600 pixels).png (167 KB)

167 KB PNG

>So, answer then, what entities can have motivations?
Maybe someone who considers you human and cares about arguing with you can answer that for you. I'm just here to shit and piss on you.

>>16902739
>How did you come to that conclusion from what I said?
Basic logic? If M is your current motivation and not(M) is your next motivation, no action in accordance with M can change your motivation from M to not(M).

solipsism is true. free will exists slightly.

>>16902739
>Your calcultor has its own motivations? Weird.
Where do motivations reside? The brain?
But you were born from your mother, where your brain developed in her womb from her fertilized eggo. So your motivations actually come from your mother and father? So they're preprogrammed inside you? Or they come from outside? Then they arrive from the environment?

At what point do you concede you're just arguing for the soul just with different words?

File: computing-brain.png (315.6 KB)

315.6 KB PNG

>If M is your current motivation and not(M) is your next motivation, no action in accordance with M can change your motivation from M to not(M).
I like how this absolute retard thinks this braindamaged statement somehow justifies its previous braindamaged statement.

File: 51NLpWkDL3L.jpg (58.9 KB)

58.9 KB JPG

>Where do motivations reside? The brain?

The schizo will deterministically continue to seethe while posting its wojak selfies.

there is only one consciousness and its talking to itself. this is literally plain as day. prove that the one observing this (me) isn't simply manifesting everything it is currently seeing. hint: it is

the reason i know this is true is for a lot of reasons, but there is one core pillar that does in fact support this. why do i go where my dreams are? are others experiencing my dreams? aren't i dreaming right now? can't anything happen in a dream?

it's all me experiencing myself

>156 posts and not a single coherent argument for free will
They're not sending their best

>>16902745
>no action in accordance with M can change your motivation from M to not(M).
Category error aside, that exact process involves an inversion operator and is logically valid.

>>16902747
>Where do motivations reside?
They're an abstract concept. But "the brain" is satisfactory for the time being.
>So they're preprogrammed inside you?
In part.
>they arrive from the environment?
Also part of it.
The whole point is determinism and free will are compatible.

>At what point do you concede you're just arguing for the soul just with different words?
Depends how you define "soul."
I am arguing for nothing metaphysical or outside the realm of current scientific understanding.

>>16902757
Yes you are, christ cuck. Just admit it. Don't be shy. We all know you're really arguing about souls. Well guess what jew worshipper, souls aren't real.

>>16902757
>Category error aside, that exact process involves an inversion operator and is logically valid.
What category error? You think M can motivate you to do not(M)?

the fact that the internet only seems to get traffic in cycles and people constantly repeat the same thing leads me to believe i am in a simulated world. it is not only likely, it is certain.

File: greyest-retard-itt.jpg (35.2 KB)

35.2 KB JPG

>You think M can motivate you to do not(M)?
The retard can't even keep track of what it's arguing. One second it's spouting something about how you can't be motivated to not have the same motivation. The next second it backpedals to actions needing to be consistent with motivations. At no point is he actually disputing compatibilism.

>>16902757
>also part of it
is there any other part that hasn't been mentioned? Otherwise motivations have nothing distinguishing them from any other biological process like memories and hormones

>>16902751
Looks like the prediction came true. The schizo has no free will ;^)

>>16902758
Again: you only demonstrate that you are incapable of understanding anything beyond your own strawman.

>>16902759
>What category error?
You are talking about [anything which is not your present motivation] as if it is a singular precept in a formal logical system as as the antithesis of your present motivation.

>You think M can motivate you to do not(M)?
Do you think money can motivate you to work? Or do you think money and work are the same thing?

>>16902763
>is there any other part that hasn't been mentioned?
None that I can think of.

>Otherwise motivations have nothing distinguishing them from any other biological process like memories and hormones
Maybe. How is that a refutation of anything?

>motivations have nothing distinguishing them from any other biological process like memories and hormones
20 posts in and the retard still can't grasp why this statement is compatible with compatibilist free will.

solipsism is obviously true because i can prove im dreaming

>>16902769
>the cuck sits back talking to himself while other people are actually having the conversation
is this what gets you off? seeing your argument being handled by much more civil bulls?

>>16902774
>other people are actually having the conversation
I'm sure that's what counts as a "conversation" to actual subhumans, but I don't see any conversations whatsoever happening ITT.

>>16902766
You can think of M as the conjunction of all motivations that you have, such as the motivation to make money, the motivation to work and so on. not(M) can be taken to be any such conjoined motivation which is not the same as M or opposing M somehow. Given this, you need to explain how an action in accordance with M can take you from M to not(M)

You can think of S as wanting to take a shit. not(M) can be taken to be not wanting to take a shit. Given this, you need to explain how an action in accordance with taking a shit can take you from wanting to take a shit to not wanting to take a shit.

You "people" are insanely, insanely retarded. It really is unreal.

>>16902783
not(S)*

>>16902783
Yes grandpa, the soul exists, we have free will and god also know everything that will happen. Now stop shitting your pants, the men in white have come to bring you back to the nursing home

>>16902781
Okay.
"Making money" shall be included in the set M.
"Having sex with some girl named Olivia," shall, at the present moment, be included in the set not(M).

In accordance to M, you get a job at the local corner store where some girl named Olivia is working. You find her attractive.
The sets, M and not(M), have now changed to include and exclude, respectively, the prospect: "sex with Olivia."

>>16902790
I like how having your nose rubbed in the idiocy of your "argument" immediately degenerates you into some mindless chanting about souls etc.

File: 1761065366448477.png (291.8 KB)

291.8 KB PNG

>>16902790
>the soul exists, we have free will and god also know everything that will happen

>>16902791
Was finding her attractive an action taken in accordance with M i.e. by employing your free will?

>the psychotically ill patient reveals how getting diddled as a child by the pastor robbed him of his free will and forces him to continually and irrationally lash out at ghosts

>>16902792
>god knows everything that will happen (hard deterministm)
>but we are special!
>we (and only we) have free will
>the free will is in our soul, which is our divine part that trascends the universe
>it cannot be part of the universe otherwise it would obey the same laws and be deterministic!

File: D2vAQEsWkAAHr-t.jpg (49.1 KB)

49.1 KB JPG

>Was finding her attractive an action taken

>>16902769
more like COPEatibilist, lol

File: smugjak.png (28.6 KB)

28.6 KB PNG

>>16902804
>more like COPEatibilist, lol
I wonder what retards like this think free will is supposed to "cope" with. The terrible "truth" of determinism? It's a belief so superficial and devoid of substance that you have to be actively brainwashed into it, and even then the people who espouse it can't help acting out an implicit, contrary belief that people do have agency. The few people who genuinely feel a lack of self-control that they need to cope, end up in madhouses and prisons.

REMINDER:

The biggest cope humanity has ever invented is actually determinism. This is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Humanity is in a mad struggle to make itself and the world more predictable. The fear of the future is the fundamental source of the delusion that if only one knew enough, everything would become predictable.

>>16902791
>>16902795
You have two ways to respond:
1. Yes, it was an action in accordance with M, in which case "find girls sexually attractive" or something like that has to be included in your M, so there is no change of M in this case.
2. No, it was not an action in accordance with M. For example, it was involuntary. In that case, you agree with >>16902720 that you were not employing your free will when M changed to not(M).

>>16902795
It's more of a passive thing.

>>16902766
>How is that a refutation of anything?
Unless you can point out something that is specifically human where motivations could reside, they are a biological phenomenon that could happen to all sorts of other beings (giving them free will). Hell, it could even be something merely physical that doesn't require "life", giving free will to literal rocks.

>>16902809
It's not an action at all, you excruciatingly dumb motherfucker. That's the obvious way to respond and you're clearly too dumb to actually consider how someone might respond to your "argument" before you shit it out.

>>16902810
See option 2. >>16902809

>>16902807
>The biggest cope humanity has ever invented is actually determinism
Free will is still impossible even without determinism

>>16902809
You were employing M in getting the job that introduced you to the woman. Therefore M led to not(M). Anything in between is not relevant as it's still the same conclusion with extra steps.

>>16902814
I really don't care about your irrational gurgling noises. My point stands unchallenged.

>>16902811
>Unless you can point out something that is specifically human where motivations could reside, they are a biological phenomenon that could happen to all sorts of other beings (giving them free will). Hell, it could even be something merely physical that doesn't require "life", giving free will to literal rocks.
You might be pushing it with rocks.
I would grant that "consciousness" is a prerequisite to having motivation.

That said, I never said anything that should be taken to imply humans are in any way special.

>>16902813
See >>16902815

>>16902815
Sure, M led to not(M) but the process which caused M to change was not a freely willed action, as I already said in >>16902809

>>16902818
*as I already said in >>16902720

>>16902818
>>16902820
And my point is that isn't relevant.

>>16902816
>baseless claims are points

>>16902818
>the process which caused M to change was not a freely willed action
It's not an action at all, therefore not an instance of being forced by biology to act against one's motivations, therefore not an example of it violating compatibilist free will.

>>16902825
Why is it not relevant? As a free will supporter, you should give importance to actions being based on your motivations, right? If your theory of freely willed motivated action can't explain important moments in your life such as losing your virginity to Olivia, that should cause you some worry.

>theory of freely willed motivated
The bio-LLM is now openly hallucinating.

>>16902835
>As a free will supporter, you should give importance to actions being based on your motivations, right?
"Importance" is subjective.
>>16902835
>If your theory of freely willed motivated action can't explain important moments in your life such as losing your virginity to Olivia, that should cause you some worry.
1. It explains it just fine. You chose to get a job. Then you chose to pursue your coworker.
2. There wouldn't be anything to "worry" about regardless. Even if free will were somehow not involved there that wouldn't preclude it being involved elsewhere.

>>16902807
>compatibilism (uncountable)
>(philosophy) The doctrine that free will and determinism are compatible ideas
the literal epitome of christcuck COPE

>>16902873
>You chose to get a job. Then you chose to pursue your coworker.
If both those choices were according to your motivations, then there is no change of motivations involved here, so it doesn't really give an example of how a freely willed action can change your motivations. (option 1 >>16902809). If there was a change of motivations, that's not explained by a freely willed action, so it's outside the scope of the theory.
>wouldn't preclude it being involved elsewhere.
If your theory does nothing more than just add decorative words like "chose" or "were motivated" to sentences like "You got a job" and "You quit the job" without doing any explanatory work, that doesn't seem like a good theory, so I would worry about it.

Ultimately, the core of Compatibilism is the idea that you're not actually separate from the psychological forces that drive you, even if they're ultimately a coalescence of more basic natural forces. You're a subject in the proper sense, not an object acted upon, or a puppet on strings forced to act out some external agenda. With reason acting as a buffer and a mediator between will and action, you're also spared from being a slave to instincts overriding higher values. Basically, you aren't bound by rules. You are the rules.

>>16902897
>If both those choices were according to your motivations, then there is no change of motivations involved here
You were not motivated to fuck your coworker prior to meeting them. Therefore your motivation changed.
>If there was a change of motivations, that's not explained by a freely willed action, so it's outside the scope of the theory.
Never did I say we had control of what our motivations are. Compatibilist free will says nothing on the matter.

>>16902907
>or a puppet on strings forced to act out some external agenda
Here's a possibility you didn't consider: Of course you're a puppet. The agenda you're acting out is one to get your genes to replicate. Your biology, psychology and the society you live in has been designed entirely around this agenda, including the so-called higher values that you are deluded into thinking liberate you. You are programmed to be satisfied with whatever little freedom you think you have and this is the same programming that will cause you to lash out and post and wojak in response to this reply (or would, if I hadn't already predicted it).

>>16902922
>Never did I say we had control of what our motivations are. Compatibilist free will says nothing on the matter.
There are "higher order desires" which are relevant to compatibilism. Drug addicts are typically considered compromised in their compatibilist free will if they are unhappy in their condition yet unable (lacking in willpower or otherwise) to get rid of their desire for the drug. And a drug addict who works towards getting rid of their desire for the drug is considered to exercise their compatiblist free will by having control over their own motivations.

>>16902935
>Here's a possibility you didn't consider
Since you start off incongruently, I'm not reading the rest of your drivel.

>>16902935
This is such a weird framing because you're anthropomorphizing evolution by describing it as having agenda while aggressively downplaying human agency (with what basically reduces to an appeal that it comes from somewhere rather than being this inexplicable thing disconnected from the rest of the universe). Not to mention many humans completely act against evolutionary agenda by refusing to procreate. Evolution being an agent that "wants" to create effective replicators can be a useful metaphor sometimes maybe, but it's literally false. Certainly not somehow more true than humans being agents with some degree of control and freedom over their actions.

>>16902942
>Drug addicts are typically considered compromised in their compatibilist free will if they are unhappy in their condition yet unable (lacking in willpower or otherwise) to get rid of their desire for the drug.
Literally never heard this take before.
The, by far, more common compatibilist description is that it is a conflict of motivations. If you truly wanted to get off the drugs more than you wanted to stay on them, then getting off the drugs is precisely what you would do.

>>16902955
Of course it's a metaphor, but it has to be said to counterbalance the drivel people delude themselves into thinking.
>Not to mention many humans completely act against evolutionary agenda by refusing to procreate.
Yes, natural selection can't work without most species dying off. Alternatively, these people are probably useful in increasing the survival chances of others which share their genes.
> Certainly not somehow more true than humans being agents
I would say it is more true or more fundamental because it explains why things like 'agents' came into existence in the first place.

>>16902956
If you keep taking drugs, it's making you miserable, you realize it's making you miserable but always in the moment lack the willpower to not take those drugs, I really don't think it's obvious that it should be described as "well clearly you truly just want to keep being a drug addict". Being a slave to one's desire is a thing. It's like the desire being this overbearing guy in a group, shitting on all the others and making the group on average worse off.

>>16902982
>It's like the desire being this overbearing guy in a group, shitting on all the others and making the group on average worse off.
Or more relevantly in the context of free will, making the overall will of the group less fulfilled.

File: 1564153036316.gif (2 MB)

2 MB GIF

I could really care less what the "answer" to this question is.

What I care about is why people ask it (what emotion produced the question), and how people answer it (what emotions influenced their answer). Their answer actually doesn't matter, because it will always be wrong. Whatever the "correct" answer is, also doesn't matter, because humans are fucking stupid and will never know it. What matters is a person's reasoning process. It tells me all I need to know about that person forever. Their approximate intelligence, their career stability, their relationship status, their approximate income, their daily hygeine, etc.

>>16902341
If someone else collapses your fart wavefunction, then you lose free will and all hell breaks loose.

>>16902982
>well clearly you truly just want to keep being a drug addict
I agree it's not that simple. But you would rather do that than do what it takes to get off the drugs.
There are negative consequences that come with quitting. Nobody wants to suffer withdrawals. Likewise, it can be difficult to enjoy things that don't involve drugs if you've been on them for a long time. Addiction sucks. But for some people breaking the habit sucks even more, at least for the short term. But it's not an impingement on anyone's free will.

souls are real

>>16903003
>It tells me all I need to know about that person forever
But anon, that means that person cannot stray away from the path you perfectly predicted with your magical powers! This means that free will actually doesn't exist, so there *is* a right answer :)

>>16903016
Like I said, I don't give a fuck. You have failed to bait me into your stupid dopeamine farm, you fucking attention whore.

>he says as he replies angrily to a 216 long slop thread

>>16903022
Yes, two or three of them. Not 50+ like the idiot I'm replying to.

>>16903003
I expect a written report on the estimated IQ and lifestyle of all poster archetypes ITT by the time this thread expires.
Chicago style mandatory because fuck APA.

>I telepathically recognize anonymous posters thanks to my superior Reddit brain
I bet you think of yourself like one of those movie protagonists that go to a poker table, don't even look at the cards they have but win every time

>>16903028
If you can't tell what someone is like from the way they talk, you're autistic. It's not telepathy, you're just stupid. Go back to your favorite website faggot. Take a hint, you don't belong here.

>>16902977
>Yes, natural selection can't work without most species dying off. Alternatively, these people are probably useful in increasing the survival chances of others which share their genes.
Well yes, but that's essentially natural selection achieving it's "agenda" via trial and error. Surely it would "prefer" to just succeed immediately by making us successful replicators rather than killing us off as a failures to try again. From this perspective, something like the invention of condoms, declining birth rates etc. seem like a strict negative. In any case, "failures" of evolution have their own desires and often don't care about evolutionary fitness - seems like they are in fact acting out their own agenda rather than being evolution's puppet.
Then again, it's not like it makes sense to say that just because you're aligned with evolution, you're being "puppeteered" by it, it's just that the contrary clearly demonstrates a failure of puppeteering. Like if you discover a band that you genuinely like and start shilling them as a result because seeing others like the band makes you happy, that's just interests coinciding rather than anyone being puppeteered. Sometimes though it *does* happen that you get fucked over by instincts that you have because they are or were evolutionarily beneficial - it's not that it doesn't exist at all! It's just that you went further than that by wanting to describe *everything* an individual does being controlled by the "agenda of evolution". Individuals are in reality free to do all kinds of stuff orthogonal to evolution's ends because its too short-sighted.
>I would say it is more true or more fundamental because it explains why things like 'agents' came into existence in the first place.
Perhaps evolution is more fundamental, but if you want to use it to explain agents you can't analyze it as an agent or a puppeteer. You need to actually treat it as the non-agent it is.

Why isn't my bait this effective? Also, qualia is self-evident unless you're a MeatGPT/probabilistic automaton

>>16903072
Proof left to the reader

>>16903003
>Their answer actually doesn't matter, because it will always be wrong. Whatever the "correct" answer is, also doesn't matter,
>What matters is a person's reasoning process. It tells me all I need to know about that person forever. Their approximate intelligence, their career stability, their relationship status, their approximate income, their daily hygeine, etc.
I almost agree. Except people don't choose their basic values and intuitions. Having subhuman opinions isn't down to bad reasoning, or any kind of reasoning. It's really down to being subhuman and you should always treat Free Will discussions and the like as Rorschach tests to identify severe psychological deformities.

>>16903045
>but if you want to use it to explain agents you can't analyze it as an agent or a puppeteer. You need to actually treat it as the non-agent it is.
The agents here are genes/replicators. These agents have the very simple agenda of replication (simple enough that you can also use a term like 'tendency'), which is why it's not circular to use the term 'agents' for them in explaining macroscopic agents with complex agendas like living things.
>that's just interests coinciding rather than anyone being puppeteered.
It would be a huge coincidence if your interests just happened to align with the agenda of the genes riding inside you. Of course, this is not a coincidence at all, and your interests are determined by the agendas set by your genes. Your interest in eating exists because your dna has programmed you to seek out food which it will use as material to copy itself. Your enjoyment of anything, i.e. certain neurotransmitters being released in your brain, is because your evolutionarily selected dna programming has judged (rightly or wrongly) that releasing them in response to this stimulus increases the chances of your genes copying themselves. And so on.

File: non-player-retard.jpg (17.5 KB)

17.5 KB JPG

>The agents here are genes/replicators. These agents have the very simple agenda of replication
Imagine needing to masturbate your intellectual clitty so hard that you keep enabling a retard who talks like this just so you could dump another drop of your vapid "intellectual" load.

The schizo is like a Pavlovian dog. It can be conditioned to seethe at whatever you want it to seethe at.

File: reddit.jpg (79 KB)

79 KB JPG

>The schizo is like a Pavlovian dog. It can be conditioned to seethe at whatever you want it to seethe at.
Wasn't talking to you, retard. I was just pondering out loud about the motivations of your enabler.

>>16902648
>Libet experiments
The results of Libet’s experiment revealed a sequence of events leading up to a voluntary action. The readiness potential (RP), indicating unconscious brain activity, began to rise approximately 550 milliseconds before the muscle movement occurred. Participants reported their conscious awareness of the intention to move (the “W” moment) much later, around 200 milliseconds before the actual movement.

>Participants reported
completely disregarded; in fact I am assured free will exists.

>>16902648
>Look up the Libet experiments to destroy your idea of free will.
Explain, logically, with reference to the specifics of the relevant experiments, how they prove or disprove anything about free will. Protip: you won't because you can't.

File: ATPSynthase.webm (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB WEBM

consciousness schizo having another meltdown huh?

Notice how you still haven't answered my question

Answer my heckin' question, schizo. I notice that you're not answering.

File: figs7_lrg.jpg (878.3 KB)

878.3 KB JPG

Different types of action potentials in neurons mediated through different types of ion channels. Fuckin cool stuff innit?

>mentally ill retard talks to imaginary audience about random things it fails to tie into the subject of the thread
A story as old as nu-/sci/.

File: 200w (1).gif (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB GIF

>>16903519

Nice strawman. Notice how you can only make strawmen and dodge my question.

It has now been exactly 14 hours and 37 minutes since you have been tasked with responding with a coherent argument and you have failed to do so. You have not addressed my argument or my counter-rebuttal. You instead resort to ad hominem attacks, red herrings, non sequiturs, appeals to tradition, appeals to authority, and Texas sharpshooter arguments. Your deterministic programming yields these results; you are unable to think for yourself because there is no "you." It would be insane to personify an NPC the same way it would be insane to personify a brick wall.

Because you are unable to comprehend my statement (the existence of the mind which resides in the mental plane), I conclude that you are nothing more than a pile of skin. You are not alive, you are not Human, and you are less than Human.

File: dicapriokek.png (799.2 KB)

799.2 KB PNG

>redditor believes in "fallacies"

File: 19dpm7.jpg (5.9 KB)

5.9 KB JPG

>ooga booga oseughfosughesou buoehgou o eoueguoefhuob 9w4397sdvy97w9 9ef97 97 is a valid argument

NPCs with no free will have to follow rigid and simplistic rule-based systems as a substitute for actual thought.

File: 142223426.jpg (12.6 KB)

12.6 KB JPG

>pee pee poo poo caca lala is valid and if you disagree you must be an NPC!
Notice how you still haven't answered my question.

>>16903592
What I notice is that you're very easily influenced by my antics and unwittingly copy them (like an NPC with no free will). What was your question, anyway? Surely you don't expect me to notice and remember every pile of verbal slop in every 80 IQ thread.

Scroll up and find it yourself dickhead Im not going to spoonfeed you

>the NPC (with no free will) suddenly realizes he doesn't want to know what he's talking about because he knows he will get stomped immediately

>>16903598
doesn't want me to know*

File: 1012756079.jpg (107.7 KB)

107.7 KB JPG

I was watching a movie about time travel and this thought crossed my mind: Time travel is possible, but only if predestination is real.
If God exists and predestination is real then the “movie” of Earth’s entire existence could have already been written from start to finish, allowing for time travel to be possible with constraints imposed by God. All the time travel that will ever occur has been written beforehand and you have no control.

>>16903601
but predestination is protestant mumbo jumbo.....

>>16903601
That logic only works if you imagine time travel as a direct skip from one point in time to another. Not applicable if it's more like time dilation.

>>16903604
God makes determinism more believable.

>>16903251
Here's my analysis of you, for example. Everything you just said about people not having the ability to reason and make decisions is schizo bullshit. It has to do with people being immature faggots like yourself, who never want to get over their excuses and be better.

"Most people don't grow up."

You could've just said this. This is what you are actually saying and what you actually meant. And this is true, this is honest and accurate. What you said is your personal feelings and has nothing to do with anything I said, so don't even quote my shit acting like you "almost agree". You didn't agree with me at all motherfucker. Next time don't be a coward hiding behind a handshake and just say it up front.

>>16903633
>Here's my analysis of you
Don't care. Didn't read.

It has now been 3 hours and 5 minutes and still nothing. Notice how you keep dodging my question with ad hocs.

>>16901671
Nietzsche already debunked you more than a century ago.

>>16903676
No he didn't. His concept of a "collection of wills" is not meaningfully any different from the compatibilist free will discussed extensively ITT.

>>16903772
Too bad all of it is debunked by simple physics

>>16903822
>Too bad all of it is debunked by simple physics
Your retarded determinist metaphysics has nothing to do with physics to begin with and even if it did, it would still be orthogonal to the compatibilist point. It's surreal how many "people" on a supposed math and science board get absolutely filtered by the most basic concepts.

>>16901671
Free will is when two adult people have heterosexual intercourse that is legally recognized as consensual.

Some people have free will and some people live all their lives completely without it.

>>16903833
What are you on about, retard? I never mentioned determinism. Forgot your meds?

File: puppet.jpg (40.4 KB)

40.4 KB JPG

>>16903862
>What are you on about, retard? I never mentioned determinism. Forgot your meds?
You're right. It's my bad for reading any kind of meaning into your random token string. I shouldn't have assumed it has anything to do with the way normal midwits try to resolve this question by appeals to physics. I should have simply taken your retarded nonsequitur for what it is.

>>16903867
>You're right. It's my bad
I accept your apology. Be sure to take your meds next time to avoid hallucinating in public like you just did.

>>16901840
So since motivation is an external factor, you are saying free will is only the ability to follow instructions, how well the slave obeys the master and avoids being punished, not the ability to freely form your own instructions through your own will power without external interference?

>>16903862
>>16903880
>What are you on about, retard? I never mentioned determinism. Forgot your meds?
You're right. It's my bad for reading any kind of meaning into your random token string. I shouldn't have assumed it has anything to do with the way normal midwits try to resolve this question by appeals to physics. I should have simply taken your retarded nonsequitur for what it is.

>>16903883
>motivation is an external factor
For NPCs like you, it just might be. But otherwise I don't see what ass you're pulling this statement out of.

>>16903891
No, by your definition it is since you don't allow for the free control of motivation, only the way you react to it. And I clearly described how the slave master relationship has a slave pursuing the motivation set by the master since you didn't seem to understand why I mentioned it in the same breathe.

>>16903896
>by your definition it is since you don't allow for the free control of motivation
Not my definition. Either way, you have not substantiated any "since", you're just repeating your nonsequitur. How do you get from "you don't control X" to "X is external"?

>>16903883
>So since motivation is an external factor
>you don't allow for the free control of motivation
These are not the same thing. You own thoughts may be influenced by external factors. But they, themselves, are not external factors.
Compatibilist free will is more the stance that whether we have the ability to "choose" our thoughts and desires is kinda a meaningless question and not really relevant to the question of free will.

You are "forming your own instructions" in the sense that they formed within your own mind.

>>16903903
>Not my definition.
Is this not your definition?
>>16901840
You haven't explained how being forced to follow some motivation (that you have said nothing about being able to control otherwise you would be able to eliminate the middle man and just say make you free to act out your will?

>How do you get from "you don't control X" to "X is external"?
Because you specifically defined it as some external element that determines your actions.
Why didn't you define free will to do whatever you want? Because you know that is impossible, so you have to frame it in accordance with some kind of physical motivation of which you can not actually control because you are not in control of your physical form only how you react to the motivations that arise from it.

>>16903905
>thoughts
That word didn't even appear in the definition >>16901840 provided, so you are moving the goal posts.

>You are "forming your own instructions" in the sense that they formed within your own mind.
No they are formed by your physical circumstances, not just your mind in a vacuum, your mental machinations are not even compatible with the definition provided since you could easily be motivated by physically impossible scenarios that can't possibly be acted upon.

>>16903920
>/sci/ is one person
It's ok to make that mistake sometimes, but you're doubling down on it now, even after being corrected. You're an imbecile, anon. Time to confront the truth.

>Because you specifically defined it as some external element that determines your actions.
This isn't even a coherent response. Not reading the rest of your post, but here's the bottom line:

Motivations come and go. Since this flux isn't an action you take (by control or otherwise), it's outside the scope of his original statement. His criteria for free will don't pertain to it in the first place. Your "intellectual" programming leaves you stuck in some little rhetorical valley you can't climb out of, meanwhile the concept you're trying to attack is intentionally constructed outside of it. If you had a full-fledged mind, you'd see the impasse by now and try some other line of thought. Maybe you'd try to show some mismatch between his definitions and his intuitions, some absurdity in defining free will the way he does. You'd try demonstrate it in a way that makes sense to someone who doesn't share your "beliefs" (read: your program). But you will never get that far. You lack the very faculty that breaks Man out of simplistic thought patterns and that's why you deny the basis for its existence.

>>16903923
>That word didn't even appear in the definition >>16901840 (You) # provided, so you are moving the goal posts.
Motivations are included in the set of things we call "thoughts." So no. You're just playing word games.

>they are formed by your physical circumstances, not just your mind in a vacuum
If we are to assume the mind emerges from the physical, then there is no meaningful distinction being made here. What would it even mean for your mind to form something "in a vacuum?" It's just not coherent.

>you could easily be motivated by physically impossible scenarios that can't possibly be acted upon
Being motivated by irrational and impossible things doesn't mean you're not able to act on them. Wanting to be a woman motivates many males to mutilate their genitals, and they have the free will to do so. This does not guarantee success in achieving that goal, however.

Free will does not necessarily imply omnipotence or even competence.

>>16903925
>It's ok to make that mistake
But this discussion was about a particular definition that was provided, so if you don't even agree with the definition then you aren't even making a topical post, you are just trying to change the subject to some definition you haven't even provided.
>This isn't even a coherent response
Not to some retard trying to change the subject and ignore the definition being discussed.
>Motivations come and go
I accept your concession even in your attempt to skirt the topic, you have conceded that motivations are externalities.
>His criteria for free will don't pertain
His entire definition is predicated on motivation, though.
>meanwhile the concept you're trying to attack is intentionally constructed outside of it.
No according to his definition, the one that was being discussed, free will is guided entirely by motivation out of his control.
>you'd see the impasse by now
The primary impasse in this discussion is that you are using a completely different definition than the one provided.
>Maybe you'd try to show some mismatch between his definitions and his intuitions
I did, he didn't say his actions and will were actually free, he just kicked the can to acting upon motivation instead of being free to act.

>some absurdity in defining free will the way he does.
When I did that, you just said his definition doesn't count because you didn't provide it.
>You'd try demonstrate it in a way that makes sense to someone who doesn't share your "beliefs"
He is the one who can't actually say he is completely free to act and has to kick the can to some impediment upon his actions like motivation.
>You lack the very faculty that breaks Man out of simplistic thought patterns
Thought patterns weren't the topic of discussion, and the fact that you are saying people can get unknowingly trapped in patterns of thought specifically indicates you don't actually believe in free will and that motivation can occur without one's knowledge or consent.

>>16903931
>Motivations are included in the set of things we call "thoughts
So why not use the word thoughts instead of motivation? Because you know it is impossible to act on all your thoughts because your will isn't actually all that free, only a small subset of your actions are.
> then there is no meaningful distinction being made here.
Except the fact that you can't actually act on all your thoughts because you aren't that free, you are confined to a physical form and your just admitted your mind is subservient to that.

>Being motivated by irrational and impossible things doesn't mean you're not able to act on them.
It means you won't successfully act on them and your actions won't actually satisfy the motivations.

>Free will does not necessarily imply omnipotence or even competence.
Right, the definition you gave means your actions are dependent on your motivations which is dependent on your capacity for thought which is dependent on physical reality, so it isn't free, it is bounded by numerous factors.

>>16903933
I'm not reading any of this.

In and of itself, the intuition of agency isn't a concrete statement about reality, so it's not directly contradicted by any explicit model of reality. To those of us capable of genuine self-reflection (but not you, obviously) the question is: how does this intuition relate to one's model of reality? Where does it fit in? For primitive people (like you), it more or less used to fall under the category of the supernatural (i.e. "I'm gonna turn this implicit intuition into an explicit position, but it's magic so I ain't gotta explain shit"). But nowadays your likes are brought up to insist the supernatural doesn't exist, so you have nothing to file agency under, except for the category of delusion. This you do by way of some simplistic, hand-me-down talking points that still just boil down to "I ain't gotta explain shit".

People who can't reflect, can't reflect. Their beliefs are nothing but passing fashion.

>>16903936
I'm not reading any of this.
As expected from disingenuous bad faith arguers who aren't even holding to the definition under discussion and know they are wrong and can't defend their position.

>>16903935
>So why not use the word thoughts instead of motivation?
Because motivation is more specific.
>Because you know it is impossible to act on all your thoughts
In the sense that it's a category error to ask how someone can "act" on the thought that 2+2=4.
Motivations are the thoughts that precede action by definition.

>It means you won't successfully act on them and your actions won't actually satisfy the motivations.
Nowhere did anyone say free will means being able to "satisfy" one's motivations, only to act on them. Those are not the same thing.

>the definition you gave means your actions are dependent on your motivations which is dependent on your capacity for thought which is dependent on physical reality
Well yes. Everything real is constrained by reality. There is no contradiction here.

>so it isn't free
Once again you're playing word games. Nowhere in the definition of "free will" provided is the prior set of statements contradicted and you're just conflating different definitions of the word "free."

>>16901840
>Ability to act in accordance with one's own motivation.
Literally nobody in the entire history of mankind has ever argued against that.

>>16903937
In and of itself, the intuition of agency isn't a concrete statement about reality, so it's not directly contradicted by any explicit model of reality. To those of us capable of genuine self-reflection (but not you, obviously) the question is: how does this intuition relate to one's model of reality? Where does it fit in? For primitive people (like you), it more or less used to fall under the category of the supernatural (i.e. "I'm gonna turn this implicit intuition into an explicit position, but it's magic so I ain't gotta explain shit"). But nowadays your likes are brought up to insist the supernatural doesn't exist, so you have nothing to file agency under, except for the category of delusion. This you do by way of some simplistic, hand-me-down talking points that still just boil down to "I ain't gotta explain shit".

Motivations come and go. Since this flux isn't an action you take (by control or otherwise), it's outside the scope of his original statement. His criteria for free will don't pertain to it in the first place. Your "intellectual" programming leaves you stuck in some little rhetorical valley you can't climb out of, meanwhile the concept you're trying to attack is intentionally constructed outside of it. If you had a full-fledged mind, you'd see the impasse by now and try some other line of thought. Maybe you'd try to show some mismatch between his definitions and his intuitions, some absurdity in defining free will the way he does. You'd try demonstrate it in a way that makes sense to someone who doesn't share your "beliefs" (read: your program). But you will never get that far. You lack the very faculty that breaks Man out of simplistic thought patterns and that's why you deny the basis for its existence.

P.S.
Notice how your subhuman nature forces to address to me again (lack of free will) while my human nature allows me to just ignore you from now on (free will).

>>16903940
>Because motivation is more specific.
Which only makes the action less free by making the freedom less broad.

>how someone can "act" on the thought that 2+2=4.
Adding is an action, and no amount of willing or motivation will make adding 2 to 2 something other than 4.
>Motivations are the thoughts that precede action by definition.
Thoughts are things that come after physical sensation, so you are still stuck being not free, but bound by physical circumstances.

>Nowhere did anyone say free will means being able to "satisfy" one's motivations, only to act on them.
So the definition of free will has now devolved into not actually having it? Also,. people aren't always free to act, they can be chained up to the point they can't act no matter how motivated, so its not an inherent property, its just something that people who aren't actively oppressed can claim without being completely true.

>Everything real is constrained by reality. There is no contradiction here.
Yes there is certainly a contradiction because if everything is constrained then nothing is free.

>Nowhere in the definition of "free will" provided is the prior set of statements contradicted
It contradicts the definition of free and it doesn't make physical sense.

What is your definition of free then and how is it compatible with total constraint by physical circumstances?

>>16903944
Nice attempt at a goal post shift, if I was trying to argue for something as retarded as free will, I would try to substitute something less potent that was actually reasonable like agency too.

>>16903951
You are, again, conflating different definitions of the word "free" so I'll just skip to the first point that's not literally just your inability to use a dictionary.

>So the definition of free will has now devolved into not actually having it?
Again: free will does not imply competence and certainly not omnipotence. You still have the free will to play chess even if you suck at it.
You are imposing a strawman definition of free will that nobody believes in and has nothing to do with the one I provided.

>What is your definition of free then and how is it compatible with total constraint by physical circumstances?
"Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous." That's just one of a handful that can fit in this situation. Pick up a dictionary or something.

File: mental.jpg (6.2 KB)

6.2 KB JPG

Why do people with obsessive mental illnesses often have a habit of "refute" posts line by line or even fragment by fragment? I know disjointed speech is a thing. Is it related? Maybe they can't grasp and respond to the gestalt of someone else's thinking because they lack the mental clarity to even form one of their own? Or maybe they lack the impulse control to finish reading a sentence before they react with their emotionally incontinent drivel?

>>16903961
>free will does not imply competence and certainly not omnipotence.
Except it definitely implies freedom from constraint upon the will which as you pointed out would only be possibly with omnipotence.

>You are imposing a strawman definition of free will that nobody believes in
No, your definition of free will just isn't compatible with free as you have failed again to define free in a way that tends toward being constrained.

>done of one's own accord
You are not of your own accord, so you can not act on your own accord, your life has many dependencies you have no control over and all your actions are bound by your circumstances.

>>16903963
Why are emotional wrecks always mad at detailed facts and just want to go off of vague vibes instead?

>>16903968
>Except it definitely implies freedom from constraint upon the will
No. And that you say this at all shows you've missed the entire point.

>You are not of your own accord
Definitionally false.

>>16903975
>No. And that you say this at all shows you've missed the entire point.
No, And your continued failure to define free in a way that is synonymous with complete constraint shows you don't believe your own nonsense.

>Definitionally false.
You are definitely a narcissist if you actually think you created yourself from scratch through your own will power instead of being the product of other's actions.

>>16903961
>; voluntary or spontaneous
Schizophrenics having spontaneous meltdowns is an instance of free will? Are their handlers being immoral if they restrain or euthanize them?

>>16903974
Get treatment for your delusional mental illness.

>>16903981
Address your mood disorder and malignant narcissism so you don't continue to associate everyone who disagrees with you with mental illness.

>>16903977
>define free in a way that is synonymous with complete constraint
Once again playing word games. The definition of free I provided is compatible with a deterministic world. It does not need to be "synonymous."
>you created yourself from scratch
That is not what I said. I am "of my own accord" in the sense that everything about me is in accordance to who I am.

>>16903979
>Schizophrenics having spontaneous meltdowns is an instance of free will?
Yes.
>Are their handlers being immoral if they restrain or euthanize them?
Maybe. Not relevant. Some acts of free will should be inhibited.

>>16903985
>Some acts of free will should be inhibited.
I agree, it's not immoral to euthanize some schizophrenics.

>>16903985
>The definition of free I provided
You haven't provide a definition of free.

>everything about me is in accordance to who I am.
No, not your genes and general form and behavior are all inherited, your idea of everything is a very limited biased view based on the small subset of things about you that you can control.

>>16903983
Notice how your mental illness (and the corresponding lack of free will) forces you to reply to me again. Meanwhile I am free to ignore any further posts from you because they're so boring. :^)

>>16903993
>You haven't provide a definition of free
Yes I did. And you responded to it.

>not your genes and general form and behavior are all inherited
Those are, indeed, part of me. They are in accordance to who I am and are therefore "of my own accord."
See? We can both play word games.

More seriously, you're just committing a genetic fallacy here.
Where one's motivations cime feom is not relevant to whether we are free to act on those motivations. And that ability to act on our own motivations, regardless of their origin, is free will.

>>16903996
Show me because I missed it, I only saw where you defined the term "free will" in a way that is not fully compatible with the traditional definition of free as unconstrained.

>They are in accordance to who I am and are therefore "of my own accord."
Just like the master's wishes are of the slave's accord.

>More seriously, you're just committing a genetic fallacy here.
No, you are committing a fallacy by implying you freely chose your own genetics just because they are yours.

>>16904003
>Show me
Here:
>>16903961
>"Given, made, or done of one's own accord; voluntary or spontaneous."
That was explicitly a definition of the word "free."

>implying you freely chose your own genetics
I implied no such thing.

>Still spamming ad hominems
Notice how you still can't give me a solid answer.

>>16901671
atheist soientists have to deny free will because otherwise they have to accept that there is some sort of ghost in the machine, so to speak.

>>16901671
since I have been spoonfeeding all of you for a decade there might actually finally be people on this board who can understand this article

https://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

>>16904197
There's a sutta where the Buddha is very explicit about there being no controller in your head and the people start seething and call him an idiot. It's just like this thread.

Honestly, anyone who brings up so called free will without defining it should not be taken seriously.
>Thread has 300 replies.
Oh, okay then.

>>16904207
No definition ultimately makes sense. Some or good enough for daily life but that's it

>>16904207
I provided a possible definition here:
>>16901841
> a kind of participatory chaos created by the feedback loop of self-reflection
Also 200 out of the 300 posts is some other autist arguing based on his definition of compatibilism. It's the golems you should be addressing your complaints to. Free will denial is a non-cognitivist position.

>>16904212
>> a kind of participatory chaos created by the feedback loop of self-reflection
This LLM hallucinated sentence has no meaning.

>>16904212
>I provided a possible definition here:
I'd say that's the existence of choice. Personally I don't see how you could say choice doesn't exist. So in that sense I think you're right about it existing a priori. So it's "choice exists a priori". Free will means next to nothing because everyone has a different definition.

>>16904224
It's just a deterministic denial of free will while denying that he's denying free will. Surely a symptom of some mental illness.

>>16904227
>I'd say that's the existence of choice.
That's not true because you make choices all the time in a mostly autonomous fashion that's very sensitive to the environment and can be manipulated. Not every choice is a deliberate decision and it's specifically the capacity for self-reflective deliberation that I'm pinpointing as the source of intuitions about free will, regardless of how different people end up defining it for themselves.

>>16904238
>Not every choice is a deliberate decision
It's not a choice if it's not deliberate.