Another thing to keep in mind here ........ Love (and all emotions) are just chemical reactions in your brain and we collectively pretend that they are some magical real thing.

Free will does not have to be real to live in a world where we all just agree that there is free will.

I love the hell out of my family, even if I kind of know its just chemical reactions refined over millions of years for the purpose of forwarding my genetic line. Its real to me so fuk it.

Ah okay, there's a debate between a quantum physicist (Sean Carroll) and sam harris literally about free will, sean carroll is kind of on your side but admits 'libertarian free will' cant exist and is basically only arguing for emergent free will (which i think is what you'd describe as an 'illusion' - but since we haven't clearly defined what is meant by illusion in this thread it's hard to say), which i'd argue is simply a matter of perspective. I thought i also linked you that for some reason:


You'll note even though they disagree on free will, at the start they basically dismiss strong emergence and libertarian free will before they begin debating.

The only way to 'break our conditioning' would literally be for us to be able to operate outside the laws of physics and i'm not even sure what that would mean, how does something evolve through a temporal dimension without rules that describe the evolution and why would only human brains get to operate outside the laws that govern the cosmos? How would thoughts be triggered without any causality, they would just pop into existence? That's still not free will though because these thoughts are just popping into existence not causally because of your 'will', and honestly i can't even reconcile any real logically consistent view of the universe with libertarian free will, it seems like it just ends up becoming circular... if you don't have laws of physics then you have no temporal evolution and no consistency at all with anything that happens. What I'm saying isn't just that were 'influenced' by our environment, rather the laws of physics define completely how things unfold including but not limited to our thoughts and decisions, not our 'free will', and when you talk at this level free will doesn't even make sense as a concept. If you believe the universe is governed by some laws called the laws of physics, and reductionism is true, then libertarian free will can't exist; which is why earlier i pointed out that definitions need to be laid down before this debate can be fruitful at all.

There's no point in coming back/debating further though; your view isn't really based on empiricism or scientific evidence, it's just your opinion based on what you feel and your life experience. To be clear, i'm not saying there's anything wrong with this at all, this is a way many of us try to work out the world around us, but i'm saying if it's not a debate based on evidence/empiricism then there's really nothing to debate, i can't tell you what to think personally and there's no evidence for me to attempt to debunk. We can debate the philosophy of it all day, but unless we're informing it with evidence it's a never ending debate. I'm just here to discuss what our best understanding of physics tells us, i'm not here to argue your opinion; you're entitled to whatever beliefs you wish.

I'd have to look into libertarian free will before I dismiss specifically that, but I would certainly argue for any theory that is supported by science. Emergent free will sounds more like what I'm arguing for, but I would have to investigate these terms further. We may not even be disagreeing exactly, there's just a consensus agreeance on the definition of terms being thrown around which would need to be established first. I won't have time to look into the terms you're using and their exact definitions/etymology until later.

Ultimately what I personally believe is that each individual is ultimately responsible for their own outcome. Extreme ownership is an Imperative. Some things may have been beyond our control at some point, but once a person comes of a certain age and maturity, they have the option to not Only decide how they operate within a given framework, they have the option to leave their framework for another, or even create their own framework.

All of the rules we have as a society (not as humans) were created by other humans. Let that sink in.

Each person is to take on the weight of the responsibility of not just themself, but everyone else. That's my personal belief for how an optimal society would be achieved.

We don’t know why we make decisions

When the thought comes into your head “I want ice cream” and you go get ice cream. It feels like free will but what caused the thought to pop up into your head “I want ice cream”

Free will is an illusion you cucks. There is no rational way to explain how our thoughts arise. We act on our thoughts and our thoughts are spontaneous and uncontrollable. Our thoughts are derived based on our past experiences and genetic makeup

We can choose our thoughts and what we focus on. Explain that. Not all of us are betas who cater to our first impulses.

I might have a thought that I want ice cream, then say fuk that. I'm not trying to be a fat fuk.

Things arent true or not because of the desirability of their consequences, they are just true or not. None of the "b.b.b.but without free will" arguments really have any implication regarding the truth (or non-truth) of it. Harris* would still be upset, just as he would be upset if they were struck by lightning. But under no free will, if such a thing could even be defined, it doesnt make sense to blame the murderer in some kind of mysterious free will sense. It is perfectly reasonable to quarantine the murderer from society by putting them in prison etc, but blame doesnt make sense.

Seems to be lots of babble in this thread so I didnt read most of it, but just wanted to respond to this one because being part of the universe just like other matter, you are subject to the laws of physics, and that even includes the atoms making up your body, your cells, and your brain in particular. And as such, the result of all this compelled you to advertise having low T for a male (1200 ng/L- very low for any male, almost to the level of a female), as certified no less, on a bodybuilding forum.

*: everyone always brings up Harris, but the free will debate existed way before him, and it's not like what he is saying is some totally original thing.

I dont know if these posts are trying to be superficial or just missing the entire point of the free will debate...but you saying "fuk that" is consistent with no free will in the sense it is the result of merely your brain chemistry and the laws of physics, and there is no real "choice" involved. Nowhere in this line of thinking is a mysterious "free will" demonstrated. Saying "we can choose our thoughts" is essentially just assuming whatever you are trying to argue for.

I think it's wrong to think everything is predetermined and that a life course can't be altered. It just seems like cope.

Average person free will is an illusion. The average person lives almost exactly the same life as everyone else with no real meaning. Average person free will maybe exists in meaningless ways like choosing what burger you want today from mcdonalds.

Not really though. If you have no idea how everything will play out (even though it may be predetermined) then it all feels real.

I doesn't matter if we have free will. I crushed the gym today and it sure felt like a choice to go and to give it my all. I don't care if I would have done exactly the same thing with infinite replays.

Why would we have the illusion of choice though? If we accept that we have no free will, then we are constrained. If we believe in free will, than possibilities open up beyond imagination for the denier of free will.

From a human perspective, we all have choices. If you say choice is an illusion, you can't definitively prove that and might as well be saying life is an illusion. It's a metaphysical argument which can't be proven either way. Empirically as humans though, we have choices. It's a stupid, Limiting, and non-productive metaphysical argument to say we don't really have choices. It can't be definitively proven and defies human capabilities of perception.

If you could prove we don't have choices, you could map out everything thats going to happen before it happened. Nobody can do that.

This Anti-free will movement is simply another case of atheistic libs believing they are omniscient like God. This is why they tolerate and propagate the growing homeless problems in their cities. They believe homeless people have no choice and therefore only should be given pity and compassion, for it was bad cosmological luck which caused them to become homeless. And thats not really always The case.

No, it's literally what our understanding of the laws of physics tells us. 'No free will' is the scientific viewpoint, i'm not sure why you're acting like it's some out there theory. I mean Pierre-Simon Laplace expressed this idea with his laplaces demon thought experiment in late 1700s/early 1800s, its not a 'movement' as you claim, it's literally the viewpoint of most physicists. I tried to show your viewpoint respect earlier, but you keep pushing it and it's YOUR view that is completely incompatible with our understanding of the universe.

It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with science, in fact i'm a conservative. Why politicize this? It just makes it seem like you don't have a good counter argument.

Honestly, i kind of think the entire debate is going over your head and you're not fully grasping what is being relayed to you, which makes this entire debate pointless.. you're just talking past people, you're not actually addressing any points that have been made.

I'm not gonna explain myself again because i can't be fuked to write another essay that falls on deaf ears, but i suggest you dig deep into, and really try to grasp determinism and Laplaces demon thought experiment before you respond again.

Reality itself is an illusion.

Go back 30,000 years and explain to a caveman they don't have free will. they'd hit you over the head with a rock lol

I understand the argument that a chain of events completely outside of anyone's control set things in motion, including the circumstances which individuals are given in their life and inevitably these circumstances define an individuals every thought, belief, and idea.

I just think it's a stupid argument to say it's all already a predetermined outcome what will occur as a result of this. Maybe my argument is going over your head because you don't understand that I fundamentally think it's a stupid idea and you couldn't scientifically tell me exactly what's going to happen tomorrow.

Sure, you can trace the cause of events after the fact. But you can't tell me where the universe is going. You couldn't tell me a giant meteor was coming towards Earth before our technology was capable of detecting it. our science is limited as fuk.

There's a cause and effect for everything, but that doesn't tell you everything that will ever be.That's possible.

None of this addresses my point, you're basically just telling me 'i dont like it so it's not true'

And no, i personally couldn't tell you, but Laplaces demon could - that's the point. If you want to argue it appears we have free will because of our ignorance, sure - but it's not the same as having true agency in the universe. If you think deeply, free will doesn't even make sense in the framework of physics and it's completely incompatible

I won't discuss this further until you actually address the points made instead of basically saying 'it's stupid because i feel like it's real so it's real'. If physics has taught us anything, it's that our intuition is pretty useless when it comes to understanding the true nature of the universe.

We are constrained by our previous moment and there is no avoiding this yet on we live. I'm not sure why people believe that predestination somehow ends your life. You have an unknown future (to you), even if it is absolutely set.

Death is the ultimate predestination and that is not an opinion yet you don't kill yourself, right?

Could easily be, still does not change anything. Feels real so it is real.

To be fair, you haven't really explained your point at all. you're just repeatedly and vaguely referencing "trust the science" and saying it's your point. I don't have time to deep dive into the theories you're mentioning, but maybe I'll look Leplaces demon later.

I'm sure it already has multiple theories which don't fully agree with it or refute it as is common in most science. Science mostly captures partial truths and generalities. There's always exceptions to rules.

Read my first post in this topic, it delves into it in great depth man.

Free will is not compatible with the known laws of physics, if you want some resources let me know and i'll PM them to you later. At least then you can be more informed, even if you disagree.

In the cases where that is true we expand the rules to include new science. The answer has never been been "Damn !!! there is the magic".

Things happen within a framework. That framework constrains each moment to a state based on the previous moment.

The only real question we have is if strange quantum events actually have real randomness as in rewinding time resulting in quantum events transpiring differently. Even if this is the case, there are still rules about the possible next states, even if the next state is variable.

it sounds like I've been arguing what is termed emergent free will. And as you said multiple times in that post, none of it can definitively be proven. Probably does not equal so. You've been attacking a strawman this whole time.

In reality, it's an argument outside of the scope of understanding. No Ph D in physics is needed to know humans have limited understanding of the universe and it's true nature. You can say "probably this is the answer based on my understanding", but it's not an exact science and your understanding will always be limited. it's guesswork at the end of the day.

It's all just a great big nothing. But it feels like something

Reminds me of that video of the wrestling guy shouting “It’s still real to me, dam it!”.

- about the level of argument being put up for free will ITT

Whats the argument against free will? Can anyone define it besides saying "herp derp its science"?

It's all about perspective at the end of the day. It's a metaphysical argument. No one's made a single compelling objective argument against it itt.

Saying trust the science is not a valid argument if you can't even explain the points you're referring to in your own words. Likely because there's a misconception behind your interpretation that you fear being exploited on.

I respect tappingtheZen because he's interested in the same questions I am, but most of his argument is "I've studied physics so I know". There's not much of a concrete explanation offered behind it that definitely disproves free will.

He's basically offering a Fauci/CDC level argument which lacks common sense, rationalism, and empirical evidence or validation.

always enjoy reading the misc physics/maths brahs their structured arguments, some good stuff ITT