There's a lot of decent discussions on misc. And by a lot, I mean a tiny amount. Maybe I should go to other sections.

Generally avoid the misc misc these days and just post in the crypto threads. Any attempt to have meaningful conversation on the misc is typically met with ad hominems and general retardation.

I'm sorry if you feel my posts are retardation, but I just try to throw some nonsense here and there for humor.

No no, that comment wasn't directed to you at all.

Think of determinism like this... you have an asteroid floating in space, without any influence from any other source would that asteroid change direction? No, because it is not acting individually from everything else, the actions of the asteroid is determined by everything around it, i.e colliding with another asteroid, or getting caught in a gravitational field etc. Though, those things around it aren't individually responsible either, there is no independent cause for everything that happens in space stemming from the big bang, right? In other words, you could state that the asteroid changed course due to colliding and there would be truth to that but it's truth absent of the bigger picture, causality didn't start and stop with that event, it is not independent in any way.

In this way your actions are no different. You may think some essence of you is acting independently from everything else, thinking free from outside influence, but can you think of a color you've never seen? No. So already your thoughts are limited. Are you acting freely despite of these limitations? Well, think of this... when you're depressed can you just decide not to be with the flick of a switch? What about your opinions, are they independently formed? How come your idea of a good time is more akin with those around you compared to a tribesmen's in the middle of the Amazon?

If there was free will there would never be culture. There would never be such things as demographics.

Try this exercise, think of a number between 1 and 10. And again think of a number between 1 and 10. Now, what number you chose doesn't matter it's why you chose it that does. Was this number birthed from some ether that has no presence in our current reality? The reason why I said to pick it twice was so you might look at your thought process more closely when it came to the second choice, was it completely random or was you thinking along the lines "I already picked this number so I'll choose something different." or "I'll pick the same number twice, that'll show him.", that shows that your decision making process is a continuation of what came before, it's not independently formed. You might think your first number could be independently formed, but there's tendencies there, you may have thought "I'll pick something unusual... 1 is never picked so I'll choose that" etc, not only that, but the very action of your "free will" picking numbers was only doing so because I suggested it. Now do you get the point?

Well I'm not actually that up to date on the philosophical court. Free Will vs Determinism is pretty fun, but do Free Will proponents actually try to negate Determinism? Determinism seems like a sensible framework of facts, and I feel that arguing wholly in favor of one or the other misunderstands the structure of either, more specifically Free Will though.

We have to define determinism. If your definition is "each and every thing you do is outside your control and has been pre-determined" then I don't agree that its a sensible framework. If the definition is that your will is largely influenced by external stimuli, then sure I can agree to that.

What I have been positing in this thread is that our actions are a mixture of our own will and of external/internal stimulus.

The evidence of determinism is all around us, in the way that there is no random element that can be evidenced in reality. Every action you observe can be attributed to another, always has been. Yet when it comes to us, we somehow think these thoughts are free formed, independent, self enclosed bubbles manifesting into reality all from different origins. What evidence is there for this? None. What evidence is there for otherwise, that free will is an illusion? Everything we can perceive. Does the sun ever rise in the west? Does a shadow just disappear from the ground for no reason? And again when it comes to thought can you think of a color you've never seen? For me to think thought is no different from everything else in nature there would have to be some evidence for random occurrence, that actions can be caused independently and of that there is none.

Why then would I ever knowingly disregard the evidence for some idea that no one can prove in the slightest? The idea of keeping an open mind about something becomes ludicrous when that open mind is extended to something that is in no way presentable as fact. It's like, do you KNOW that if you stabbed yourself a few times with a knife in the mid region, you'd die...? You haven't done it, so how could you ever know without doing it? What if I was to tell you there are people who could do this, but I have no evidence of it really it's just what I believe. Would you consider that premise when it comes to fitting it into your paradigm?

Now sure, I respect the approach of philosophy, to question everything. But the very reason we can and do philosophise anything is because there is order and rules that this reality abides by, there is objective truth we can discover and implement for all types of reasons, it's what all life fundamentally resides upon... knowing what is food, knowing what is dangerous etc. Philosophy is not merely unfound speculation it's built upon a informed premise, and when it comes to free will all that premise seems to be that we want to think of ourselves as unique snow flakes to appease an inflated sense of self. When everything points in the direction of determinism, that there is no cause that is independent from any prior action and no evidence to the contrary, then is it pretentious to be in full conviction of that truth, or should we live our lives never in conviction of anything because no matter how much something may present it self with evidence we can "never know". Show me anyone who states they live by the latter and I'll show them a cliff and ask them why they shouldn't jump off, we'll soon see that philosophy of theirs go straight out the window, know what I mean?

Very well put, but do you have appreciation for variation and opportunity?

Absolutely, that's what life is all about, without an appreciation for diversity reality may as well have stayed a singularity.

I think a respect for objectivity, universality, impartiality, etc... make it a lot more appreciable. Fighting for free will just because is lunacy.

You seem to be emotional about me questioning someone you hold dear.

Agreed, but that's also part of the entertainment!

That's not what I said at all. I said that two men can respond to two different stimulus in opposite ways that contradict the determinist narrative.

Man A) Chit genetics, chit childhood. Works hard, makes good choices, exercises discipline. Makes something of himself and acquires a degree of success and wealth
Man B) Great genetics, great childhood. Lazy, unmotivated, entitled, resentful. Makes little to nothing of himself.

These are two OPPOSITE stimuli, not the same.

There's two differences between man A and man B
Difference 1 is self evident. The first made good CHOICES while the other did not.
Difference 2, man B has much greater potential than man A because of his genetics and childhood. The glass ceiling on what he can achieve if he makes good choices is much higher than man A.

There is a degree of determinism that exists. You are dealt a genetic hand of cards in life. But your ability to make the most of them is on you.

I could find you counter examples to Man A and man B. Someone that has great genetics and a great childhood that is incredibly successful or someone that has chit genetics and a chit upbringing that fails miserably. The difference between all 4 of these people is their choices.

If your definition of "free will" is a mind that exists outside of time and space and therefore receives no stimuli but can make decisions anyway, then again I assert you're proposing a definition of free will that by definition cannot be proven. You're taking the cards off the table; much like a theist who's definition of God cannot be proven.

Simply observing that stimuli exist is not irrefutable evidence of absolute determinism. Also, there is not a fixed outcome of any given stimulus. This is the main difference between animals and men. Animals operate off of pure "instincts": pre-determined reactions to a given stimulus. Ex: if your dog is a retriever breed. You throw a ball. It is compelled to go after it and pick it up. It's genetics compel it to do so.

Humans on the other hand have a choice as to how they respond to a given stimulus. You're in a fight with your woman. She slaps you across the face. You feel the anger and violence welling up inside of you. Your instinct is to meet physical force with greater physical force. In a split second, you make a choice to remove yourself from the situation and let the both of you cool off. You had a choice in HOW you responded to the stimulus.

Right, but his arguments against it are easily refutable

I want him to give good arguments against it, but he's not giving good arguments against it, he's giving poor arguments against it