YOU DONT HAVE A FREE WILL PROVEN WITH A SIMPLE SCENARIO

[Mainlander]

holy low iq

holy low iq

0/10 ragebait my favourite niggerkiller

 

[redfacccee]

holy low iq

you probably felt smart typing it too. "yeah bro i totally owned that philosophy nerd by... not understanding anything"

"why does a computer compute 1+1 though cpu cycles if it will write 2 to memory anyways?"

gnosis is in itself apriori, you can argue that the meta analysis of an organism of it's own choices is "spiritually transcendence" and I'm talking about the pattern not the action within the system in itself

the desire to transcend is from this world, it's like a recursive operation that produces a result outside it's bounds

I do agree that there are other systems parallel to logic that derives truth but you assume "will" is not of this world, free will cannot be defined as human action cannot be produced without the why, making it of this world

free will doesn't have a definition, you could argue it's outside of this world but as far as we know god made this world for us and it could be inside the divine realm but you can't "prove" it, and by "experience" you probably refer to intuition? Intuition is still a product of reason.

your careful construction of counterarguments reveals the contradiction - you ACT as if minds can be changed while claiming they're predetermined. crafting persuasive rebuttals only makes sense if arguments alter outcomes. your behavior refutes your philosophy.

you agree "other systems parallel to logic derive truth" - exactly. so why reduce everything to mechanical causation? you acknowledge non-logical truth systems exist but then trap intuition and will within deterministic logic. this inconsistency undermines your reductionism.

gnosis as "meta-analysis of patterns" misrepresents hall. he described states where analyzer-analyzed distinction dissolves - not self-reflection but direct knowing without the knower-known structure. admittedly, such states might be as unfalsifiable as your "divine realm" - but the point remains: hall wasn't describing another level of analysis.

"transcendence from worldly processes producing results outside bounds" is incoherent. either boundaries are real (nothing transcends) or results genuinely exceed them (process transcends too). you can't have worldly processes with truly non-worldly results.

"free will lacks definition" - true, the concept is vague. but we can study experiential differences: people report and behave differently when coerced vs choosing. brain activity differs between forced actions and deliberated ones. the divine realm is unfalsifiable, but the experience of agency has observable correlates.

"actions need reasons therefore will is worldly" assumes only mechanical causation. but consciousness might involve different causal relations - perhaps we participate in generating reasons rather than merely being pushed by them. the "why" could emerge with the choice, not before it.

intuition and reasoning might both be determined, yet intuition FEELS like receiving while logic FEELS like constructing. similarly, choice might be determined yet FEELS like deciding. this demonstrates the key point: determinism doesn't eliminate experiential qualities. we can't escape the sensation of agency just by believing we're determined.

you experience deliberation, feel the weight of choices, act as if decisions matter. even if illusory, why does it FEEL like something to choose? explaining behavior without explaining experience leaves the core mystery untouched.

i'm not even arguing free will definitely exists - i'm pointing out that we inescapably EXPERIENCE agency and choice-making regardless. you'll wake up tomorrow still feeling the weight of decisions. that phenomenological reality persists whether determinism is true or not.

notice how we both CARE who wins this argument about whether arguments are predetermined. that lived contradiction might be more revealing than any philosophical proof.

 

[mandiblade]

You always have a choice unless youre physically forced

But what you miss is: even when you're not physically restrained, your choices aren't truly free.


Every decision you make comes from a web of causes your upbringing, genetics, past experiences, current emotions, brain chemistry.
You don’t create your desires, your fears, your thoughts they arise in you, shaped by everything that made you who you are.


So yes, you “choose.” But the way you choose, what you prefer, what you avoid it’s all determined.
Your soul doesn’t float outside cause and effect.

It's part of the chain.

your careful construction of counterarguments reveals the contradiction - you ACT as if minds can be changed while claiming they're predetermined. crafting persuasive rebuttals only makes sense if arguments alter outcomes. your behavior refutes your philosophy.

I guess I'm a compabiltist or whatever, but I think the missing part of this is the fact that our own actions also play into our "predetermination," as they do to others.

 

[redfacccee]

I guess I'm a compabiltist or whatever, but I think the missing part of this is the fact that our own actions also play into our "predetermination," as they do to others.

'our actions play into predetermination' - but then what distinguishes action from reaction? if everything's just dominoes, compatibilism is basically saying 'yes you're a domino but you're a special domino that feels like it's choosing to fall.'

doesn't explain why the feeling exists or why it matters

look, we've gone full circle. determinists act like they have agency while denying it exists. compatibilists redefine words to keep the feeling while ditching the reality. everyone's still waking up tomorrow experiencing choice.

the fact that nobody can actually live like choices don't exist tells you everything. even typing these arguments requires acting as if they matter. that's not philosophy, that's just data about the human condition.

maybe the real magic is that consciousness creates paradoxes physics can't solve. we're the universe arguing with itself about whether it has free will. how fucking beautiful is that

 

[Qimr]

your careful construction of counterarguments reveals the contradiction - you ACT as if minds can be changed while claiming they're predetermined. crafting persuasive rebuttals only makes sense if arguments alter outcomes. your behavior refutes your philosophy.

this is wrong on so many levels Idk where to begin.
I "argue" because It is my "want" to debate these topics, I derive pleasure from them.
My argumentation doesn't refute itself since you didn't consider that this whole mechanism of persuasion and acceptation is in itself predetermined, it seems to me you isolate my arguments from the receiver when they're both subject to the same chain of causation; it was predetermined that i would find this thread in my free time and present my view point and your objection of them.
If you were to reverse the wheel of time this would always be the outcome as minds are part matter and matter is subject to change.

you agree "other systems parallel to logic derive truth" - exactly. so why reduce everything to mechanical causation? you acknowledge non-logical truth systems exist but then trap intuition and will within deterministic logic. this inconsistency undermines your reductionism.

in this stage of existence we exist within the physical world bound by predetermined laws, our spirit( the non physical dimension of our being) interacts with this world through matter(your body) which is why systems like magic and demons don't have as direct or profound effect as empirical logic. Achieving gnosis as you put it can only happen post mortem and if god permits it.

gnosis as "meta-analysis of patterns" misrepresents hall. he described states where analyzer-analyzed distinction dissolves - not self-reflection but direct knowing without the knower-known structure. admittedly, such states might be as unfalsifiable as your "divine realm" - but the point remains: hall wasn't describing another level of analysis.

i wasn't representing him nor did i read his philosophy but through your brief description gnosis sounds like one with knowledge, speculating on this might be the same as trying to conceive a new color as this is a state exclusive to god.

"transcendence from worldly processes producing results outside bounds" is incoherent. either boundaries are real (nothing transcends) or results genuinely exceed them (process transcends too). you can't have worldly processes with truly non-worldly results.

I'm defining boundaries as in the distinction between two objects, your definition of a boundary is that of a barrier.
I was mainly drawing an analogy to non closed operations in set theory, the operation in question is whatever evolutionary emergent logic system we have, and while doing so I gave credence to your "desires beyond this world". So you admitting that naturalistic patterns cannot produce non worldly results is arguing for the materialist determinism position.
Now you can argue that consciousness is not naturalistic in the first place but even if we suppose a duelist model the conscious realm has to get filtered by the material (your body) to interact with it. (you can arrive at this by apriori alone as our ancestors pictured demons possessing physical bodies).

"free will lacks definition" - true, the concept is vague. but we can study experiential differences: people report and behave differently when coerced vs choosing. brain activity differs between forced actions and deliberated ones. the divine realm is unfalsifiable, but the experience of agency has observable correlates.

no dude I'm saying free will literally lacks definition, as it is outside of logic. What is free will exactly? that you are free in your will to do whatever you want? what is the nature of "wanting"? wanting in itself is constant, as in you cannot choose what you want at any point in time, I cannot just want to be seen naked in public or the like, and even if you can control what you want, what about controlling wanting what you want? it's an infinite paradoxical loop. That's why I said free will is not of this world but seems to be derived from the divine.
And regarding studies they all unanimously disprove free will, they found out your brain subconsciously makes a decision before you're aware of it.

"actions need reasons therefore will is worldly" assumes only mechanical causation. but consciousness might involve different causal relations - perhaps we participate in generating reasons rather than merely being pushed by them. the "why" could emerge with the choice, not before it.

I already explained above why the nature of will and want disproves whatever causal relation you're hinting at.
"Why" emerging with the choice has no practical sense in a one dimensional timeline, if we assumed you performed an action for the sake of it then the "want" is always the default reason, or you found out the "why" later which is still deterministic as it determined your action.
Even if we assume a non linear temporal framework, like retrocausality for instance my argument still stands. A caused B whether their temporal distance is positive negative or null.

intuition and reasoning might both be determined, yet intuition FEELS like receiving while logic FEELS like constructing. similarly, choice might be determined yet FEELS like deciding. this demonstrates the key point: determinism doesn't eliminate experiential qualities. we can't escape the sensation of agency just by believing we're determined.

this really doesn't add anything, yes there is an illusion of free will so what?

you experience deliberation, feel the weight of choices, act as if decisions matter. even if illusory, why does it FEEL like something to choose? explaining behavior without explaining experience leaves the core mystery untouched.

those experience are parts of the mechanism in itself, the way biology works you need to feel that fear spike in your amygdala to choose fleeing or freezing, feelings aren't extensions but cogs in the machine.

i'm not even arguing free will definitely exists - i'm pointing out that we inescapably EXPERIENCE agency and choice-making regardless. you'll wake up tomorrow still feeling the weight of decisions. that phenomenological reality persists whether determinism is true or not.

notice how we both CARE who wins this argument about whether arguments are predetermined. that lived contradiction might be more revealing than any philosophical proof.

yes the human is a being of contradiction. It seems to me you forgot or dismissed the subconscious part of the human psyche?
I "care" about winning this argument potentially because there is a subconscious pattern regarding dominance or self preservation that expresses itself in these mundane ways. In summary you may know you're predetermined but your subconscious still controls you either way, why? because again no free will and like I said before, actions and experience are part of the mechanism itself not independent from it

 

[Iraniancel]

DNR water

 

[psychomandible]

Oh boy
The classic of the classic arguments

Do you want a high iq response why you are wrong

or do you not care?

You freely decided to act like a narcissistic dick head so therefore it does exist.