YOU DONT HAVE A FREE WILL PROVEN WITH A SIMPLE SCENARIO

[Mainlander]

Why is bro so obsessed about free will

It all started because of the blackpill

If i would have been born a chad i wouldnt have been predetermined to think about this

But the fact that we dont have free will and that determinism is true hunts me everyday tbh

 

[Deleted member 110192]

It all started because of the blackpill

If i would have been born a chad i wouldnt have been predetermined to think about this

But the fact that we dont have free will and that determinism is true hunts me everyday tbh

Nah just live tbh

 

[Mainlander]

Nah just live tbh

I wish

I Need so ascend First an then forget about Everything and live a happy life

But since im ugly and always Alone

I have a Lot of time to think which gets me to this Point

 

[Everythingislaw]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

Good thread and i am not saying you are wrong but i personally wouldn't be so quick to decide on something that a lot of scientists till this day discuss about. Like what if there is even a drop of free will that somehow gets discovered wouldn't that make you regret all those time you spent for valueless stuff which was fueled by the thought that "Everything is predetermined anyway".

 

[Mainlander]

Good thread and i am not saying you are wrong but i personally wouldn't be so quick to decide on something that a lot of scientists till this day discuss about. Like what if there is even a drop of free will that somehow gets discovered wouldn't that make you regret all those time you spent for valueless stuff which was fueled by the thought that "Everything is predetermined anyway".

I don’t believe in any % of free will

Im a Hard determinist

And Even if for some reason they Discover that we have 0.1 % free which I don’t think will Happen then it still doesnt matter in that Sense

 

[mandiblade]

Even murderers arent truly responsible for their actions they are the product of causes beyond their control

I personally make a distinction between making decisions at the state level to prevent societal chaos and holding an individual morally accountable themselves. Someone who is clinically insane and has no ability of discerning right from wrong killing someone would fall into the first category and not the second. For a normal person, like Elliot Rodger(he didn't have any real mental issues IIRC), killing someone would fall into my original description:

Going back to something similar to what @wishIwasSalludon was saying, if one is able to change their state from uncontrollably indulging in KFC(like @Master ) to making the decision to never consume it again, is that not all that matters when it comes to the topic of whether holding people to account is moral?
@Gonthar @Eltrē

He was able to condition himself into a state where he wouldn't commit the shootings. He did no such conditioning. I would deem him to be morally accountable.

Yet, our society still punishes them, and in that sense punishment serves a purpose:it deters many from committing such acts by creating consequences.

That is not the sole reason why punishments exist btw lol.

The will may not be free, but the systems response shapes behavior nonetheless.
With law things like murderes are hardly reduced since their will gets shaped because of it

It shapes their will partially, not wholly


About "will not being free:"

For me, in the context of a button experiment like Milgram would do, it would be (via the scientific method) the total and utter inability to ever accurately predict which button you press. This has been demonstrated to be false AFAIK, hence free will by that definition doesn’t exist.

Isn't this definition is a truism? The word "ever"(in "ever accurately predict") will make determinism true. In addition, the proponents of the concept of free will do not claim that decisions are unpredictable, making the definition a strawman as well, correct?

but your wanting ≠ Free

As I've stated, you can live in a cycle of drugs(as long as the withdrawal isn't too strong, etc), fast food, etc and make the decision to quit. Free-will-ers also don't usually claim that every action of yours has nothing to do with externalities.

@Gonthar @Eltrē @wishIwasSalludon

 

[william.]

No one will read this golden thread sadly

since the attention span of the users on this forum is non existing

I just made this shit for myself tbh

Ill read it bro

 

[imontheloose]

Is that it?

Yes. No joke.

 

[imontheloose]

Exactly

This is one of my criticism on why the idea of morality itself fails

But we still need to hold people accountable for society to function ofc

@imontheloose

Moral nihilism is really difficult to challenge honestly. You feel these sort of inner disgusts and joys to actions, but those are nothing more than your own instincts you’re conditioned to believe (even if we took it as natural, it still isn’t sufficient). They are no evidence for morality. No one agrees on policies. Elections on super similar parties being 50/50 explains that.

 

[william.]

i agree

 

[Verveine]

Finnaly a high iq thread, org is healing

 

[Deleted member 51358]

Finnaly a high iq thread, org is healing

not if I have anything to do with it

HAIRY PUSSY FUCKING MOGS

Imagine eating a girls pussy and her disgusting smelly hairs get in ur mouth Mmm yummy :p:p:p:p

looksmax.org

 

[Panzram]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

There are better ways to explain that but most are too low iq to get it so I don't even bother. Anyone with a working brain can come to the conclusion that free will does not exist, there is not even an illusion of it, but rather there is an illusion of an illusion. You can observe your thoughts and feelings in real time and see you have no control over them. You do not choose your next thought or emotion, your likings and proclivities, etc. Thoughts just come and go and emotions do the same. You are, if you have the iq and insight to see it, just an observer of your body and mind doing their thing.

 

[Deleted member 51358]

Moral nihilism is really difficult to challenge honestly.

I used to view nihilism as a disease

but now I view it more as a gate way

its like burning down the old forest to make way for the saplings of existentialism

 

[imontheloose]

Isn't this definition is a truism? The word "ever"(in "ever accurately predict") will make determinism true.

Determinism doesn’t guarantee practical or even ideal probability. Some useful rhetoric is that determinism fixes the future, it doesn’t hand out a blueprint for what the future holds. My “ever predict” clause isn’t satisfied immediately consequently. It sets this sort of, empirical bar. There are many deterministic systems whose future state quite literally cannot be stably forecasted for any finite observer.

Look at a double pendulum (we got told to write a differential equation for the system of one. Just imagine our horror). They are deterministic and nonlinear yet exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. A eeny-weeny tiny imprecision will overwhelm the entire model.

In addition, the proponents of the concept of free will do not claim that decisions are unpredictable, making the definition a strawman as well, correct?

No, it isn’t a straw-man fallacy at all. Libertarian/incompatibilist theories all suggest an act is free only if when given the entire past, the agent could still have done it otherwise. That implies in-principle unpredictability. Why? Because if the past fixes the act, a perfect knower could derive it. This is the core belief. Ranges all the way from Robert Kane to Laura Ekstrom.

Compatibilists drop the otherwise requirement; they allow that a choice may be predictable and still count as free in the sense for moral responsibility.

See it now? I’m explicitly, as I’ve already made clear and even underlined, stress-testing the libertarian claim.

 

[underatedgreycel]

DNR too high iq for me to comprehend

 

[imontheloose]

I used to view nihilism as a disease

but now I view it more as a gate way

its like burning down the old forest to make way for the saplings of existentialism

O’Connor was more so a nihilist, at least morally, about a decade ago. He seems to have changed his opinion soon after then, however. He has some interesting videos on his change I’ve watched.

As for existentialism, cope harder, retard. The Jew on a stick is saving me.

 

[Mainlander]

There are better ways to explain that but most are too low iq to get it so I don't even bother. Anyone with a working brain can come to the conclusion that free will does not exist, there is not even an illusion of it, but rather there is an illusion of an illusion. You can observe your thoughts and feelings in real time and see you have no control over them. You do not choose your next thought or emotion, your likings and proclivities, etc. Thoughts just come and go and emotions do the same. You are, if you have the iq and insight to see it, just an observer of your body and mind doing their thing.

There are better ways to explain it yeah

but i needed a very simple scenario for my parents but they still dont believe in it

 

[Laqi]

water is wet :0

 

[imontheloose]

There are better ways to explain it yeah

but i needed a very simple scenario for my parents but they still dont believe in it

Jew on a stick believers?

 

[Mainlander]

water is wet :0

A Lot of people disagree here

 

[mandiblade]

Jew on a stick believers?

What do parents have to do with these things?

Got it from here(no I'm not pro-jew)

500 Years of Antisemitic Propaganda - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

The Katz Ehrenthal Collection—acquired through the generosity of the Katz family—consists of over 900 individual objects depicting Jews and antisemitic and anti-Jewish propaganda from the Medieval to the modern era, created and distributed throughout Europe, Russia, and the United States.

www.ushmm.org

 

[Laqi]

A Lot of people disagree here

Mainly Christians and religious people, believing in free will when you did not get to choose a simple yes/no to If you wanted to be born, or lets take something simpler, Do good? Your in heaven, DO bad? oh no hell... Yes you have free will to choose between them but is it truly free will if everything is already pre planned? Like people say shit like, God already knows everything about you before he made you, God must be one bastard for making sub-5 and Me who is not so much believer lmfao. Free will does not exist if God is all knowing and knows future.

 

[Panzram]

There are better ways to explain it yeah

but i needed a very simple scenario for my parents but they still dont believe in it

I an not saying your explanation is bad, it is very good. I like to get people to observe their thoughts and the nature of their will and personality and to realise they never had any control over any of that. What does it even mean to decide or choose? It means to act according to what you want in the moment. And you do not decide what you want at all. There is not even a coherent way to define what would that mean. Since will preceds all action and where your will or wanting comes from, from your POV, is a total mystery. Why one likes chocolate and the other vanilla is not up to them, they just are that way. Choose left or right, right now. Why you chose one or the other? Ultimately it comes from a place you can not observe and infulence. And even if you wanted to change what you want, a will to do that would have to occur, and whether it occurs or not is not up to you.

Another example is wheter you believe in God or not. You either find the case for God convincing or not. Something either makes sense to you or not. You can not convince yourself right now that 2+2 is 5 no matter what you do, neither can you stop understanding English if you choose to, those things just make sense to you. So it is with faith. It either makes sense to you or not, through no fault of your own.

 

[Nectar]

Worth reading although I find motivational threads cringe

 

[Mainlander]

Worth reading although I find motivational threads cringe

This thread is not motivational

or am i interpret something wrong

 

[mandiblade]

This thread is not motivational

or am i interpret something wrong

It's motivational for him. Now he can goon 8 times a day guilt-free.

 

[Mainlander]

DNR too high iq for me to comprehend

its pretty simple you should give it a try

 

[Deleted member 163319]

Mirin

 

[sub5soover]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

rape or be a slave

 

[imabetanumale]

We dont know yet how the brain proceses these scenarios or even other type of scenarios. So you aré just guessing.

Also i feel like every decisión Is free but the thought that led me to that decisión seems to be causes by the previos and so on, so my current consciousnes Is product of the first thing i.thought when i was able to.though, so determines by what i was able to sense that exact time. The other thing Is sleep, you lose your consciousnes and then get It back, so Idk from where It forma the new consciousnes, maybe from the reorganización of memory on sleep, the dreams you had but waking up Is the only thing that cults that flow of thoughts

 

[valcovax]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

is it weird I consider this sort of low iq? I think you are basically saying because people have instinctual reactions to certain situations, that we do not have free will. however I think that is just cherry picking, and even if it is mostly instinctual, people assess the situation consciously or unconsciously, and say “hey, I would rather prefer to live” so they “flee” as you say. not everything is as processed and tied to determinism as you say, people can just choose to base their entire life to proving determinism isn’t everything and that itself would debunk this imo, in situations most people would flee? people conscious of this fact, and if they don’t care to live much, can just override this and do what they please, you have the free will to build up your mentality and prepare for certain situations in any way you please, and you are certainly free to do what you want, just because someone was unprepared for a certain situation and was influenced to run away means little as a serious threat and contradiction to free will in its entirety.

 

[Deleted member 79752]

It seems like you’re dressing up basic stimulus-response theory like it’s a profound revelation, but it’s still midwit tier determinism. Most people run on autopilot. That doesn’t mean free will doesn’t exist it means most people are too low agency to use it. Humans aren’t just input-output machines. We reprocess stimuli, loop decisions, build internal models to go off of, and delay reactions. That recursive function is free will. Just because the average retard runs like a scripted bot doesn’t mean all cognition is fake. I believe you’re confusing predictability with lack of agency but then again I’m just a “greycel” take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

[looks>books]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

I mean yeah some stuff leans one way and slightly biased.

But overall we still have choice. And even if there was no choice lets say your right what difference does it make?

What are you gonna use it as an excuse “oh i was predetermined to lose ill just give up bc of genetics and environment”

Be my guest if you would like to think that way but as for me im going to make it out.

 

[Mainlander]

is it weird I consider this sort of low iq? I think you are basically saying because people have instinctual reactions to certain situations, that we do not have free will. however I think that is just cherry picking, and even if it is mostly instinctual, people assess the situation consciously or unconsciously, and say “hey, I would rather prefer to live” so they “flee” as you say. not everything is as processed and tied to determinism as you say, people can just choose to base their entire life to proving determinism isn’t everything and that itself would debunk this imo, in situations most people would flee? people conscious of this fact, and if they don’t care to live much, can just override this and do what they please, you have the free will to build up your mentality and prepare for certain situations in any way you please, and you are certainly free to do what you want, just because someone was unprepared for a certain situation and was influenced to run away means little as a serious threat and contradiction to free will in its entirety.

This philosphy is called Compatibilism

Its retarded asf

Yes this thread is a simple scenario but you can read the comment if you want I and other debunked Compatibilism
And I highly recommend watching this video from Alex O conner he debunkes it perfectly


Same for you @̃Star

 

[Mainlander]

I mean yeah some stuff leans one way and slightly biased.

But overall we still have choice. And even if there was no choice lets say your right what difference does it make?

What are you gonna use it as an excuse “oh i was predetermined to lose ill just give up bc of genetics and environment”

Be my guest if you would like to think that way but as for me im going to make it out.

That’s exactly the misunderstanding


Just because everything is predetermined doesn’t mean people choose to give up

You dont lie in bed all day because you realize there’s no free will unless your brain shaped by genetics and experienc was already wired to respond that way


Most people still get up every day because the cause to keep going is still there: the deep, hardwired drive for pleasure, safety, meaning for anything that feels better than despair

Even the act of giving up is not a free choice.
It’s the result of causes


You keep fighting not because you're free but because you're programmed to want to feel better

 

[looks>books]

That’s exactly the misunderstanding


Just because everything is predetermined doesn’t mean people choose to give up

You dont lie in bed all day because you realize there’s no free will unless your brain shaped by genetics and experienc was already wired to respond that way


Most people still get up every day because the cause to keep going is still there: the deep, hardwired drive for pleasure, safety, meaning for anything that feels better than despair

Even the act of giving up is not a free choice.
It’s the result of causes


You keep fighting not because you're free but because you're programmed to want to feel better

Very well

I still believe we have choice though

 

[Mainlander]

Very well

I still believe we have choice though

You have a choice

You yourself choose what to do

But the will that got you to that choice isnt free

 

[looks>books]

You have a choice

You yourself choose what to do

But the will that got you to that choice isnt free

Doesn’t that mean there is a choice then?

 

[toptop1222]

cool analogue. havent seen something like this before. nice conclusion too, showing that whatever we do, not only in this scenario is built up over something we cant consciously decide. tbh i havent thought over determinism much, but simplifying it down like this makes me realizes that you aint wrong. good that we have some high iq users here

 

[Mainlander]

Doesn’t that mean there is a choice then?

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.

 

[Mainlander]

cool analogue. havent seen something like this before. nice conclusion too, showing that whatever we do, not only in this scenario is built up over something we cant consciously decide. tbh i havent thought over determinism much, but simplifying it down like this makes me realizes that you aint wrong. good that we have some high iq users here

If you are interested you could also read all these comments here


I had some nice discussions yesterday where people argued that im wrong

 

[redfacccee]

the entire thread is people using their "predetermined" brains to argue about predetermination. if you genuinely believed you had no agency, why write posts trying to change minds that are supposedly already determined?

even if choices are illusions, you still experience making them. you can't skip the feeling of deliberation just because you know it's neurons firing. knowing the mechanism doesn't let you access the outcome early. you're stuck inside the process either way.

even the most hardcore determinists still act like their arguments matter. they still try to convince people, still feel frustrated when others disagree, still experience regret over "choices" they supposedly had no control over.

we literally cannot step outside our own consciousness to verify if free will exists. all we have is the subjective experience of weighing options and deciding. that experience is identical whether it's quantum randomness or pure causation underneath.

@Mainlander blackpill me bro - what exactly do i gain from "knowing" i have no free will? does it make decisions easier? does it remove anxiety? or does it just give people an excuse to be passive while they still experience every moment of indecision anyway?

the practical reality is you wake up tomorrow still feeling the weight of choice, still deliberating, still living as if your actions matter. the mechanism underneath changes nothing about the lived experience.

 

[looks>books]

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.

I agree with this, but in the end i believe there is a choice, even if slightly biased. And because there is a choice (at the end), it doesn’t really matter what came before.

 

[redfacccee]

funny thing about having manly p hall as my pfp while everyone debates determinism - hall taught that this entire argument is looking at the wrong level of reality.

he distinguished between three types of humans: the "once-born" living mechanically, the "philosophic elect" who question, and the "twice-born" who achieve gnosis (direct spiritual knowledge/experience beyond intellectual understanding). most people arguing here are stuck between the first two - smart enough to see the machinery but not developed enough to transcend it.

hall didn't see free will as something you prove with logic. it's something you develop through knowledge - not intellectual knowledge but direct experiential understanding. you're all debating in plato's cave about whether shadows are real while missing that you can walk outside.

the real mindfuck is that even the desire to transcend is part of your destiny. some souls are ready for awakening, others aren't. so you're predetermined to seek freedom from predetermination. the whole thing is a cosmic joke where the seeking itself is part of what you're seeking to escape.

why does this matter? because you're all trying to solve an experiential problem with intellectual tools. it's like trying to understand swimming by debating water physics while refusing to get in the pool. hall would say the entire free will debate is a symptom of being stuck in the rational mind - the very faculty that ensures you'll never find the answer.

but everyone here would rather win arguments than win freedom. which, according to hall, is exactly where unready souls are supposed to be. mechanical people having mechanical debates about whether they're mechanical. and here i am, joining right in. though recognizing the trap might be the first crack in the egg... or just another layer of mechanical thinking. only gnosis would tell you which.

 

[Deleted member 111512]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

holy low iq

 

[Qimr]

the entire thread is people using their "predetermined" brains to argue about predetermination. if you genuinely believed you had no agency, why write posts trying to change minds that are supposedly already determined?

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

he distinguished between three types of humans: the "once-born" living mechanically, the "philosophic elect" who question, and the "twice-born" who achieve gnosis (direct spiritual knowledge/experience beyond intellectual understanding). most people arguing here are stuck between the first two - smart enough to see the machinery but not developed enough to transcend it.

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 real mindfuck is that even the desire to transcend is part of your destiny. some souls are ready for awakening, others aren't. so you're predetermined to seek freedom from predetermination. the whole thing is a cosmic joke where the seeking itself is part of what you're seeking to escape.

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

why does this matter? because you're all trying to solve an experiential problem with intellectual tools. it's like trying to understand swimming by debating water physics while refusing to get in the pool. hall would say the entire free will debate is a symptom of being stuck in the rational mind - the very faculty that ensures you'll never find the answer.

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

hall didn't see free will as something you prove with logic.

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.

 

[Pento]

This is a scenario I have created to explain determinism for my low iq parents who dont believe me that free will is an illusion


Imagine your brain as a complex function.
A system of inputs and thresholds not a will, but a machine that just only processes things that happen externally

Now youre on the street.
A stranger approaches fast aggressive eyes burning.
You feel a jolt of fear
You run


Did you choose to run?

No.
You were processed.


Let’s break this down

Your mind takes in stimuli visual, auditory, emotional and assigns weighted values based on past experience geneticspersonality and current state (hormones, energy level, mood).


Each stimulus becomes a numerical input into an internal threat-assessment system


Stimulus : Weight:

Opponents height: +20

Opponents muscular size: +25

Facial expression(rage): +15

Volume of voice(Shouting): +20

Past trauma memory triggered: +30

Youre tired or unarmed etc: +10



Total Threat Score: 120


Now your brain refers to predefined thresholds, hardcoded through evolution and personal conditioning:


≤ 60 Fight

≥ 60 Flee

Your score = 120 You flee

Not because you chose but because the number passed the threshold.
Your “decision” was just the system reaching a condition like in a scrypt of programming language Phyton

if threat_score >= 60:
flee()


You are not free.
You are like an if-statements and weighted sums

The Repeat Test: Proof in Simulation​

Lets say we repeat this event SOME times


Each time, the man looks slightly less dangerous:


Less height = −5
Softer voice = −10
No eye contact = −5

Soon after repeating it over and over and always subracting the nummer above , the total threat score drops: 50 as an example

there will inevitably be a precise tipping point where your response flips from “run” to “fight.”

Even if the difference from the previous moment was negligible, that minimal change is enough to alter the outcome.



Nothing you did changed.
Only the input changed and the output followed mechanically.


This is not decision making.
This is behavioral calculus.

Conclusion You Dont Choose You Compute​

Free will suggests an inner decider, a sovereign mind weighing options.
But in reality there is only


> Stimulus
> Processing
> Action

No soul deciding
Just neurons firing.


You didn't choose to run.

If the numbers had changed you would have fought.
If the memory had shifted you might have laughed.


But you didn’t decide.


You were computed.

YOUR WILL IS NOT FREE






@obscuredusk @InanimatePragmatist

Another piece of evidence: hormones influencing your thought processes.

 

[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.