🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:00:55 UTC No. 16066813
what if free will cannot coexist with rational thought?
think about it, if one always makes decisions that are the best, the most optimal at given moment and that include every possible bit of information, then how can that be called free will?
one may find himself making a difficult decision between several options being equally rational -- then whatever he picks might just as well be a random choice
in other words we could reduce purely rational thinking into an optimization algorithm that takes as much information about a decision to be made as possible and then picks the best one. On that basis one could dare to say that purely rational thinking is deterministic in a scope of knowledge at hand which is the only scope possible for any given decision.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:24:17 UTC No. 16066839
>>16066813
>free will cannot coexist with rational thought
It's worse. Thoughts and sensory perceptions = physical states. The environment is continuously manipulating our body and mind and we have barely any defense against that because we can't unsee, unhear, unsmell etc. what we perceive. We are porous: our body and mind are always permeable. Not holding on to any perception and thought is but a religious ideal and what flows through the body and mind will leave neither unaltered.
Worse still: thought is limiting reality to the shape of logic and reason like how an ocean is shaped by a glass container. Watch the latest episode of Frieren to see how a low class intuitive mage murders a high class rational mage.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:25:34 UTC No. 16066842
>>16066813
>>16066839
interesting
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:28:48 UTC No. 16066846
>>16066839
>we can't unsee, unhear, unsmell etc.
yet. but we should be able to at some point in the future.
Cult of Passion at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:28:55 UTC No. 16066847
Yes.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:31:49 UTC No. 16066853
>>16066846
i don't see how that's possible, the body is a self-regulating system made of self-regulating systems within a self-regulating system. it just seems too complex.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:33:00 UTC No. 16066854
>>16066853
you just take out all neural networks which store that information. simple as. tho clearly quite complicated, technically speaking.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:36:26 UTC No. 16066863
>>16066839
>We are porous: our body and mind are always permeable. Not holding on to any perception and thought is but a religious ideal and what flows through the body and mind will leave neither unaltered.
>>16066854
that would work to a certain standard, but we'd still be subject to our environment.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:36:58 UTC No. 16066864
>>16066857
Speaks 300 words exactly.
You'll eat shit. And then you'll snap out of it.
Look at you, you are the epitome of something went wrong.
All set up and FAGGY.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:39:47 UTC No. 16066870
>>16066864
Truth is. Your hells much more graphic than that. Do as you want now, but then you'll winge like the shit you are.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:41:11 UTC No. 16066873
>>16066863
>that would work to a certain standard, but we'd still be subject to our environment.
clearly. but at least there is a way to remove a bad experience. seems like the kind of thing most of us can agree on, that having the option to is good. what is debatable is to what extent, clearly. tho there is a very good argument in wanting to forget how the most foul fart you experienced smelled.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:41:50 UTC No. 16066875
>>16066813
>what if free will cannot coexist with rational thought?
Retarded catch 22 that misinterprets what "free will" actually means. Free will implies that "you", whatever that is, is in control of all or nearly all aspects of your own mental phenomena in the way that is obvious to the human condition (as in, the way we talk about our own thought processes). You do not suddenly get the urge to head North like geese in migration, you do not suddenly have the urge to go watch Dune Part 2 based on your genetic predisposition to do so, you are not randomly unable to learn Spanish due to some quirk in how your otherwise normal brain is formed. That's determinism, which implies that all mental phenomena just coincidentally resembles a logical pattern of conscious thought based on some prank on Humanity by the universe.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:45:02 UTC No. 16066878
>>16066873
>seems like the kind of thing most of us can agree on, that having the option to is good.
there's no reason to assume people would have equal access to that technology, nor equal access to opt out from it. memory alteration definitely seems like something people would abuse as a military tool to get what they want, in our current devolved state.
on paper, having the option is good, though. certainly if you're the warlord.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:02:15 UTC No. 16066905
>>16066878
yeah but that doesn't seem to depend on plebs anyway.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:05:10 UTC No. 16066911
>>16066875
>You do not suddenly
But we do suddenly all the things all the time. Suddenly we wake up, suddenly we get bodily urges, suddenly we say ''Hi I'm fine how are you?'...
...most of our lives is automatic like that. Most people will find meditation surprisingly difficult, just sitting still, breathing in a pattern, looking at a particular point...
...people quickly find out that the passive urges of body and mind are more in control than the active will.
Even when exercising the will, when you reflect on your decisions, you will find out that your norms and values are conditioned one way or the other. The more self-aware you are the more you will find that your life hitherto has been a puppet guided by invisible strings.
You don't seem to have made this journey.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:12:11 UTC No. 16067032
>>16066911
>Suddenly we wake up
Not a mental function. The relationship between the mind and the body isn't something you just noticed and free will advocates never thought of. Mind-body problem is an entire genre of philosophy.
>most of our lives is automatic like that
No it isn't. Maybe you're an NPC and sleepwalk through life, but I'm constantly making choices and this is the crux of the free will argument. Do I do X or Y? Why do I choose X over Y? Is my choice of X over Y a matter of mental phenomena, or some genetic destiny? Again, this is an entire genre. You are not clever.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:27:14 UTC No. 16067062
>>16067032
>Is my choice of X over Y a matter of mental phenomena, or some genetic destiny?
Even this thought is not yours. You weren't born contemplating choice. You heard or read this somewhere and now your mind is repeating it like a broken record. Of course I'm the pot calling the kettle black. You also seem to assume that mind precedes decision and action.
>Mind-body problem is an entire genre of philosophy.
Impossible because there is no mind-body problem. Physicalism = idealism so that leaves dualism disregarding panpsychism. Dualism = substance independent from thought and perception. Mind is a woo woo word. Free willers are dualists no exceptions because the ramblings of Daniel Dennet don't count.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:06:57 UTC No. 16067143
>>16066839
>Watch the latest episode of Frieren to see how a low class intuitive mage murders a high class rational mage.
False dichotomy. Irrationality is just risk-taking, not intuition. At the end of the day, no one's completely rational.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:20:58 UTC No. 16067393
>>16067062
>Even this thought is not yours. You weren't born contemplating choice. You heard or read this somewhere and now your mind is repeating it like a broken record. Of course I'm the pot calling the kettle black. You also seem to assume that mind precedes decision and action.
Mental phenomena is decision. You are the one trying to draw meaningless divisions. Also, the implication that I've heard a thought, question, or statement from somewhere else implies that said idea originated somewhere else. The free will question is not "do all of my thoughts come solely from myself, or external sources" but rather "are we capable of original self-initiated thoughts and decisions at all?" And the answer is yes, for the simple reason we come up with new ideas and ask new questions.
>Impossible because there is no mind-body problem.
Yes there is. We just call it the hard problem of consciousness now. Again, you're not clever. In fact, you're the opposite.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:20:47 UTC No. 16067454
>>16066813
free will is the ability to have done otherwise. we can't prove that we could have done otherwise, though neither can we disprove it. personally, i don't believe that we could have done otherwise, in any way, at any point.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:22:57 UTC No. 16067457
>>16067454
Interesting construction, but I am still waiting on the complete mathematical description of my being. You can blow dicks or choose otherwise until such a time.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:23:08 UTC No. 16067459
>>16067454
point to the next atom that will decay. which depending on the time it happens at, can or cannot give you cancer.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:27:04 UTC No. 16067464
>>16067457
free will would equally require a mathematical description.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:30:29 UTC No. 16067469
>>16067459
>if determinism is true, then humans must be able to predict systems
this only follows in principle, if we have access to all the information of the system in question. but in reality, we don't have access to that. we don't have the exact evolution law for atomic decay. and where can we get it? i don't know, good luck.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:33:09 UTC No. 16067472
>>16067469
>if we have access to all the information of the system in question
you kinda need proof there even is one. this is just religion with souls and shit, magical invisible stuff that validates what you wished existed.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:39:36 UTC No. 16067481
>>16067472
umm the universe is a system. it is a thing that exists, that's pretty much all a system is.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:43:59 UTC No. 16067487
>>16067481
I meant the magical order that atoms decay in. you are basically implying that atoms are not identical and there's a unobservable/detectable force which acts upon them, predetermined. and we can never test it. you need to prove this, you don't get to just say atoms are not identical (same element ofc)
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:13:41 UTC No. 16067513
>>16067393
How much have you meditated?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:33:46 UTC No. 16067534
>>16067487
determinism doesn't entail that atoms are identical, again it only entails that events could not have unfolded any differently. yes, this cannot be proven, but neither can it be proven that things could have unfolded differently. so we're stuck in a deadlock forever. how nice
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:34:50 UTC No. 16067536
>>16067534
meant unique* not identical
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 04:03:27 UTC No. 16067559
>>16067534
>events could not have unfolded any differently.
that implies our current view of the universe is false, and would require proof. you need to prove atoms have a decay countdown timer that we are not privy to. random decay means any one of them can pop at random for no fucking reason really. and if you'd repeat the experiment each and every time different ones would pop. that means future is never set in stone and what happened so far could have happened differently.
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:36:37 UTC No. 16067957
>>16067559
>our current view
yours maybe, and some others, but it isn't universal
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:21:39 UTC No. 16067997
>>16067393
>Mental phenomena is decision.
Who is saying this? Are you the mental phenomena or are you the observer of mental phenomena? Either way it's happening of itself. Consider you might be the kid in the Simpsons opening with the plastic steering wheel in the passenger seat.
>You are the one trying to draw meaningless divisions.
Did you not write:
>Is my choice
?
Is that use of language not a seperation between a ''me'' and a ''choice''? Who or what is the ''me'' that is seperate from choice?
>we come up with new ideas and ask new questions.
No you don't. There's almost zero probability that you can mention even one original idea. When an eureka-moment does happen it comes not of the will but like a gift from God figuratively speaking.
>We just call it the hard problem of consciousness now.
There is no problem unless you insist that you must be seperate from what you observe which confirms that it is indeed you
>trying to draw meaningless divisions
>you're not clever.
>you're not clever.
>you're not clever.
Is that your mantra to protect your woo woo against logic and reason?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:28:37 UTC No. 16068317
>>16066813
What if I chosen rationality within bounds of my freedom?