Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 00:28:32 UTC No. 16457591
>>16457584
Define free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 00:43:30 UTC No. 16457603
>>16457591
I don't know if I agree with determinism.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 01:38:36 UTC No. 16457637
>>16457591
I freely will put these nuts in your mouth because you're a little bitch who is determined to do nothing about it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 01:55:46 UTC No. 16457656
>>16457584
Free will is exactly as real as color.
It doesn't exist in nature, but humans perceive it to be completely real.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 01:58:59 UTC No. 16457659
>>16457584
>Do we have free will?
They people who think we don't, don't.
Maybe "people" is too strong a word.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 03:25:24 UTC No. 16457729
Thinking about it now we definitely have the freedom to travel where we want, eat what we want, study what we want. When people say we don't have free will what they really mean is we don't have a will that's a free of cause. There's a reason for everything. You came into this world against your will too but you definitely have the freedom to chose what you want to do in life. What true free will is is incomprehensible. I kinda prefer it this way because I'm made up of the experiences of many things. If I had free will I would start from nothing and probably be nothing too. The first humans to ever exist never had free will either because they had instincts biologically ingrained in them to survive and eere influenced by their environment. Free will has no cause so it's something we can never truly comprehend but you do have the freedom to do what you want in life.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:07:18 UTC No. 16457760
>>16457584
Only if you didn’t buy the battlepass
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:11:55 UTC No. 16457768
>>16457584
If fundamental particle physics is literally probabilistic, and presumably human consciousness exploits this mechanism, then surely determinism can't be the case.
Maybe that's not exactly free will, but random will is more free than deterministic will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:13:56 UTC No. 16457770
>>16457768
Its a very good thing we don't have free will because we would literally be a hunk of nothing since it cant be influenced.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:23:28 UTC No. 16457776
>>16457770
How so?
Does free will imply complete free will, as in ide have to manually write out all my own DNA?
Can you expound on your thought here?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:37:29 UTC No. 16457781
>>16457776
>Does free will imply complete free will, as in ide have to manually write out all my own DNA?
This is why I say free will is incomprehensible because you cannot imagine a version of you that has free will because every human that ever lived is influenced by their biology.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:40:37 UTC No. 16457782
>>16457781
Its either all or nothing. Once you are influenced by something else you longer have free will it is now something influencing you. You literally have to be above EVERYTHING to have free will that's why it's incomprehensible.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:45:43 UTC No. 16457785
>>16457781
Okay, so what then is your argument?
There is no free will because biology?
I could entertain suchcan argument if you'd make it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:51:00 UTC No. 16457787
>>16457785
Yes there is no free will because of biology atleast for us humans. To me a rock has free will because it not influenced by anything it just exist that's what it would be like have free will. Free will is no will because nothing is influencing you. Sex, Death, love, and hunger has no influence on you so your nothing. Really think about what I'm saying. Once something influences you whether it be good or bad you longer have free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:55:55 UTC No. 16457790
>>16457787
So a person cannot choose to not eat or fuck?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:56:55 UTC No. 16457791
>>16457790
No no I'm saying it's because of our biology that we live life to the fullest. If we had nothing to worry about than life would be pointless.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:58:13 UTC No. 16457793
>>16457790
Let me add that just because we are influenced by our biology does mean we don't have freedom its just technology speaking it's impossible for humans to ever have free will but we still have freedom.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:01:19 UTC No. 16457794
>>16457584
Did you choose to be you or were you imposed upon yourself?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:03:14 UTC No. 16457795
>>16457659
Then why don't you just choose something other than personhood?
If people bother you so much and you are so free to enact your choices, why can't you choose to be something else other than just another person in a sea of people?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:04:23 UTC No. 16457796
>>16457794
I filter the things I dislike in life but ultimately I live through life even though I didn't ask to be born so it's against my will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:09:15 UTC No. 16457798
>>16457656
Agree
I would argue that the same goes for pretty much everything humans perceive, so it would hardly be an exaggeration to call it 'real'.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:09:57 UTC No. 16457799
>>16457793
Maybe we're having a language issue here.
What is the difference between freedom and free will?
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:16:44 UTC No. 16457802
>>16457799
Think of will has a playground and freedom being everything you can do in that playground but you can go outside it.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:17:45 UTC No. 16457803
>>16457802
Fuck man typos
Can't* go outside of
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:19:29 UTC No. 16457804
>>16457729
>Thinking about it now we definitely have the freedom to travel where we want,
They you should go travel to give these guys a visit and make it your mission to explain free will to them.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:22:57 UTC No. 16457805
>>16457799
Think of will as a playground and freedom being everything you can do in that playground but you cannot go outside of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:24:25 UTC No. 16457806
>>16457796
>I filter the things I dislike in life
So you figured out how to stop making waste or you just like being filled with poop all the time? You enjoy the fact that your guts are coated in filth that is host to millions of microorganisms that are just waiting for you to die so they can feed on you too?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:26:40 UTC No. 16457807
>>16457806
I filter the things that make me emotionally upset. What latter of what is you described is against my will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:35:47 UTC No. 16457809
>>16457805
I'm still not getting what you mean.
What specifically could 'free will' do that your concept cannot?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:37:07 UTC No. 16457810
>>16457729
>Thinking about it now we definitely have the freedom to travel where we want,
Then you should go travel to give these guys a visit and make it your mission to explain free will to them.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:40:04 UTC No. 16457811
>>16457809
You can kill yourself or convert to a new religion or become gay if you please. But everything you do is influenced by something therefore no will is free of influence therefore there is no free will.
I brought up the playground analogy because you can do alot of things inside the playground but you cannot go past it because of our biology.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:41:05 UTC No. 16457812
>>16457810
Easy they're nigger brained
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:50:35 UTC No. 16457813
>>16457811
When did you choose to be straight?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:50:59 UTC No. 16457814
>>16457812
That is not a very nice way to talk about superstitious people who believe in nonsense like free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:52:00 UTC No. 16457815
>>16457813
When you chose to let him put his p in your v.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:52:28 UTC No. 16457816
>>16457813
When I tried pussy for first time and because I wanna have babies.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:54:15 UTC No. 16457817
>>16457815
>>16457816
So a person can choose to be gay, by your straightness was outside of your control?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:56:10 UTC No. 16457818
>>16457817
It wasn't they both confirmed it was when they chose to let p meet v.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:56:55 UTC No. 16457819
>>16457817
It wasn't out of my control I just have a preference for women because they have soft nice Bodies and pussy feels nice. However they're men who prefer rough bodies of men.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:57:28 UTC No. 16457820
>>16457818
So then by your own logic, how does a person choose to be gay?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:59:04 UTC No. 16457821
>>16457820
By choosing to let balls touch.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 05:59:29 UTC No. 16457822
>>16457819
It wasn't out of your control, you just chose the thing your biology demanded?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:00:02 UTC No. 16457823
>>16457820
It can happen alot of ways. They may prefer the personalitys or bodys of men over women.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:02:53 UTC No. 16457825
>>16457584
>we
There's no "us" in this. Those who have it know they do. Those who don't, know they don't.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:03:28 UTC No. 16457826
>>16457823
Then people also choose the opposite?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:04:00 UTC No. 16457827
>>16457822
You misunderstood what the difference between freedom and what free will is lol.
I chose whatever I demanded based on my experience in life. Free will is impossible for anyone to attain.
I will explain again
everything you do is influenced by something therefore no will is free of influence therefore there is no free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:04:01 UTC No. 16457828
>>16457656
>Free will is exactly as real as color.
>It doesn't exist in nature
What an utterly retarded statement. Color doesn't exist in nature? What does it exist in, then? A mystical parallel dimension?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:05:08 UTC No. 16457829
>>16457826
Yes you have the freedom to do that but everything comes from something.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:05:48 UTC No. 16457830
>>16457829
>everything comes from something.
Post scientific proof of your metaphysical beliefs.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:06:41 UTC No. 16457831
>>16457827
This is the thing I've been asking you to define.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:09:31 UTC No. 16457832
>>16457830
The proof is you and everyone elses family tree lol
>>16457831
Do you understand now? Its nothing to be scared of.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:10:41 UTC No. 16457834
>>16457768
>If fundamental particle physics is literally probabilistic, and presumably human consciousness exploits this mechanism, then surely determinism can't be the case.
>Maybe that's not exactly free will, but random will is more free than deterministic will.
Being a puppet of randomness isn't different from being a puppet of cause and effect in any meaningful way, as far as "freedom" is concerned. However, the dichotomy you draw, of either determinism or randomness, is both unproven and disputed in the very subject of this thread.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:11:57 UTC No. 16457835
>>16457832
>The proof is you and everyone elses family tree lol
You sound literally retarded. I'm not convinced you even grasp concepts like "proof" or "family tree".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:16:07 UTC No. 16457838
>>16457835
Where did you come from than little nigga?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:17:35 UTC No. 16457839
>>16457838
Please refer back to >>16457835.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:20:42 UTC No. 16457840
>>16457811
This is an absolutely braindead conception of free will. Having free will doesn't mean that your will exists in some sort of nihilistic vacuum without outside influences. It means that when there are choices to be made, it is fundamentally you as an agent who makes them. It says nothing about what influences have brought you to the point where you have to make the choice to begin with.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:22:29 UTC No. 16457842
>>16457839
The retard here is you who can't grasp simple concepts like how we all come from older humans and how the world those older humans leave behind influence the current us to make decisions.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:27:52 UTC No. 16457850
>>16457840
everything you do is influenced by something therefore no will is free of influence therefore there is no free will. You literally can't refute this don't worry I know alot of you are slow but it will hit you later.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:29:15 UTC No. 16457853
>>16457842
Maybe. Or maybe your solid 90 IQ precludes you from grasping what you were challenged to prove. Protip: I'm not disputing that your whore of a mother popped you out of her cunt.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:32:05 UTC No. 16457855
>>16457853
Keep malding little faggot as far as humans are concerned we come from other humans and the biology we're born with prevents us from having free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:33:20 UTC No. 16457856
>>16457855
>automaton keeps looping its irrelevant kindergarten-tier takes because it can't grasp what it was asked to prove
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:35:57 UTC No. 16457857
>>16457850
Why does your will need to be "free of influence" to be fundamentally "free"? You seem to think the only way for you to be freely able to make a choice between A and B would be for you to be an omnipotent omniscient God. That's not what "free will" means.
All that it means for your will to be "free" is that when given the choice between A and B, it is fundamentally "you" making that choice. Not some absurd combination of brain chemistry and neural firings.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:38:10 UTC No. 16457858
>>16457857
Oh boy...
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:44:12 UTC No. 16457861
>>16457857
>Why does your will need to be "free of influence" to be fundamentally "free"?
Probably because you never defined what you mean by "free will" so the tard is refuting some strawman.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:49:36 UTC No. 16457863
>>16457857
"You" are not the beginning of this long chain In humankind and even if you were you would be still have no free will because of your biology. Take away your biology and history and "you" are nothing.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:52:40 UTC No. 16457864
>>16457857
The fact that your nature pigeonholed you into having to make a choice between only A and B means that your choices are severely limited in nature rather than being free and the act of choosing itself isn't even something you can choose since choosing not to choose is still a choice that would have to be made.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:56:05 UTC No. 16457865
>>16457864
>your choices are severely limited in nature rather than being free
And what does this have to do with the nature of making the choice between the available options?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:57:24 UTC No. 16457866
>>16457829
>everything comes from something.
Every thing is some thing and each thing is of itself, so you statement is quite obvious by definition.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:58:36 UTC No. 16457867
>>16457865
Choice isn't free it is physically imposed due to the forcible segmentation of natural reality.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:00:30 UTC No. 16457868
>>16457865
Your brain is working to pick what benefits you the most so that's it's influence. A being with free will would do nothing it's literally nothing.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:02:50 UTC No. 16457869
>>16457867
>>16457868
>the bots can't reply coherently
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:04:46 UTC No. 16457870
>>16457869
Goodnight
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:10:50 UTC No. 16457873
>>16457863
This is a non-response. What would being "the beginning of this long chain In humankind" have anything to do in whether your particular decision for a particular choice you need to make right now is pre-determined vs. yours to make?
>>16457868
> Your brain is working to pick what benefits you the most so that's it's influence. A being with free will would do nothing.
You're literally operating on the same magical thinking you accuse others of. Instead of "the will" picking between the choices, you've decided that your brain is magically making the choice based on this undefined notion of "what will benefit you most." Benefit you how? In the long term vs. short term? How could you know it would benefit you vs. being a gamble?
>>16457861
A very standard definition of "free will" is the ability to choose between one or more options as an independent agent. If you are given the choice between eating cookies now or making a healthy dinner, you fundamentally are the one who is making the choice. It isn't some automatic decision pre-ordained by some accident of chemistry or neurology, but something you chose as a person.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:13:46 UTC No. 16457874
>>16457873
>A very standard definition of "free will" is the ability to choose between one or more options as an independent agent.
This doesn't actually explain anything, it just outsources the problem to the terms "choose" and "independent".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:16:07 UTC No. 16457875
>>16457873
>This is a non-response. What would being "the beginning of this long chain In humankind" have anything to do in whether your particular decision for a particular choice you need to make right now is pre-determined vs. yours to make?
To be put it simply "you" are a history of different things along with your biology. That's it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:17:35 UTC No. 16457877
>>16457875
>bots continue posting repetitive and incoherent replies
>that poor anon will still argue them in good faith
The absolute state of this board.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:36:04 UTC No. 16457883
>>16457877
A being with free will wouldn't know what to do with it's itself because there is no biological need to latch on to anything. How fucking hard is it to grasp.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:38:29 UTC No. 16457884
>>16457883
Right. Call me back when your handlers fine-tune you enough to have basic reading comprehension. Repeating the same talking point 50 times while ignoring context doesn't do anything.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:42:02 UTC No. 16457887
>>16457877
>My intelligence limits me to a very weak vocabulary, so complex thoughts put to text all seem incredibly incoherent to me.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:42:27 UTC No. 16457888
>>16457884
You are just a context in this world
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:49:33 UTC No. 16457891
>>16457887
>>16457888
80 IQ cope. It still stands that nothing directly follows from the fact that the number of plausible choices for a given individual in a given situation is limited. The uncertainty is still there and that's what the thread is about.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:52:00 UTC No. 16457892
>>16457891
We don't have control over that uncertainty
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:52:55 UTC No. 16457894
>>16457892
Meaningless babble, but your concession is accepted. Now that we've determined your "argument" was completely irrelevant, what's the next cope?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:57:11 UTC No. 16457895
>>16457891
>nothing directly follows from the fact that the number of plausible choices for a given individual in a given situation is limited.
The fact that the choice set is not free and open, but rather limited to the nature of the individuals and situations means that the ability to choose, ie will, is not free, but instead constricted and constrained.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:58:33 UTC No. 16457896
>>16457895
You sound legit mentally ill.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 07:59:47 UTC No. 16457897
>>16457894
Eventually you will make a decision. That uncertainty you talk about is the brain taking longer than usual to come up with a choice to benefit us.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:00:06 UTC No. 16457898
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:02:30 UTC No. 16457901
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:02:53 UTC No. 16457902
>>16457897
>Eventually you will make a decision
And yet the most you can do using your cause and effect model, is to establish some bounds and then do some handwaving and make a faith-based appeal to how you could nail it down exactly, head of time, if you were an omniscient God. What gives?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:13:05 UTC No. 16457908
>>16457901
So are you going to tell me what realm the substance of perception exist in, if not nature?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 08:23:01 UTC No. 16457916
Go to r/askphilosophy and search ”free will” or ”compatibilism” or whatever. The answers there are far better than anything you’ll find here because the panelists have actually extensively engaged with the literature on the issue. Causal determinism, which the Hossenfelder and Sapolsky types like to present as some newfound killshot to free will, has been taken into consideration for at least as long as the debate has been recorded, so for a couple thousand years now.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:45:49 UTC No. 16457993
>>16457584
Maybe, if consciousness causes wave function collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8E
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:48:05 UTC No. 16457998
>>16457584
https://benthams.substack.com/p/the
>There’s an important sense in which I’m free to move my arm but I’m not free to, say, fly into the sky. That’s because I can type the sentence if I want, but can’t fly to Denmark if I want. Now, maybe that’s not the only necessary condition, but it’s certainly a necessary condition. I don’t intend to resolve the debates between those who think determinism eliminates free will and those who don’t—my claim is just that there’s a very intuitive sense in which many of our actions are free. Currently, I lean weakly towards libertarianism because 1) I think that compatibilism makes poor sense of our ability to grasp non-natural facts; 2) I have an intuition that we’re free in a deeper sense than that described by compatibilism, though it is a freedom of sorts; 3) it’s easier to see why there’s a lot of evil in the world if you believe in God and are a libertarian. But these are very deep views that most of you disagree with, so I won’t defend them in detail—instead, I intend to argue that one should at least be a compatibilist.
>In response to the intuitive case for free will, those who deny free will tend to argue that compatibilists are redefining free will. But why? Why is compatibilist free will not a type of genuine freedom (to be clear, I don’t think it’s the only kind of genuine freedom we have, but it’s still a significant kind of freedom)? Generally, philosophers think that there are two conditions that must be met for you to be free: you have to be able to do otherwise and you have to be in control of your actions. Can compatibilism accommodate those?
>It seems to me that it can. When we say “does A control B,” we mean something like “is B determined by A, such that changes in B depend on A?” But in that sense, I do control my actions. If my desires were different, my actions would be different. My desires are causally responsible for my actions.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:52:14 UTC No. 16458004
>>16457916
Complete bullshit. Reddit is a propaganda outlet that's heavily moderated to filter out free speech and to have certain views and arguments reach the public.
We 'lean towards' >>the best<< option considering all which are determined by(emotions, sub conscious, environment, etc). If we want to reject the best option, it is possible, where something petty in our thoughts resolved the act. We are not totally free, but we are not totally caged. There are elements of freedom and determination.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:54:00 UTC No. 16458006
>>16458004
(Where our self is like a gestalt we are using to progress onwards).
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:57:24 UTC No. 16458010
>>16458006
There are rules we use to control our bodies, no matter the state of our control, we are still in control of the body; our will is merely the trajectory we are aiming ourselves, it can be on a comfortable autopilot via the leaning towards the best option, or we can change course. Since it's rare that we will stop seeking the best option, most of our actions can be pre-determined since birth in phenomenal prediction.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:01:02 UTC No. 16458015
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:17:46 UTC No. 16458026
>>16457874
You can go in circles with literally every single logical system out there. The same exact arguments you're making about the definition of free will opening up more questions can be said about the concepts of "matter" or "energy" or "force" and yet you likely do not reject them.
Where is the difference in your mind?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:26:55 UTC No. 16458029
>>16458026
>The same exact arguments you're making about the definition of free will opening up more questions can be said about the concepts of "matter" or "energy" or "force" and yet you likely do not reject them.
>Where is the difference in your mind?
Sure, you could ask "but what ARE those things REALLY?", and find that physics offers no satisfactory answer; however, those concepts are well enough defined, functionally, with respect to the empirical questions physics deals with. You can't say the same about your notions of "choice" and "independence": sure, you could study human behavior and get your empirical results just by treating them as primitives to be intuitively grasped, but not have a philosophical discussion about "free will".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:30:06 UTC No. 16458031
We think before we act; thinking is in the comfort of the determinable qualities and quantities of our approach to action. Though we are dependant on the natures of determinable qualities and quantities, we are free to decide for ourselves, which is mostly the optimal course for some decerniable quality of quantity of self.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:38:43 UTC No. 16458040
>>16457584
No but its a necessary illusion.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:16:21 UTC No. 16458062
>>16458040
>No but its a necessary illusion.
kinda like the idea that "X is an illusion" statements are meaningful?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:20:32 UTC No. 16458064
>>16458029
> You can't say the same about your notions of "choice" and "independence":
You absolutely can, because as soon as you are accepting functional utility as justification for the concepts validity, you immediately have to answer the question of "what is the function?"
In the case of physics, we have clear quantitative models which rely on these empistemologically ambiguous concepts (e.g., mass, force, energy) that offer reasonable approximations of the motion of rigid objects with a reasonable margin of error.
The functional utility of free will then must be justified in explaining human behavior. This is something that is not at all a "settled" concept, and is very much still a matter of debate in psychological and philopsphical academia today.
Also, a brief reaponse the nonsense of "your brain picks what is the best for you" that are in other posts. For that anon, consider for a moment what happens when you aren't certain what standard to even evaluate what is "best" (e.g., there are tradeoffs that are not in kind). Acting as if this is something that your brain just "magically" resolves in all circumstances is both something that is out of line with empirical studies regarding decisionmaking, and logically incoherent.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:40:40 UTC No. 16458082
>>16458064
>as soon as you are accepting functional utility as justification for the concepts validity
I'm not asking you to "justify the concept's validity". I'm saying it's up to you to properly define it for the purpose of such a discussion, otherwise everyone else is free to do it for you, implicitly, by putting forward braindead counter-arguments against whatever they think "free will" means.
>The functional utility of free will then must be justified in explaining human behavior
It has no explanatory value. For all empirical intents and purposes, "free will" and "illusion of free will" are interchangeable.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:15:18 UTC No. 16458123
>>16458040
>it's an illusion
>based on what
>uhhhh
Woah!!! Science is so smart!!!!!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:17:07 UTC No. 16458127
some people give up on their free will, by giving up and letting others make decisions for them and giving, they don't lose free will entirely but they severely limit their options
others don't, by not giving up, expanding their options pool making their free will more impactful and their control of their environment greater than it could have been had they done nothing about it
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:30:28 UTC No. 16458139
We are like universes ourselves; systems that have many subjects to address. Sure the root of any decision is something to do with our systems, but we control these systems and decide, however weak this may be to our sin, what to do. One of the wonders of life is that in good cases there is stuff to do and we'll probably be doing whatever stuff is presented, and we'll choose what part of the stuff we want to explore based on whatever our chemistry causes us to want. Chemicals don't make the decision, drivers do. Our will is limited to our environment, but it is not fully restricted, there is opportunity and lots to select.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:33:20 UTC No. 16458142
>>16458139
And if there was nothing to do, you'd be forced to do nothing but cope and seeth. The coping and seething, you experience and are forced to spring into action deterministically, but it is not without it's freedom to change parts of that experience as to one of the opportunities available in your body.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:33:24 UTC No. 16458143
>>16457584
Maybe not, but determinism is wonderful, you pick the choice, because it's determined. It's you making decision, and whatever you pick is predetermined, wonderful, isn't it? Does it sounds stupid?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:35:56 UTC No. 16458147
>>16458142
It depends on what opportunities are present. It's not reduced to chemistry, it's increased to environment. This talk about us landing on subjects without control destroys the very nature of why those chemicals make us go this way and why we choose to follow them
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:42:11 UTC No. 16458153
Barkon laying fools out ITT heil king barkon
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:04:08 UTC No. 16458257
>>16457729
Well, you ware born in rich family right?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:18:05 UTC No. 16458265
>>16457828
Light's wavelength exists in nature.
Light's color is a purely subjective experience. Your mind creates the perception of color to help you detect certain wavelengths which have proven to be beneficial to your species survival. Different species interpret different wavelength ranges (see humans vs avian dinosaurs). Even when two species detect the same wavelegth, they perceive different colors (see humans vs dogs).
Free will is exactly the same.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:21:38 UTC No. 16458271
>>16458265
>Light's color is a purely subjective experience
Which occurs in what mystical dimension?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:21:53 UTC No. 16458273
>>16458082
> It has no explanatory value. For all empirical intents and purposes, "free will" and "illusion of free will" are interchangeable.
This is clearly not true. The freedom of people to prioritize things differently when they make decisions, as well as the ability for people to delay gratification are both well explained by a theory of mind which involves a decisionmaking agent that isn't some "greedy deterministic utility maximizer" like so many of these myopic determinists insist.
"The capacity to weigh different qualitative factors and make decisions that are not always well predicted by deterministic material factors" is a pretty standard (though overly verbose due to the need to appease pedants) conception of free will. It is important also that operating with heuristic logical systems incomplete information makes the whole concept of "deterministic decisionmaking" in some utility function optimization sense a questionable analogy to organic consciousness.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:27:48 UTC No. 16458279
>>16457798
Yes, all sensory phenomena are subjective experiences that exist solely within the mind.
Photons have wavelength. Color is not created until there are photoreceptors connected to a biological neural net to interpret wavelength.
Sound does not objectively exist. If a tree falls in a forest it creates vibrations in the air. But until there is a eardrum connected to a mind, those vibrations do not make a sound.
Taste is even easier. Is cilantro soapy tasting? That depends on your genes which build your tongue, taste receptors, and connect them to your brain. The subjective experience changes from person to person. The cilantro stays the same.
Free will is a purely subjective experience created in the mind which we all feel is completely "real".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:29:08 UTC No. 16458282
>>16458271
Your mind. Before that, it's just wavelength.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:34:51 UTC No. 16458288
>>16458282
>Your mind.
What does this even mean? Where does "my mind" exist, if not in nature?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:36:45 UTC No. 16458289
>>16458273
>This is clearly not true
No, it is clearly true, and if you can't grasp why it's true maybe you should stick to discussions about... I don't fucking know, whatever people with your intellectual capacity talk to when they get together.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:37:37 UTC No. 16458292
>>16458288
You are being a disingenuous troll.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:38:16 UTC No. 16458293
>>16457916
Compatibilism is a massive cope. They define free will in a way that can't be called free anymore if you consequently apply that definition to the brain.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:39:18 UTC No. 16458295
Qualialets will never understand the subjective experience of color
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:41:30 UTC No. 16458296
>>16458292
No, I am asking you a simple question: does your mind exist? Where does your mind exist if not in nature?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:45:03 UTC No. 16458300
>>16458040
The way I see it isn't that we don't have freedom its just that everything is a reaction to something else.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:47:15 UTC No. 16458302
>>16458257
That has nothing to do with free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:47:32 UTC No. 16458303
>>16458296
No, you are trolling. You understand the points being raised and are choosing to play dumb.
Free will is a subjective experience that exist solely within the mind. It is not an objective attribute of nature.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:50:49 UTC No. 16458308
>>16458296
>does your mind exist?
"Mind" is a subjective experience that exists within a physical, objective nervous system and brain, usually contained within a body, but in your case a jar.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:56:22 UTC No. 16458312
>>16458296
>Where does your mind exist if not in nature?
The mind exists above and slightly to the left of the numbers.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:56:51 UTC No. 16458314
>>16458303
>y-y-you k-k-know what I mean
No, I don't. Does your mind exist? If so, where does it exist, if not in nature?
>>16458308
>the mind exists within a nervous system and a brain
Ooops. Sounds like I broke this LLM.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:57:52 UTC No. 16458318
>>16458312
>The mind exists above and slightly to the left of the numbers.
Ok, that's an acceptable answer. Platonists are wrong but they're ok.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:02:35 UTC No. 16458322
>>16458318
Told you that you were being disingenuous.
I accept your apology.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:03:26 UTC No. 16458323
Im made up of a lot of things therefore I have no free will since life flows through me I didn't create life.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:03:51 UTC No. 16458324
>>16458322
I'm being dead serious and I consider my question to be an obvious and perfectly legitimate followup to your retarded nonsense. You're only getting so ass-blasted over it because it kills your mongoloid take on the spot.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:04:04 UTC No. 16458325
>>16458314
>I am a brainless mind.
It shows.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:05:42 UTC No. 16458327
>>16458324
There's a leak in your jar.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:06:34 UTC No. 16458329
>>16458302
Money has a lot to do with concept of free will. Think of stuff billionare can do when he have and idea, and what poor European kid can, (I would want to type Niger(country) kid, but they obviously aren't so informed so they don't get idea).
Being poor and having internet is knowing you're not free at all.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:08:50 UTC No. 16458330
>>16458329
>Of course not to the fact, that Niger kid is nigger, but purely economical factors for sure.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:09:13 UTC No. 16458331
>>16458329
>Free will is freedumb!
>I'm an NPC. And I could vote, but I don't.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:10:30 UTC No. 16458333
>>16458325
>the mind is inside the heckin' brain and nervous system
>>16458327
>the mind is just heckin' uh... um, the mind is in the mind, ok? you're a heckin' troll
99% of nu-chan should be euthanized.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:11:50 UTC No. 16458336
>>16458333
>euthanasia
Maybe... I remember better threads about free will where people mentioned magic mushrooms.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:12:57 UTC No. 16458337
>>16458336
Fuck off nigger. Go start a reddit thread about muh strange loop or something.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:16:09 UTC No. 16458341
>>16458337
Stop, you're clinically retarded, what strange loop?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:17:49 UTC No. 16458343
>>16458329
There's so many stories of poor people becoming rich. You have the freedom pursue that life nothing is stopping you. You have no free will because you live life you didn't create life.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:21:06 UTC No. 16458348
>>16458341
It's ok, I knew an illiterate tard like you wouldn't even know what I'm talking about or how it relates to your idiotic takes. In the good old days, pseuds like you at least used to read their pop-science literature. Now it's all just regurgitating 5 minute Kurzgesagt takes or whatever bullshit you absorbed by osmosis.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:26:29 UTC No. 16458356
>>16458343
In pursuing money, you don't have free will, your decisions must be guided by economic factors.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:27:30 UTC No. 16458357
>>16458348
If you can't explain, what are you talking about, you're clinically retarded.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:29:59 UTC No. 16458360
>>16458357
I could explain but it's funnier to let you demonstrate your sheer level of retardation. Imagine being such a dumb zoomer that you don't even know how to google things.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:31:57 UTC No. 16458362
>>16458356
Yes because you want to have a good life. But you also have the freedom to reject everything too.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:34:06 UTC No. 16458364
>>16457584
>Do we have free will?
This is the wrong question.
The correct question is "is naturalism true?" And yhe answer is very very probably yes.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:37:39 UTC No. 16458365
>>16458364
>This is the wrong question.
Incorrect.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:39:06 UTC No. 16458366
>>16458364
>The correct question is "is naturalism true?" And yhe answer is very very probably yes.
It's a meaningless question because "naturalism" is a meaningless and tautological concept. If tomorrow they discovered definite proof of something soulless golems toda reject as "supernatural", it would immediately fall in the category of "natural".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:40:31 UTC No. 16458369
>>16458333
>I wish people with different opinions would be killed.
>I am NOT a troll.
Well, not a skilled troll. Your bridge is in disrepair and at risk of failing.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:41:25 UTC No. 16458370
>>16458369
Nothing to do with "different opinions". You don't even have any "opinions" to speak of, you mindless regurgitron.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:43:27 UTC No. 16458373
>>16458366
Naturalism just means that things follow rules. When you apply a force to an object it accelerates and such.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:43:49 UTC No. 16458374
>>16458366
>soulless golems
Are the soulless golems in the room with you right now? Earth, wind, fire, air?
It's stone, right. You are being threatened by a stone golem.
Oh dear, you are in trouble.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:44:55 UTC No. 16458376
>>16458365
You can't even define freewill.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:45:14 UTC No. 16458378
>>16458373
>Naturalism just means that things follow rules.
Again, this doesn't mean anything. Maybe God's magical metaphysical heavily realm "follows rules".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:45:19 UTC No. 16458379
>>16458370
>Muh opinions are facts!
>Not a troll!!!@1
Kek.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:46:57 UTC No. 16458380
>>16458376
>You can't define something that doesn't exist.
>Checkmate, libruls!!@#
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:48:24 UTC No. 16458381
>>16458378
>Miracles always follow the rules11!@
You can't define "miracles".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:48:35 UTC No. 16458382
>>16458379
Whom are you quoting? You sound legit mentally ill.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:49:31 UTC No. 16458383
>>16458378
>Maybe God's magical metaphysical heavily realm "follows rules".
Well you can't do anything to prove that can you.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:49:36 UTC No. 16458384
>>16458381
See >>16458382. Since you're very clearly suffering from a psychotic episode I will now stop bullying you and only encourage you to get the professional help you need.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:50:47 UTC No. 16458385
>>16458382
>What is greentext?
Lerk moar, newfag.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:51:02 UTC No. 16458386
>>16458383
>Well you can't do anything to prove that can you.
There's nothing I need to prove. Your notion of "naturalism" is meaningless and allows for just about anything, which I've illustrated.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:52:15 UTC No. 16458390
>>16458384
>I will now stop bullying you
>I am NOT a troll, dammit!!@#
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:52:56 UTC No. 16458392
>>16458366
>It's a meaningless question because "naturalism" is a meaningless
No
>tautological concept
Backed by experience. Unlikely to be overturned. The sun will probably rise tomorrow, naturalism will probably be true tomorrow.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:53:40 UTC No. 16458395
>>16458386
>which I've illustrated
14 images in this thread. None of them drawn by you.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:54:24 UTC No. 16458396
>>16458386
Naturalism doesn't allow for hypothetical things to be true just because you can hypothetically imagine them to be following hypothetical rules. Wtf.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:54:47 UTC No. 16458397
>>16458392
>Backed by experience
>All crows are black.
Kek.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:54:53 UTC No. 16458398
>>16458392
LOL. You mongoloidal animals are barely even human. You don't actually grasp any of the posts you reply to.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:55:58 UTC No. 16458399
>>16458396
See >>16458398. You are essentially a mindless animal with a poorly trained biological ChatGPT layer slapped on top.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:56:06 UTC No. 16458400
>>16458398
>I am better, stronger, smarter than everyone in this thread.
>I am NOT a troll%%%%2
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:56:50 UTC No. 16458401
>>16458397
What color is the moon?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:57:19 UTC No. 16458402
>>16458399
>biological ChatGPT
>The effects ARE the cause.
Kek.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:58:09 UTC No. 16458403
>>16458402
>the retarded automaton breaks completely and shits out an obviously incoherent post
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:59:13 UTC No. 16458404
>>16458401
What wavelengths of light are reflected by the lunar surface?
Is that what you are asking?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:02:09 UTC No. 16458407
>>16458404
Essentially how do you figure out what color the moon is
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:03:21 UTC No. 16458409
>>16458407
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Colors don't exist in physical reality. Are you talking about wavelengths?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:05:54 UTC No. 16458411
>>16458409
>Colors don't exist in physical reality.
How do you know what reality is then?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:06:17 UTC No. 16458413
>>16458407
Color or Wavelength?
Subjective perception or objective fact?
It makes all the difference.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:08:29 UTC No. 16458415
>>16458411
According to science, reality is the set of things that are natural, i.e. things that follow rules. Color doesn't follow rules and doesn't exist in reality. Perhaps you meant to ask about wavelengths?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:09:55 UTC No. 16458416
Our deterministic chemistry doesn't make us do anything, we are told what we want, and though we most likely will do what we want, some of the time our minds differ, and we'll make complex decisions. Our deterministic chemistry like serotonin and dopamine tempts us into finding comfort in a main wanting system, and by doing what we want we gain these chemicals. Serotonin and dopamine don't make the decision for us.
The only thing capable of making a decision is mind, our decisions are based upon a 'wanting system' that is conditional. The wanting system was formed of our body and mind chemistry, and opportunities in our environment.
People who think that something other than mind makes decisions are stupid.
Yes mind is a person's hub for all their owned matter, and decisions are largely based on ones own matters, but mind makes decisions.
Fags. Stop tryna do philosophy until you've actually learned how lol you're fucking retarded. I can't keep keeping this thread in order. If I go, it becomes too stupid. Sorry. This is my last response. Good luck retards, you'll need lots of luck to keep this thread alive without me.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:09:57 UTC No. 16458417
>>16458413
Subjective perception exists in the mind and the mind exists in an objective nervous system. These are scientific facts.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:10:40 UTC No. 16458418
>>16458417
Proof?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:10:57 UTC No. 16458419
>>16458411
Objectively or subjectively?
>muh colors
Your terms are vague. Intentionally so.
You need to be much more clear in your definitions.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:11:10 UTC No. 16458420
Minds the only thing capable of making decisions, a mind controller uses his mind to translate all it's owned matter(including want, serotonin transmission, sense data, etc) and turn it into action.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:11:39 UTC No. 16458421
>>16458418
I have an objective nervous system and science says that there is a mind inside it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:12:02 UTC No. 16458422
>>16458418
Counterexample?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:12:03 UTC No. 16458423
>>16458415
Okay so if you point a wavelength detection machine at the moon and the machine is configured to convert ranges of wavelengths into their corresponding color names what name would the wave length machine most likely output?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:12:47 UTC No. 16458425
>>16458421
>science says that there is a mind inside it
Can you point me to where the subjective experience resides inside the brain?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:13:07 UTC No. 16458426
>>16458423
>what name would the wave length machine most likely output?
Objectively or subjectively? Your terms are vague and I think you are trolling.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:13:35 UTC No. 16458427
>>16458420
You are conflating brain and mind.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:14:24 UTC No. 16458429
>>16458425
There seems to be a misunderstanding. Subjective experience exists inside the mind. The mind is part of the nervous system. Perhaps we should clarify the terms?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:14:32 UTC No. 16458430
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:15:03 UTC No. 16458431
>>16458423
>corresponding color names
According to whom? Humans? Dogs? Birds?
What color are X-rays, Anon?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:15:55 UTC No. 16458433
>>16458426
Objectively what would the machine output.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:16:03 UTC No. 16458434
>>16458429
>subjective experience in the mind
>mind in the nervous system
Yeah I'm asking for proof of this materially.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:16:09 UTC No. 16458435
>>16458425
Asked and answered, multiple times.
We have already accepted your apologies on this question.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:17:30 UTC No. 16458437
>>16458435
There's no proof of that ITT. Maybe you meant in another thread?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:17:32 UTC No. 16458438
>>16458434
>Yeah I'm asking for proof
Objectively or subjectively? Also, what do you mean by "proof"? Your terms are vague.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:18:25 UTC No. 16458440
>>16458431
Do you really think dogs can read?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:18:33 UTC No. 16458441
>>16458433
It could output the objective wavelength. But if you want the subjective color, you need to first define from whose point of view.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:18:34 UTC No. 16458442
>>16458438
Lol at turning this into a philosophical treatice on the nature of "proofs" every time someone tries to pin materialists down. It's okay not to know, nobody does.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:18:41 UTC No. 16458443
>>16458433
>Objectively what would the machine output.
What do you mean by "machine"? Your terms are vague. Maybe it's because they only exist inside your nervous system.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:19:38 UTC No. 16458444
>>16458437
You are wrong. We're used to it, though.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:19:43 UTC No. 16458445
>>16458441
>, you need to first define from whose point of view.
From the point of view of my nervous system, because my mind is inside it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:20:06 UTC No. 16458446
>>16458441
Color is not subjective.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:20:49 UTC No. 16458447
>>16458440
Dogs interpret wavelength as "color" from there completely valid point of view.
Stop playing dumb.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:20:50 UTC No. 16458448
>>16458444
There is no proof ITT. You are genuinely confused and mixing this thread up with another I believe.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:21:44 UTC No. 16458449
>>16458447
Dogs only exist in the mind, like free will. They are part of the nervous system.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:22:39 UTC No. 16458450
>>16458446
Holy fucking shit. You are an unlearned moron. Color is a completely subjective experience. Ask any bird.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:23:41 UTC No. 16458451
>>16458446
What does yellow look like? Objectively.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:23:47 UTC No. 16458452
>>16458450
Color exists in the objective nervous system.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:23:52 UTC No. 16458453
Meds now
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:24:43 UTC No. 16458454
>>16458449
And there you have it. Leaky jar and all.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:24:48 UTC No. 16458455
>>16458451
>What does yellow look like? Objectively.
You know exactly what it looks like, objectively. Or maybe you don't. This thread is definitely botted.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:25:51 UTC No. 16458456
>>16458452
Define objective yellow.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:27:05 UTC No. 16458458
MIND MAKES DECISIONS
CHEMICALS DONT.
MIND HAS CHEMICALS THAT GIVE DECISIONS BIAS
MIND ACTS BIASED BECAUSE OF THE LIMITS IN THE UNIVERSE
MIND STILL HAS A CONTROLLER(which is what absolute determinists are trying to NPCify to gain more stupidity layers on their ground)
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:27:48 UTC No. 16458459
>>16458455
I have a subjective experience of yellow.
Yours may or may not be the same.
What color are X-rays, objectively.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:28:02 UTC No. 16458460
>>16458456
You know what yellow looks like, tard. It looks like THAT, objectively, and nothing else.
>inb4 what if muh yellow is your green
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:28:55 UTC No. 16458461
>>16458416
>The wanting system was formed of our body and mind chemistry, and opportunities in our environment.
This is the freedom we have but we were put here with a body and environment like this against our will. This isn't a bad thing because we can make the most of it and I love God for creating us for with a body like this. ultimately we are not free from this wanting system and our environment we call earth but again that's not a bad thing. We are able to incredible things because we don't have free will.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:29:13 UTC No. 16458463
>>16458459
>I have a subjective experience of yellow.
That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective, unambiguous answer to the question of what yellow looks like and all normal people know it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:29:40 UTC No. 16458464
>>16458450
>Ask any bird.
Lol. You can infact.
https://youtube.com/shorts/_AmBMMv8
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:29:47 UTC No. 16458465
>>16458460
How do you know, objectively?
Hurry, your jar is leaking.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:30:09 UTC No. 16458466
>>16458460
Describe your yellow
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:30:47 UTC No. 16458467
>>16458465
>How do you know,
I don't. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are human and that you aren't colorblind.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:30:48 UTC No. 16458468
>>16458451
Like this.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:31:10 UTC No. 16458469
>>16458461
Cool word.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:31:48 UTC No. 16458471
>>16458466
>Describe your yellow
It's the same as yours, tard.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:32:19 UTC No. 16458472
>>16458460
>Yellow is yellow, moran.
That is a tad bit circular.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:33:36 UTC No. 16458474
>>16458466
Yellow is gonna be the same for all of us. Its like this >>16458468. Even a yellow colorblind person is gonna be told this is yellow and call it yellow thereafter.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:33:36 UTC No. 16458475
>>16458472
Whom are you quoting, tard? And what's "circular" about reminding your dumb ass that you and I both know what yellow looks like?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:33:37 UTC No. 16458476
>>16458460
I know exactly what I perceive yellow to be.
I am asking that you define yellow objectively.
You can't.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:34:41 UTC No. 16458477
>>16458476
>I know exactly what I perceive yellow to be.
Then you know what yellow looks like, objectively.
>I am asking that you define yellow objectively.
This isn't a coherent English statement. It's syntactically correct but semantically nonsense.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:35:27 UTC No. 16458478
>>16458460
Please define what yellow looks like. Before you get mad realize we have no free will and are no different than billiard balls clacking together.
>>16458477
>This isn't a coherent English statement. It's syntactically correct but semantically nonsense.
Everytime you get into the weeds with these people MAGICALLY nothing makes sense to them.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:36:03 UTC No. 16458480
>>16458478
>Please define what yellow looks like.
Again, this is not a semantically coherent statement. You talk like a broken LLM. Take your meds and try again.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:36:15 UTC No. 16458481
>>16458460
>Yellow is exactly what you perceive it to be!
Objectively, idiot.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:36:40 UTC No. 16458482
>>16458480
You just can't explain it so you're avoiding the question
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:37:18 UTC No. 16458486
>>16458463
>That doesn't change the fact that there is an objective, unambiguous answer to the question of what yellow looks like
So, what is it then?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:37:35 UTC No. 16458489
Funny applies to yellow and green but not blue and red. Describe your yellow using words. Protip: you're probably to stupid to complete this task.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:37:48 UTC No. 16458490
>>16458476
Yellow is yellow. You don't understand objective vs subjective. The whole point of this tangent was more or less make you realize the only way you learn about the world is through your senses.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:38:40 UTC No. 16458491
>>16458467
>I don't.
But you said it was objective. Why can't you define it?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:38:58 UTC No. 16458492
>>16458490
>Yellow is yellow
Woah....material science is such a powerful tool for understanding the universe.....
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:39:02 UTC No. 16458493
>>16458490
The thing you're calling certain range of wavelength is propably all the subjections Yellow will ever will be about. Imagine a 10cm ruler, would you assume people have subjective experience of it?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:40:18 UTC No. 16458495
>>16458491
Whatever colour you see when you call yellow, is the same for both of us. We both call the same thing yellow. If the colour is different to you, why not also suggest that you may be saying different words?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:40:20 UTC No. 16458496
>>16458493
>There is only subjective perception, otherwise it's not a perception.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:40:21 UTC No. 16458497
>>16458491
See
>>16458474
>Even a yellow colorblind person is gonna be told this is yellow and call it yellow thereafter.
>>16458464
>Bird describing color.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:40:25 UTC No. 16458498
>>16458481
>>16458482
>>16458486
>>16458491
What I gather form this "conversation" is that this spambot, posing as several different posters, is extremely confused by the color "yellow" because there's no embedding space vector in its language model for the substance of the experience.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:41:08 UTC No. 16458500
>>16458468
Now do UV and IR.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:41:24 UTC No. 16458501
>>16458498
You're still avoiding answering the question and lashing out (which is a VERY weird thing for a creature with no free will to do btw)
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:41:44 UTC No. 16458503
>>16458500
UV feels like your eyes are dying and IR feels warm.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:42:13 UTC No. 16458504
>>16458501
You are sharting out incoherent babble asking me to "objectively define" what a color looks like. There's nothing to say to it except that you're an LLM and I broke you.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:42:17 UTC No. 16458506
>>16458471
Objectively, moron.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:42:44 UTC No. 16458507
>>16458500
Our eyes don't pick up those wavelengths.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:42:58 UTC No. 16458508
>>16458506
There's only subjective experience and perception. Can you prove objective experience exist? What it is?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:43:32 UTC No. 16458509
>>16458506
Objectively, it looks the same as yours.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:44:37 UTC No. 16458512
>>16458507
Dogs and birds do. Why is their subjective experience wrong and yours right?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:45:38 UTC No. 16458513
>>16458503
>feels
That's a subjective experience.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:46:15 UTC No. 16458515
Will is biased but free within the constraints of the system, thus there deterministic flavours in experience, such as dreams influencing good decisions the following day, for your act was already determined, it helped you improve things.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:46:43 UTC No. 16458516
>>16458513
Everybody got that one, if you look into UV you're degenerate who never red warnings about eye damage, so you now have myopia.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:47:33 UTC No. 16458517
>>16458498
>I do not understand LLM's
Yellow is defined in the vector space, subjective to the training material it was provided.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:47:45 UTC No. 16458519
>>16458515
Few times I was in new environment, and I remembered having dream about surroundings and stuff like that, before I was first time there... Can you explain?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:47:57 UTC No. 16458520
Does the universe have its own will to grow and expand?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:48:45 UTC No. 16458521
>>16458498
You're delusional, no spambot. Visit doctor, get your meds, it'll soothe your paranoia.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:48:54 UTC No. 16458522
>>16458520
>Does the universe have its own will to grow and expand?
Yes.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:50:21 UTC No. 16458525
>>16458474
>Yellow is gonna be the same for all of us.
If there are none of us, is it still yellow?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:50:34 UTC No. 16458527
>>16458512
It's not wrong. But if dogs could talk we would still be able to agree that a banana is yellow despite them getting the IR and UV part of it. Yellow would be yellow objectively as a qualitative description of an object and maybe our subjective experience is different.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:50:37 UTC No. 16458528
>>16458521
>t. broken LLM
Imagine glitching out over colors because you can't process anything that can't be encoded with words.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:50:59 UTC No. 16458530
>>16458516
I'm assuming nobody have subjective experience on UV light, because we're told to not look there.
Want to be good for us anon? Look into the sun straight for 5 minutes on bright day.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:51:45 UTC No. 16458531
>>16458460
>You know what yellow looks like,
>>16458475
Objectively, retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:51:48 UTC No. 16458532
>>16458525
Short answer, yes.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:52:00 UTC No. 16458533
>>16458528
I can't imagine somebody wasting even 10W machine for a bot talking with you here.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:52:05 UTC No. 16458534
>>16458525
>If there are none of us, is it still yellow?
If everyone forgot how to build a chair, is it still a chair? Check-mate, chair objectivists. Chairs are subjective.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:53:00 UTC No. 16458535
>>16458531
There is only subjective experience, proove me wrong.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:53:20 UTC No. 16458537
>>16458531
Notice how you will never be able to explain why I'm not being "objective" by reminding you that any normal person's yellow looks like any other's. Also notice how my intellectual superiority makes your blood boil.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:54:19 UTC No. 16458538
>>16458477
I know my subjective experience of yellow.
I have no idea about yours.
We can both agree of the objectively wavelength. We can barely even discuss the subjective experience in an objective manner.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:55:26 UTC No. 16458540
>>16458538
>I have no idea about yours.
Now you do: it's the same as yours, assuming you are a normal human who experiences qualia, (which I doubt).
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:56:25 UTC No. 16458541
>>16458540
Word qualia itself identify that it is subjective...
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:56:52 UTC No. 16458542
>>16458490
>Yellow is yellow.
Circular. Please provide an objective definition of yellow.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:56:52 UTC No. 16458543
>>16458535
Subjective experience. Objective description.
Yellow is an agreed upon color everyone knows what yellow is even if they subjectively experience it differently.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:58:27 UTC No. 16458545
>>16458542
>objective definition of yellow.
Yellow is defined as yellow and despite what anyone is experiencing we all know what yellow is. Objective description. Subjective experience.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:59:20 UTC No. 16458547
>>16458495
>Whatever colour you see when you call yellow, is the same for both of us.
The same wavelength. obviously.
The same experience? No evidence for that.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:59:30 UTC No. 16458548
>>16458543
>>16458545
You got it right anon, don't let anybody fool you.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:00:13 UTC No. 16458549
>>16458541
Any particular instance of the experience is subjective in that only one mind is direct witness to it. This has no bearing on the fact that there is a definite and particular substance to the experience and it seems to be the same for all normal people.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:01:04 UTC No. 16458551
>>16458509
How do you know? Objectively.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:01:11 UTC No. 16458552
>>16458547
Some things don't rely on evidence, and there probably is evidence. Eyes react this way when presented with these waves.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:02:59 UTC No. 16458554
>>16458516
Just admit that you can not objectively define yellow without reference to it's wavelength.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:03:37 UTC No. 16458555
>>16458552
Yellow is close to white. There's a descriptor of my yellow. It looks faint, almost like fill could be applied. It is hard to read normal(not dark) yellow because of this effect.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:03:40 UTC No. 16458556
>>16458547
You agree then. Yellow is objective because we experience the same wavelength as yellow no matter what the experience of yellow is for each of us.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:09:59 UTC No. 16458562
>>16458537
>any normal person's yellow looks like any other's
>>16458540
>Now you do: it's the same as yours
How do you know? Objectively.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:10:13 UTC No. 16458563
>>16458554
Maybe fresh niggers calls yellow "taxi".
You may never know, once oranges are orange.
Maybe colour of lemon.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:10:49 UTC No. 16458564
>>16458551
>How do you know?
I don't claim to know it beyond any doubt, but it's the simplest way to account for the fact that it has similar relationships to other colors, and other qualia in general, across individuals (at least until you get to very high level stuff like individual preferences), and it should be the default assumption if you accept the premise that subjective experiences are shaped by the brain, and the fact that most human brains are fairly similar when it comes to the wetware for basic visual processing.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:11:29 UTC No. 16458565
>>16458543
>Yellow is an agreed upon color everyone knows what yellow is even if they subjectively experience it differently.
So yellow is an subjective experience.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:12:00 UTC No. 16458566
>>16458562
See >>16458564. Also notice how I correctly predicted your inability to explain why my answer isn't "objective".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:12:40 UTC No. 16458568
>>16458565
Yellow of objective description, of subjective experience of yellow.
>>16458564
But language...
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:12:42 UTC No. 16458569
>>16458545
>Yellow is defined as yellow
Circular.
Yellow is 600nm. You can not provide any other objective definition.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:14:38 UTC No. 16458573
>>16458568
>But language...
I called it. You're a broken LLM. You can't fathom this subject because the experience of color can't be encapsulated by words and you have no notion of any "objective world" except in the way of its linguistic modeling.
Garrote at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:15:00 UTC No. 16458574
We follow the archetypes (maybe).
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:15:12 UTC No. 16458575
>>16458552
>Everyone's neural network is identical and provides an identical subjective experience when presented with the same objective stimulus.
You need a source for that claim.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:16:16 UTC No. 16458579
>>16458552
>Some things don't rely on evidence
>>>/x/.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:17:21 UTC No. 16458582
>>16458555
>Yellow is close to white
Define "close".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:18:28 UTC No. 16458585
i think we both do and don't. we clearly don't when you consider the nature of physics, but if human minds are chaotic even to ourselves e.g. inviolably unpredictable, then how is that any different from free will? so the answer is something like objectively no, subjectively yes
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:19:41 UTC No. 16458591
>>16458556
Nope, not even close. We can both agree objectively that 600nm is yellow. That is an objective definition.
We can never agree on our subjective experience of yellow. We can't even describe the experience objectively.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:20:55 UTC No. 16458594
>>16458591
>We can't even describe the experience objectively.
This is going to be very difficult for a language model to grasp, but nothing follows from this.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:22:23 UTC No. 16458595
>>16458563
>Taxis are "yellow" because they reflect 600nm wavelength photons.
>Lemons are "yellow" for the same reason.
>Orange are just orange, idk why.
Kek.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:24:59 UTC No. 16458602
>>16458591
>We can both agree objectively that 600nm is yellow
No one defines "yellow" this way except broken language models, autists and technical professions. The word "yellow" has been in use long before anyone had any notion of light having wavelengths and wavelengths being associated with colors.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:25:40 UTC No. 16458603
>>16458595
ITT: retards and barkon laying the foolish out
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:25:46 UTC No. 16458604
>>16458573
You mean the objective world, you have only subjective experience of?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:25:55 UTC No. 16458605
>>16458564
>it should be the default assumption
Holy shit.
>the fact that most human brains are fairly similar when it comes to the wetware
So color perception is a subjective experience of the mind.
Finally. Thank you.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:29:10 UTC No. 16458608
>>16458604
No, I mean the "objective world" that I hypothesize to be out there as a matter of convenience and practicality, the concept of which may or may not be extremely misleading about the true nature of things, and which therefore I may or may not be experiencing. What's your point, you utter cretin? Imagine looking at vibrant work of timeless art and thinking the artist had NO HECKIN' IDEA how others would visually perceive this work because IT'S LE HECKIN' SUBJECTIVE.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:29:37 UTC No. 16458609
>>16458566
>our perceptual experiences of yellow
Kek, you can't see how that is not objective.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:31:18 UTC No. 16458613
>>16458605
So you confirm being barely sentient and not being able to grasp anything I've laid out for you. Yes, you do confirm this, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Yes, you did forfeit any pretenses of having human worth ITT. Good job. Hope someone updoots you now.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:31:41 UTC No. 16458614
First to get dubs after this post gets his meds, and this discussion is over. I don't see how qualia relates to free will, well, it's subjective, but it's predetermined. World is static, deal with it.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:32:21 UTC No. 16458615
>>16458609
Whom are you quoting? Seems to be a theme with the mentally ill meatbots ITT.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:33:42 UTC No. 16458617
>>16458614
>you just have to heckin' DEAL with my golemistic and demoralizing metaphysical dogma
Nah. Only you and your likes have to deal with that shit.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:33:53 UTC No. 16458618
>>16458602
Yes, the perception of a concept like "yellow" requires the existence of a mind to experience it. Without the subjective interpretation of the visual system, we just have 600nm wavelengths photons.
Yellow is not objective.
Thank you for agreeing.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:34:43 UTC No. 16458619
>>16458618
Take your meds.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:35:55 UTC No. 16458622
>>16458613
>I am NOT a troll, dammit!!!@#$
Kek.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:36:43 UTC No. 16458625
>>16458622
>>16458614
You won, now you're schizo.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:37:03 UTC No. 16458627
>>16458619
Learn to learn.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:37:13 UTC No. 16458629
>>16458622
See >>16458613. You don't matter. I wrote the only posts 3 or 4 posts in this thread that are worth reading and I'm satisfied with that.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:38:19 UTC No. 16458631
>>16458617
I'm not saying you aren't making your decisions, it's just been written in the sand for quite a long time. Talk about determinism vs. free will, is longer than 2000 characters.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:39:16 UTC No. 16458635
Freewill is the result of particles in your brain bouncing around.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:39:41 UTC No. 16458636
>>16458631
>, it's just been written in the sand for quite a long time
Everyone understand how the canon of your unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma works. No one cares.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:46:17 UTC No. 16458655
>Free will is real because yellow is yellow.
Terrible work /sci/, F-.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:48:34 UTC No. 16458661
>>16458655
It's one of the spambots from your crew who wanted to enlighten everyone with the epiphany that agency "doesn't exist in physical reality" because subjective experience somehow don't.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:56:17 UTC No. 16458683
>>16458661
>I perceive free will to be real and that all that counts.
That was never the question, Anon. F--.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:57:21 UTC No. 16458688
>>16458683
And once again, whom are you quoting? Get your mental illness in check.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:14:44 UTC No. 16458720
>>16457795
What makes you think I haven't?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:26:40 UTC No. 16458734
>>16458720
Did you succumb to the craving for the strength and certainty of steel?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:40:01 UTC No. 16458750
Why were we born with a will to live? Why are plants and animals made this way? Everything I see in life points is everything wanting to live (yea I know people commit suicide but it's usually because they can't learn to compromise.) everything is born WANTING to live.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:51:25 UTC No. 16458765
>>16458750
>"Will to live" = "free will".
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:52:59 UTC No. 16458767
>>16458750
>born with a will to live
>will to live
Not really a thing in and of itself, at least not as some natural default from birth. You're born with self-preservation instincts and various drives and compulsions that help propagate life. This comes into play in relation to "free will" mainly in the way that those who are able to exercise it, are able to manage and channel all of those different impulses through self-reflection and conscious intent in order to regulate emotions, thoughts and behaviors. Despite your biological programming, you can slowly condition yourself into becoming a creature of your own design and there is no real way to predict the long-term outcomes for those who take this path.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:53:52 UTC No. 16458768
>>16458720
>I am the Walrus.
Goo goo g'joob.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:55:45 UTC No. 16458771
>>16458688
>And once again
Who are you replying to?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:56:57 UTC No. 16458773
>>16458771
Yet another mongoloid trying to dispute something no one said or implied.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:00:56 UTC No. 16458780
>>16458767
>Despite your biological programming, you can slowly condition yourself into becoming a creature of your own design and there is no real way to predict the long-term outcomes for those who take this path.
Wouldn't you just die in the long run? Its not like you can evolve into something but there are tribes of people able to hold their breathe longer than any "normal" person on earth.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:01:26 UTC No. 16458781
>>16458773
You sound mad.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:05:24 UTC No. 16458784
>>16458780
>Wouldn't you just die in the long run?
You've never experienced personal growth? Did it kill you?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:06:39 UTC No. 16458787
>>16458784
No I compromised but there's so much we can grow into right?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:07:40 UTC No. 16458790
>>16458787
There's only*
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:34:30 UTC No. 16458883
>>16457584
no difference
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:42:51 UTC No. 16458969
>>16457584
the concept of free will is too abstract for me to care about that shit