/liberty/ - Liberty

As I understand it, the term "free will" is redundant. If you define the will as completely powerless, how do you know that it exists at all? What does it mean for a will to be unfree? If a free will is cannot exist in this universe, it would be inaccurate to call a will unfree or enslaved; that's simply its natural state. But again, if a will cannot actually do anything, what exactly are you referring to when you refer to the will? I believe that a more straightforward question would be not is the will free, but is the will capable of affecting the actions of the individual.

>It's pretty obvious humans do not have free will. You don't choose how you were raised, whether you were abused, your gender, race, sexuality, your parents the diet you were raised on, intelligence.

An individual does not need complete dominance over their life conditions in order for the will to possess its debated potency.

>There have also been studies that show people thought they were in control of a mouse when moving it even though they weren't.

I don't see how the possibility of being mistaken about what is and isn't true relates at all to the question of the will.

>Another study showed that activity of just 256 neurons was sufficient enough to predict someone's with 80% accuracy someone's decision to move 700 milliseconds before they became aware of it. This shows that your brain makes decisions even before you do.

It shows that your brain makes snap decisions before you (what do you mean by 'you', by the way? You seem to believe that "you" is separate from "your brain") do. You cannot equate undeliberated decisions with deliberated decisions. The will, if it does exist, would need to deliberate in order to affect; unconscious reactions prove nothing.

>When you become conscious of these decisions you think you are making them even though your brain already made them.

Again with the dichotomy between the self and the brain. Could you please elaborate on your view on this?

>This is also shows that the NAP is not moral either because you cannot kill someone for something they have done that was already determined. It is moral to put them in prison.

Could you explain how it is possible to deem actions moral or immoral when, according to you, individuals have entirely no responsibility for their actions?

Finally, how can you place moral value on individuals if they are puppets deprived of any potent will? What exactly gives their happiness or suffering any positive or negative value? What is the difference between a human going through a deterministic motion and, say, a weather pattern going through a deterministic motion?

>>98120

>An individual does not need complete dominance over their life conditions in order for the will to possess its debated poten

People can't just get the will to do something. There needs to be an affect. Something can be tried the first time but you may fail. The second time you'll attempt to do something but you'll succeed. why? Doesn't seem very free

>I don't see how the possibility of being mistaken about what is and isn't true relates at all to the question of the will.

It shows that people can be easily hypnotized into thinking they have free will

>It shows that your brain makes snap decisions before you (what do you mean by 'you', by the way? You seem to believe that "you" is separate from "your brain") do. You cannot equate undeliberated decisions with deliberated decisions. The will, if it does exist, would need to deliberate in order to affect; unconscious reactions prove nothing.

And why does your brain make these snap decisions? There are predetermined factors that affect everything. You could have mental illness, low blood sugar. For example you could think you're choosing a TV but it's already determined by your brand preference or the price of the tv. Maybe you got the brand preference because when you were a kid your parents had that TV brand in the house

>Again with the dichotomy between the self and the brain. Could you please elaborate on your view on this?

You is your body. Also the brain has implicit decision making that you're not aware of.

>Could you explain how it is possible to deem actions moral or immoral when, according to you, individuals have entirely no responsibility for their actions?

Actions are moral and immoral but people do not have control over their actions. But what is moral is putting away the person who killed someone to benefit the greater good to protect more people from being killed.

>Finally, how can you place moral value on individuals if they are puppets deprived of any potent will? What exactly gives their happiness or suffering any positive or negative value?

The brain gives happiness or any other moods value.

>What is the difference between a human going through a deterministic motion and, say, a weather pattern going through a deterministic motion?

Elaborate, I'm a bit confused

>>98124

>People can't just get the will to do something. There needs to be an affect. Something can be tried the first time but you may fail. The second time you'll attempt to do something but you'll succeed. why? Doesn't seem very free

Yes, that was my original posited definition of an "unfree will". But life conditions still are irrelevant to the question of whether the will has agency or not.

>It shows that people can be easily hypnotized into thinking they have free will

That doesn't have anything to do with determining whether the statement is true or false. It might be a rebuttal to an appeal to popularity, but no one has made that appeal.

>And why does your brain make these snap decisions? There are predetermined factors that affect everything. You could have mental illness, low blood sugar. For example you could think you're choosing a TV but it's already determined by your brand preference or the price of the tv. Maybe you got the brand preference because when you were a kid your parents had that TV brand in the house

Yes, it's commonly accepted that many different factors influence the appeal of decisions. But the question of free will is not how the will decides, but whether the will is actually deciding at all. Outside influences still allow for the possibility of the will possessing the potency necessary to act as the arbiter for conscious (not unconscious) decisions.

>You is your body

The brain is part of the body, yes?

>Also the brain has implicit decision making that you're not aware of.

i.e. unconscious decision making. But conscious decision making also exists, and it is this form of decision making in which the question of whether the will has any measurable affect has any relevancy at all. Few if any proponents of free will will argue that the will is able to control unconscious actions.

>Actions are moral and immoral but people do not have control over their actions. But what is moral is putting away the person who killed someone to benefit the greater good to protect more people from being killed.

>The brain gives happiness or any other moods value.

You seem to be going by a utilitarian moral framework here, but the argument that actions have moral value only because a brain ascribes value to them cannot adequately defend the utilitarian world view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that every individual has a moral duty to maximize the positive emotions of humanity and minimize the negative emotions of humanity. Therefore it is moral to prevent the murderer from killing people and immoral to punish the murderer for an event not in his control. The statement that brains experience happiness or suffering certainly is true – but it doesn't come close to supporting the utilitarian thesis that every individual has a moral duty to manage happiness and suffering on a communal, or even global scale. Furthermore, it seems extremely dubious to me that the concept of moral duty can exist at all without individual agency. The statement that someone has violated their moral duty does not really mean anything if it is impossible to hold them accountable for that act.

>Elaborate, I'm a bit confused

Your previous statements indicate that you believe that human happiness and human suffering have intrinsic value. I am curious as to how you have reached that conclusion when you also believe that humans have no agency. Without agency, without a will, what separates humans from other entities that do not possess agency? What is it about them that you find special enough to proclaim that causing them to enter into specific emotional states is immoral?

>>98128

>Yes, it's commonly accepted that many different factors influence the appeal of decisions. But the question of free will is not how the will decides, but whether the will is actually deciding at all. Outside influences still allow for the possibility of the will possessing the potency necessary to act as the arbiter for conscious (not unconscious) decisions.

"Decisions" are always 100% influenced and factors always lead to it. And the will is not deciding at all

>The brain is part of the body, yes

Of course

>i.e. unconscious decision making. But conscious decision making also exists, and it is this form of decision making in which the question of whether the will has any measurable affect has any relevancy at all. Few if any proponents of free will will argue that the will is able to control unconscious actions.

Conscious actions are affected and led to by internal and external influences

>Therefore it is moral to prevent the murderer from killing people and immoral to punish the murderer for an event not in his control.

Agreed

>The statement that someone has violated their moral duty does not really mean anything if it is impossible to hold them accountable for that act.

Even if they are not responsible it can still be immoral or moral.

> I am curious as to how you have reached that conclusion when you also believe that humans have no agency. Without agency, without a will, what separates humans from other entities that do not possess agency? What is it about them that you find special enough to proclaim that causing them to enter into specific emotional states is immoral?

I never stated humans don't have agency. Agency is a natural thing for most people

All those unnecessary words. Agency is the only thing that matters. People are considered to be responsible for their actions. It is irrelevant that those actions might be perfectly predicted with a god machine. A predictable decision making actor is still an actor making decisions. You do make decisions, even if the outcome of your decision making is predictable. There is no incompatibility.

<greater good theology

You didn't even come here to discuss anything. You've just come to masturbate about your socialist sickness. You don't deserve honest responses.

>>98132

This. From a utilitarian standpoint determinism is completely useless without an omniscient perspective, which nobody has.

OP, you're partly right, but you're referring to those studies while excluding the relationship between the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. 90% of our thinking is done on autopilot by the subconscious and even our actions become delegates to it, while the conscious mind exists to observe our thoughts, to learn, or to program our subconscious minds on how to act and think.

This is why cognitive behavioural therapy is so powerful. Basically if you spent your life telling yourself something (eg: I will always be poor), the effects of confirmation bias will kick in and you will believe it even if it's not particularly true, unless you start telling yourself something else and start another feedback loop to reprogram your mind.

>>98150

cringey