So fellow comrades what is your position on the free will debate, and using lack of free will as a base for socialism

Causality is a spook for spooked science faggots who can't into philosophy

I take Nietzsche's idea of "free" as far as will goes

in every act of willing there is, to begin with, a plurality of feelings, namely: the feeling of the state away from which, the feeling of the state towards which, and the feeling of this “away from” and “towards” themselves. But this is accompanied by a feeling of the muscles that comes into play through a sort of habit as soon as we “will,” even without our putting “arms and legs” into motion. Just as feeling – and indeed many feelings – must be recognized as ingredients of the will, thought must be as well. In every act of will there is a commandeering thought, – and we really should not believe
this thought can be divorced from the “willing,” as if some will would
then be left over! Third, the will is not just a complex of feeling rather, it is fundamentally an
affect: and specifically the affect
of the command. What is called “freedom of the will” is essentially the
affect of superiority with respect to something that must obey: “I am
free, ‘it’ must obey” – this consciousness lies in every will, along with
a certain straining of attention, a straight look that fixes on one thing
and one thing only, an unconditional evaluation “now this is necessary
and nothing else,” an inner certainty that it will be obeyed, and whatever
else comes with the position of the commander.

Free will is not compatible with determinism and I'm not sure why people are so determined (or desperate) to prove otherwise considering how it almost always devolves into a semantic debate as points out. Barring omnicience people are forced to rely on unreliable sensory input which within a moral positivist framework would preclude free will.

I disagree and would argue that our lack of progress in this arena is the root cause of our current ideological dark age.

Moral spoonbending aside, Nietzsche's framework still leaves one constrained by probalism.

pretty much all neuroscience suggests free will is an illusion
it's the most compelling ethical case against free market dogmatism, imo. most of the standard arguments are contingent on belief in free will. right wingers will tell you that if someone wants healthcare, they should CHOOSE to work harder. but what if the reality is that person simply doesnt have the same level of motivation as other individuals? or they're just not smart enough? these are unsavory explanations, but also the most realistic. lazy people aren't lazy because some entity distinct from their physical body and the natural world decides they simply don't want to work; their underlying brain chemistry, which is impossible to control, determines every action.

I once saw someone argue for free will because technically things aren't deterministic at the quantum level.

Is being a set of dice really that much better than being a robot?

I agree. This bizzare dualistic framework that many people operate under is absurd. It is little more than magical thinking masquerading as a political ideology.

Quantum uncertainty is still probalistic which would leave moral judgement floating upon a "best guess" scenario mediated by possibly comprimised sensory input.

Free Will requires some sort of theistic belief that there is somehing nonphysical in a reality that is non causal controlling our physical, causal brains.
The lack of it is not th idea that you can't make choices. That's an unintelligent strawman that makes no sense. Determinism does not imply Fatalism. In fact the opposite. Fatalism means that no matter what you do "x" will happen to you.
Determinism means you are part of a causal chain, being affected by everything around you, affecting everything around you.

That is all.

And you call my ideology unsaleable?

Honestly a hammer and sickle inside a swastika flag is always going to be a tough sell.

How can humans have truly free will if all our actions can be divided into
1)Avoid paint
2)Feel better though tangible things like a shower
3)Feel better through mental things like believing in X ideology and acting upon it

Everything you do is a selfish desire to please yourself, even if delusional people call themselves selfless that is a lie, because they do what they do because it makes them feel better inside for doing what they are taught is good.

And even IF you try to avoid falling for this human behavior and try to do things that wont fall under these 3 categories you still fail because by upholding the ideology of "freedom from human nature" you again feel better.

strawman

You forgot the basic physical chemistry of the body, which necessarily follows laws of physics.

irrelevant tbh

You mean manipulate people with the chemicals in the brain?

Oh you're a retard in almost every way possible, as well as being a putrid faggot? Color me shocked.

wht are u even saying

Free will almost certainly doesn't exist in the way people think it does. Therefore not only is inequality bad but blame isn't even a useful concept. You can't say someone deserved something when that person's actions are simply a consequence of nearly deterministic particle interactions.
A consequence of this is that utilitarianism is the only good way of deciding what to do.

...

The simulation in which we live is almost certainly determinist to some degree.
As such free will does not exist, nor have has anyone ever experienced it.

Is it just me or do most liberals of all stripes actually now live in a sci fi film in their own head?

Arguing about whether or not you have free will is completely fucking retarded. There is literally no possible benefit to acting or believing that you do not have free will. It's like paying for an insurance policy that only pays out if the earth is vaporized by a Gamma Ray Burst.

Well firstly I'm not at all a liberal of any sort.

Secondly it is far more mathematically likely for us to live within a simulation then it is for us to live in a 'real' universe.
Indeed regarding that math, it is so ridiculously unlikely that we live in a 'real' universe that it is rather cute that you think we do.

It is useful to believe that others do not have free will though. It can help you ignore emotional responses in favor of rational ones.

But thy LORD and savior Elon Musk said so!

I don't think that math really stands up to rigorous analysis. It makes far too many assumptions about what "outer" universes might look like.

This. There is literally nothing to back up the simulation hypothesis, it's just another rebranding of the "thing in itself" argument. Nothing new. You could be subscribing to a Kantian worldview, and use it to justify your technocratic conclusions.

The anthropic principle renders everything equally likely under this scenario, and these types of arguments suffer from infinite regress, among numerous other issues, you absolute sperg, you're living in a Leibniz explosion universe. Just because you have meme'd yourself into thinking you aren't liberal, doesn't mean you're not hardwired as one, clear as the fact you think your autistic scientism is somehow rational.

Well of-course it makes a number of assumptions.
That is why the most conservative figures are always used.

Well there are also no real arguments against it.

Indeed, I would consider the sheer amount of things that it explains (such as why there is a physical limit as to the speed information can travel at) items that provide it with some degree of credibility.

This is what scientismists actually believe

The fact this is a popular insult here is really depressing. Anyone who disagrees with the scientific method should literally kill themselves.

The fundamental problem with it is information capacity. If you have a universe which can be described by n bits of data, it can't contain simulations of more than n bits of data in total, minus a bit for the computational hardware to run the simulations. If the top-level universe is finite, there is a very real bound on the number of nested simulations it can contain.

Just how stupid are you?

If you mean nothing to disprove it because it's unfalsifiable (similar to if I went "there is an invisible, immaterial, and intangible turtle that holds up the world!), then you are correct. But it's a self defeating hypothesis.

For example: if we were basing this argument on our perceived age of the world it already negates itself, because we would be dealing with the simulated age of the world - we would never know the real age of the world to juxtapose it with. The same logic applies to arguments made from the laws of physics, or anything else.

But I assure you, the turtle is there. After all, there are no real arguments against it.

Scientism usually refers to logical positivist who are also scientist in my experience.

While I do not believe that is exactly what he was getting at.
I do agree with the sentiment.

Oh I fully agree.

The thing is that there are many ways around that.
For example if matter is only 'rendered' when oberved or interacted with (like in a video game), that would free up a large amount of bits; Even more so if we are the only intelligent life being simulated.

Well the fact is that the Simulation Hypothesis and the related Digital Physics are not based in the realm of the super-natural and have mathematical support.

Proves these people are worthless autists and should stick to being technicians rather than pretending their insane opinions are actually motivated by the data.

Except it's never actually used to criticize logical positivism because nobody here ever takes a strict logical positivist stance. It's just used for the same pathetic arguments between STEMfags and Humanitiesfags. If you happen to use scientific words and they disagree with you, you're guilty of scientism.

Sure, but that's what I mean when I say it makes too many unfounded assumptions. We might be living in an almost infinite chain of nested simulations, but there isn't any convincing evidence for it.

But I actually understand science, as much as it aggravates you, hence why I'm laughing at statements such as
lmao

That's how I've used it on Facebook meme groups. But, in this case it was being used to refer to the fact that singularicucks are using math to justify idealism.

"True free will" does not exist, but our experience of free will does. Any choice you "make" is still a choice and trying to use "free will doesnt real" as an excuse to not convict people for crimes is silly. Their non-free will included choosing to do fucked up shit because of this argument, and societies free will includes locking up crazy killers.

It is a meaningless debate as of right now that does not produce any usefull insights, and should be kept to philosophical or physics. The illusion of free will is as good as the real thing, and until we somehow discover a wacky new dimension or a magical extra-physical soul, nobody has the real thing.

You can't even recognize the difference between the simulation hypothesis and the singularity?
You're not making yourself look like less of an idiot here.

That relies on the assumption that convicting people and throwing them in cages is actually a good way to solve problems. I contest that it isn't. The "justice" system is entirely designed to facilitate revenge and cruelty against those who defy the state. Just look at the recidivism rate and try and tell me that prison works.

That was not the issue here and Im not going to debate you on the effectiveness of "the justice system" of america when I dont live in the country that jails more people than NK does with its 3 generations prisons.

I sometimes lump the two together because I read about them in Daiton Berry's "On Simulations and Singularities". And I don't care about trying to come off intelligent. My speciality is economics and art.
It still wouldn't change the fact that the simulation hypothesis uses math to justify literal idealism.

…
How is the simulation hypothesis idealism?

You're honestly not embarrassed and still lashing out trying to claim the intellectual upper hand, you glorified CAD monkey? Carry on then, I guess you can't knock someone out of their calculus induced Dunning-Kruger that easily. Be sure to let us know what brilliant insights you glean from the next TED talk while claiming you're not a strict positivist, because you skimmed the wikipedia article on it and decided you aren't like that. You're a special snowflake and not cookie cutter, predictable detritus that has polluted all public discourse for decades.

You seem mad. What are you mad about? I dont understand your arguments at all, you just seem upset that someone disagrees with you.

Not the guy you were talking to.

This. I wouldn't really say it's good or bad.

Get out.

I'm not a logical positivist because it's blatantly apparent to me that the scientific method cannot answer the really big questions about the nature of existence itself and can't even form a reliable basis on which to derive any kind of absolute truth. I actually have a lot of respect for academic philosophy and I'm not the strawman you seem to think I am.

You seem to have some unresolved anger issues though. You should get that checked out.

Scrub

Yep, checks out for idealism.

Who gives a shit? Why would I be talking to """you""", or about you, specifically? You're essentially a prop.

Never

You dont embracer apathy, apathy embraces you.

"Compatibilists" just redefine free will to mean "will" (human agency). For a modern version of this you can read from Dan Dennett. In the end it's nothing but language games. I'm not just making this up to smear compatibilists either, that is quite literally what Dennett says. The problem with this stance is that it's simply disingenuous, the IDEA of free will evidently refers to decision making somehow "exempt" from causality. Compatibilists basically do nothing more than point to decision making that IS part of cause and effect, and say "look, there's still a decision, so just call this free will and be happy."

As the Nihilist faggot
already pointed out the idea of free will contradicts the laws of causality, which is really all you need to disprove it, but more than that, "free will" isn't even a coherent concept you can properly define. It's exactly the kind of thing Wittgenstein would sperg out over. No one really knows what they mean when they say free will, besides trying to put a name on the feeling of "choosing" you experience.

Whatever you say, Satan.

Anyway one of the arguments I'm making is that Simulation + Anthropic Principle drawn down to your subjective consciousness, means that you can't be surprised about literally anything. Thus, from your, and anyone else's perspective, there is no necessary regularity to the universe, as it could all just be an elaborate illusion to make you think that. Therefore undermining the very basis of science at all from which you'd be able to make any such claims about simulated universes. For this and other reasons, it's self-refuting, using nothing more than common scientistic pseudo-philosophical constructs. Most of it is literally this retarded, and these faggots have the audacity to claim they are smart.

ie. simulation destroys probabilistic inference.

It's a shame backpedaling isn't an Olympic sport.

It's a good thing that God is necessarily good then, isn't it.

PERFECTION ISN'T A QUALITY IT'S A POINT ON A SPECTRUM REEEEE

Literally what?

Ontological arguers never define perfection, funny that.

I was referring to your statement
It's the same argument that Descartes made. The counterargument he came up with is that god is necessarily good and therefore wouldn't deceive us.

I know, I was just memeing back another part of the Ontological argument.

Oh, yeah right, I used those terms but more precisely it undermines any possible claim to probabilistic science on which it is based on, simple self-refutation.

Got it, you belief in shit without proof because you want to.

How many levels of scientism are we on here?

If materialism holds true, then we live in a deterministic universe, thus free will neither exists nor doesn't exist, but rather its concept doesn't even apply.

Incidentally, it's just possible that the EMDrive sinks quantum theory and re-establishes a deterministic universe.

Even quantum mechanics could be deterministic if the many worlds interpretation is true.

Anyway, the universe doesn't need to be strongly deterministic to preclude free will. It just needs to be deterministic at macroscopic scales, which it is.