Science supports the notion that we don't have free will. I mean I guess the argument is that everything we do, every decision we make, was always going to happen. We're just a product of the environment we were born into + genetics, the way we were raised and our response to that. And all that was determined by things out of our control. So it's like. Even today, who you are and the choices you make and the things you believe, are pretty much out of your conscious control even though as humans we think we're making the decisions ourselves. When you think of something to say or do, where does that thought come from? We think we're in control of that but we might not be

how does science support that, exactly?

Exactly
The best thing we can all do is keep our mind aware of any bias we have and come to terms with it

I believe there's some evidence to suggest that our brains have already made decisions before we think we do, we just come to the arrival of the "choice" after our brain instinctively has

also sam harris has a pretty good overview of the general idea of it that's pretty convincing and not too long:

I've read enough Sam Harris to last a lifetime, and it wasn't time well spent. I already know all of the main experiments, I'm just waiting for you to list one so I can specifically point out its flaws

inb4 libet

Yeah it kind of f***s with me because it kind of goes against some things I believe. But at the same time does it really matter? Not really. All it's really taught me are 1. to not regret s*** from the past cause you were just handling it the way you knew how to at the time and 2. Have sympathy for other people because at the end of the day we're all a product of our environment, even if some people are bad people and do bad things, I don't have hate in my heart for most people

Oh okay I mean. I'm not gonna pretend I know any of this for sure or have concrete evidence off the top of the head outside cited sources by people I trust. I could google some s*** right now but it's not really worth it to present an argument. I just wasn't sure how aware of the argument you were but clearly you know enough to have a solid opinion on this

I didn't mean to sound like I know the answer to this cause I honestly don't believe it 100% but I was just presenting my general thoughts on it. I just think it's interesting. I don't have any scientific proof of free will, I've just read explanations in the past that were rooted in scientific studies rather than purely philosophical, so it was more a response that this isn't all just philosophical

Just so I have the peace of mind
Could you please tell me in simple terms what are you actually arguing against?

The universe being fully deterministic? (I agree it's not)

The randomness in quantum fluctuations not being our own choices?

What is it?

Bc I feel like on one hand we've reached an agreement that some things are deterministic and some things are just happening randomly with quantum fluctuations so it basically confirms that there's nothing "free" in our will other than not being sure where it leads us

But on the other I feel like you're still trying to prove that it's not true

Do you argue that there are things happening in our life that we have full conscious control over without it being pre-determined or random?

I just wanna know basically what's your bottom line in all this?

My freedom stops where yours begin. So no there is no free will.

fair enough, didn't mean to come across combative. but it is a little tiring when people bring up the same handful of deeply flawed experiments whenever this topic comes up

I don't blame you for it though, that's the mainstream position at this point.

Yeah no problem. I'm arguing (or would argue):
1. The universe is not deterministic.

2. There is no neuroscientific evidence against free will that is not incredibly flawed.

3. The argument that free will is incoherent is not true, because it is possible for something to be neither predetermined nor random, and still be MY decision.

Thus, I don't think there is any conclusive argument against free will. That's my position.

I'm not sure about the quantum fluctuations stuff, I need to read into it more.

Parthenon hours >
🧠

Having sympathy is hard sometimes because you have to make the hard choice

time ain’t real

Okay I get it

But in what you say is there any research that actually confirms the existence of some "third" force that is "ours" or do you base your opinion on there simply not being enough evidence to debunk the existence of something other than predetermined or random?

Bc I can see that I'm far behind you in research on that topic but digging for information last couple days it feels like science is moving closer and closer to proving we're indeed steered by something being predetermined or random (like those quantum fluctuations).

What is that third force you mention and how is it supposed to work? Do you simply lean more to a theory where we have some power to influence the "random" fluctuations hence making it OUR free choice?

If you're tired with me asking and this discussion in general I understand so just say so and I'll get my questions answered by reading the books you've recommended

Nah I don't mind at all, it's an enjoyable conversation.

If we agree that free will hasn't been disproven, we move into the realm of speculation- is there some entirely new physical laws that explain it (this "third force"), or are we simply waiting for science to lay the final nail in the coffin?

My belief is that our current picture is wrong. Currently, most people believe that reality is fundamentally made of matter, and consciousness is the result of a particular arrangement of matter (the brain).

I think this is incorrect for a number of reasons, and believe that the fundamental "stuff" that makes up reality is consciousness (greatly simplifying of course).

Usually this position is called idealism. IMO idealism does not inherently say "yes free will exists". However, it offers a fresh perspective on physics that is much more friendly to the notion of free will.

@gio how do you feel about where society is heading?

@htrap

Oh great! Thanks!

I'm gonna read up on that

yeah you can look into bernardo kastrup

in what sense? like in terms of the philosophical mainstream or something else

Sure
Whatever prediction you got

I think philosophically, the spread of nihilism, materialism, and fatalistic types of thought is peaking. As a result, I think people will begin searching for alternative ideologies that give meaning/ importance to sentient life and the human condition.

Some of these "answers" are wishful thinking. But many are improvements upon what currently exists in the mainstream.

Just my personal prediction though. Who knows, maybe the world descends into full doomerism and Ligotti and Benatar turn into best-selling authors