free will

File: 640 KB, 559x627, philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

free will Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:48:15 2014 No.5197800 [Reply] [Original]

What were the best arguments in favor of free will? I mean arguments that stayed unrefuted. I'm interested in the following: Now that we have scientific proof that free will doesn't exist, did someone take their time to go through all the old arguments and figure out scientifically or logically why they were wrong? If not, I think it would be a fun exercise for /lit/ to do it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:50:16 2014 No.5197810

>>5197800
this is yet again another failure of philosophy, even in the 21st century do a majority of 'philosophers' not even understand the inner mechanisms of the mind to be able to comprehend that free will does not exist.

yet, lit will continue to worship their god zizek

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:51:40 2014 No.5197812 >>5197800 >/lit/ >prove scientific research wrong Doubt it. First of all, define free will. Second of all, provide links to evidence for or against "free will" or non deterministic systems. Mathfag here, I'd be happy to answer your questions.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:53:57 2014 No.5197814 >>5197812 >define free will this is stupid there is no free will in all instances that free will is to be understood in.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:54:45 2014 No.5197815 >>5197814 As a concept, OP should be able to give a definition.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:55:52 2014 No.5197820 >>5197814 So what do you mean by "free will"?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:56:23 2014 No.5197821 >>5197800 Is that you, OP?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:57:15 2014 No.5197823 >>5197821 yes

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:57:43 2014 No.5197826 >>5197820 Why* do you mean by 'free will'?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 11:59:35 2014 No.5197831 >>5197812 This. To start a legit argument over this, you need to define it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:01:04 2014 No.5197835 >>5197831 go home bert

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:01:43 2014 No.5197836 >>5197831 But OP asked what are the best arguments already existing, he didn't want to start one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:04:16 2014 No.5197844 >>5197800 Go to the SEP, don't even bother checking in on this thread. In fact, just delete it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:04:29 2014 No.5197846 >>5197836 So free will doesn't have a definition?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:06:52 2014 No.5197856 >>5197846 define definition

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:07:19 2014 No.5197857 >>5197846 Do you suffer from some kind of reading impairment?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:08:23 2014 No.5197860

>>5197831
>>5197812
⇒philosophers
⇒ever defining anything

Toppest lel. Philosophers claim to be "lovers of wisdom" and they can't even tell you what "wisdom" means. Justice, morality, metaphysics, good, evil -- all that shit stays undefined. Philosophy isn't math or science. Philosophy doesn't have definitions. Philosophy is endless autistic quibbling about semantics of words every normal person understand intuitively.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:09:37 2014 No.5197865 >>5197860 >Philosophy isn't math or science. But math and science are philosophy though.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:09:53 2014 No.5197868

>free will
>SEP definition
>“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.
The mind is deterministic, but free will does basically exist.

>>5197856
>the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc.
Bet you think you're real smart.
Tell me, did you ever take math in HS?

>>5197860
Definitions, theorems, axioms etc are logic and thus math.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:11:18 2014 No.5197872 >>5197865 lol no

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:11:26 2014 No.5197873 >>5197860 You ruin every thread you post in.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:11:53 2014 No.5197877 >>5197872 lol yes

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:12:25 2014 No.5197882
File: 54 KB, 500x534, out-of-touch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I miss the days of yore when /lit/ could at least have a semi-civil discussion of philosophical topics, even if it was shit I don't care about. At least they were interesting. Sure they weren't the best but these days all we have is leftist/rightest arguments that never go beyond "I don't like that!" and science versus philosophy which doesn't go beyond arrow poster telling every she's smart and everyone else is retarded.

I need to leave 4chan for good.

Pic probably related I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:12:26 2014 No.5197883 >>5197877 >>5197872 btfo

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:12:27 2014 No.5197884 >>5197865 Nope. Science might have begun from philosophy, as a result became distinct from it. Mathematics didn't originate from philosophy at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:13:38 2014 No.5197888 >>5197884 do we need to tread the pavement of ignorance town?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:13:38 2014 No.5197889 >>5197877 But they aren't. Philosophy and science do very different things. I would concede that mathematics is philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:14:04 2014 No.5197892 >>5197865 Science and math have rigorous methodology and are based on objective facts / logic. They don't need subjective opinions. They don't need "muh feelings" arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:14:12 2014 No.5197893 >>5197868 >Definitions, theorems, axioms etc are logic and thus math. What, is all use of language just math?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:14:56 2014 No.5197895

>>5197884
>might have begun
I'm not discussing the origin of anything, just the methodology. Science and maths function exactly as philosophy, except people actually respect laws and axioms and usually try to actually do things and not outsmart the previous scientist with poor but long winded sophisms. usually

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:16:11 2014 No.5197899 File: 65 KB, 500x375, bathingactivities.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5197888 >>5197889 >>5197892 >>5197893 >>5197895 IT BEGINS

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:19:17 2014 No.5197909 >>5197856 Use different words to describe the concept you're referring to.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:19:25 2014 No.5197910

>>5197893
In a deeper concept? Maybe.
When I said
>Definitions, theorems, axioms etc
I meant logic.

>>5197888
I got rekt by that post

>>5197895
If I were to make up a word Numberiology and give it a definition of anything that uses numbers, would math automatically be Numberiology? Not universally.

Math doesn't act like philosophy. Math acts like math.
Mathematics originated from trade and getting about in everyday life.
>axioms
>sophisms
You're a bit lost I see.

>>5197899
Trying to keep shitposting to a minimum

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:19:51 2014 No.5197912 Daily reminder science is the catholic church of our time and that logic and progress are the greatest virtues.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:20:38 2014 No.5197916 >>5197912 when will science have a reformation?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:20:48 2014 No.5197918 >>5197912 Daily reminder that science is synonymous with logic and progress.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:21:13 2014 No.5197921 >>5197912 Citation needed, or is that another religious virtue that you deny?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:21:33 2014 No.5197922 >>5197910 >You're a bit lost I see. These aren't really hard words. Look them up.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:22:14 2014 No.5197925 >>5197922 Axioms are not sophisms, you should finish high school, just like everyone on /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:22:25 2014 No.5197926 >>5197918 science can not prescribe, only describe

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:22:40 2014 No.5197927 >>5197921 Source: scientific study

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:23:16 2014 No.5197930 >>5197927 kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:23:50 2014 No.5197931 >>5197925 >Axioms are not sophisms Confirmed for not having read carefully and/or poor reading comprehension.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:25:21 2014 No.5197936 >>5197931 Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the "and not". Read too fast there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:30:27 2014 No.5197957 >>5197926 Philosophy can neither prescribe nor describe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:31:55 2014 No.5197963 >>5197926 please elaborate

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:32:55 2014 No.5197967 Science still can't even explain subjective experience. Stay plebeian, plebs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:33:42 2014 No.5197968 >>5197967 Neither can philosophy lol.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:34:05 2014 No.5197970 >>5197957 i'm going to synthesise prescription and description into 'Beispielwissen'

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:35:31 2014 No.5197974 >>5197963 get reading /sci/ friend

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:36:04 2014 No.5197976 >>5197918 daily reminder that the catholic church said the same thing about itself

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:38:47 2014 No.5197982 >>5197970 "Beispielwissen" isn't even a real word.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:41:53 2014 No.5197995 >>5197882 I've been away for months. It's pretty awful but it probably always was (I don't think it's wise to pretend otherwise). The problem is that the rhetoric of the petulant argumentor comes prior to content.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:43:05 2014 No.5198000 >>5197982 People are allowed to make words up. They own language, not the other way around. >>5197976 >science vs religion >science vs philosophy Why is science so litigious man.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:44:18 2014 No.5198004 >>5198000 You can make up as many words as you want. We still won't take you and your private autism language seriously.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:45:53 2014 No.5198009

The matter of free will is a pointless debate because if we didn't have free will then we're fated to believe we have free will, to act in ways becoming of free will. in that way, free will and fate are completely indistinguishable from each other from our perspective.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:49:48 2014 No.5198017

>>5198004
>You
I'm not the other poster (by definition).
>We
Who, the big science hivemind? Alright, but "you" already do, every word is made up. It doesn't really help that you use meaningless 4chins buzzwords like "autism", i mean, if you were implying that you're not the type to get duped by words with little or no meaning attached to them you proved yourself wrong in one line of text.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:51:57 2014 No.5198022

>>5197810
this

how can you spend your entire life arguing about free will, yet refuse to take even a couple days time to look at the inner workings of the brain. i think most intellectuals (scientists, and to some degree philosophers) are accepting that free will does not exist. it is a trick of our minds that leads us to believe that we have control over ourselves.

Besides, what's the problem with it not existing? are they afraid the discussions turn pointless?

side note: i believe that our consciousness (and perception of free will) is necesarry to keep us from going insane. a species smart enough to understand that the brain cannot be controlled must be tricked into thinking it can because otherwise we would realize our prison and go insane

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:53:25 2014 No.5198028 >>5197815 >>5197812 not op, but i would define it as being able to make a movement, have a thought etc. without there being any initial parameters leading to that decision, thus creating information out of the void. which is ridiculous

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:54:24 2014 No.5198032 >>5198000 it's a shit word.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:54:40 2014 No.5198035

>>5197812
>First of all, define free will.
makes me mad every time

>philiosophers come up with free will, talk about it for centuries/millenia
>scientists come to the point where they have enough understanding of the human brain/biology/physics/chemistry to disprove free will
>reply with "define free will"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:55:48 2014 No.5198042 >>5198028 This The definition is basically non determinism of the mind, it was the only thing I wanted to clarify before I make an actual argument, OP would have just backed off and said "that's not what I meant by free will"

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:56:41 2014 No.5198049 >>5197860 as soon as you start defining things the whole pseudo-science that is philisophy collapses. the entire thing is based on the idea that everything, even solid facts and elemental laws of physics, should be up for discussion

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 12:59:29 2014 No.5198066 >that feel when this thread was meant to be created and it was predetermined billions of years ago

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:01:06 2014 No.5198071

>>5198022
>side note: i believe that our consciousness (and perception of free will) is necesarry to keep us from going insane. a species smart enough to understand that the brain cannot be controlled must be tricked into thinking it can because otherwise we would realize our prison and go insane
But why aren't you insane then?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:03:04 2014 No.5198080 >>5198071 maybe because we still feel in control. A late in life realization won't undo years of conditioning.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:05:29 2014 No.5198089

>>5198071
because it's a working system. the elemental determinism in our brain is something we are smart enough to think about and realize, but not ingrained deep enough for it to disturb me unless i think about it for too long.

so if i want a glass of water, i still feel like I can just get up myself instead of seeing my body get up and drink it whilst being some 3rd person spectator

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:09:57 2014 No.5198101

Modifying the definition to compete against biological parameters instead of metaphysical ones is essentially moving the goalposts and overall intellectually dishonest. Saying there can't be free will because, say, the mind tells us we need to eat to survive is a pedantic and useless argument and misses the point.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:12:43 2014 No.5198108

>>5197800
Sciences cannot think free will because they will see a mechanical cause to everything. If somebody kill somebody else, science will try to understand the causes linked to each effect : corpse have been killed by a man, man have mental disorder, acoholism and depression, wife left him, etc. Only one thing : science can only explain cause and effect afterward. This is what Kant thought in his ethic, he answer to that : sure, afterward we can find tons of causes that explain the man's actions, but on the moment of his decision, at the exact moment he hold the knife in his hand and is about to stab the other man's back, this can murder OR he can refuse to do it. Basically, science can find tons of causes after the effect is produced, but on the exact moment the action is produce, no one can say what will happen, and one can choose what he will do.

Hannah Arendt made, imo, a very good definition of free will : human are free because they can start a new chain of causes and effects that would have seen impossible before its made. Let's think about the first law that was instituted in the history of humanity : animals with pulsion that usually kill to survive decide to to be together, institute laws to protect themself and be free.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:12:46 2014 No.5198109 >>5197800 >What were the best arguments in favor of free will? wish fulfillment

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:13:04 2014 No.5198111 >>5198101 nobody uses the argument "we need to eat" against free will. and i feel like biology is exactly where the goalpost needs to be instead of metahpysics

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:14:20 2014 No.5198118 >>5198109 elaborate

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:14:31 2014 No.5198119 >>5198109 How is free will actually desirable? It comes with a great deal of responsibility, even if you're not morality inclined. It's much easier to believe that you're hard wired to do the things you do.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:19:35 2014 No.5198134

>>5198108
completely missed the point.

as much as there is a physical course of the murder (trigger causes explosion, explosion propells bullet, bullet rips artery) there is another less visible but just as defined mechanical/chemical world inside your brain. and as it turns out, the fixed and determined paths of those molecules are what make for the decision of murder or not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:20:06 2014 No.5198135 >>5197800 Will has to be deterministic. If our thought would be unpredictable despite having knowledge of memory, brain structure etc, it would be random. Randomness is the opposite of thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:20:39 2014 No.5198138 File: 16 KB, 243x250, 9312848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Another arrows thread. Hidden.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:32:47 2014 No.5198170

>>5198119
>It's much easier to believe that you're hard wired to do the things you do.

Maybe this works for you in theory. People who've never been exposed to the concept, in my experience, almost overwhelmingly resist the idea of hard determinism and do so vigorously and passionately. Most people HATE the idea. Even if you can make a case on paper for HD being 'much easier', that's not how it shakes out in practice.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:36:10 2014 No.5198183

>>5198101
>>5198111
The point of that argument is that under any kind of restriction, particularly one such as that, which is undeniable and taken as a fact by everyone sane, freedom is negated.
It doesn't mean you can't make decisions for yourself but it's useful when some free will advocates decide that it's their time to be silly and use dumb arguments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:37:14 2014 No.5198188 >>5198170 >People who've never been exposed to the concept, in my experience, almost overwhelmingly resist the idea of hard determinism and do so vigorously and passionately. Most people HATE the idea. maybe they didn't think it through

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:40:14 2014 No.5198201 >>5198188 Well that wouldn't be anything new, but the point stands.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:41:48 2014 No.5198210 >>5197810 Zizek doesn't believe in free will YouTube pornography and lemonade.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:44:39 2014 No.5198223 >>5198210 Zizek is also an idiot so his opinion is worthless

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:52:02 2014 No.5198250

Does it really matter? I think the important part is that we perceive ourselves to have free will. If you go into the hard science you will soon realize that most things don't actually exist, may that be colour, directions, time, free will, etc. Even with the knowledge that these things do not exist, at this moment you still experience the notion of time, up and down, and the notion that you choose your actions. I guess what I want to say is that no matter of how much "objective" knowledge you have you will still experience everything subjectively.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:56:20 2014 No.5198267 >>5198223 I thought that video was pretty insightful. Care to share why you disagree?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:56:32 2014 No.5198268 >>5197882 reminds me of this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhx6IfKrvEQ

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:57:33 2014 No.5198270

>we exist within the Universe
>therefore, our minds exist within the Universe
>the Universe is governed by physical laws
>physical laws are ubiquitous and work the same way for sentient living creatures, fiery stars and a dull rock
>therefore, every decision the mind takes is decided by physical laws
>which are ubiquitous
>and constant, at least constant enough within human lifespan frame
>therefore free will is only possible by breaking those laws
>an event which was never detected
Tell me where I am mistaken here

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:59:14 2014 No.5198277 >>5197800 functionalism is the closest metaphysicians have come to disproving free will, but it's still not enough. there is no sound analytic defense of there not being free will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 13:59:58 2014 No.5198278 Free will exists get over it plebs

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:04:25 2014 No.5198289 >>5198270 The Universe is, in some aspects, totally random (see Quantum Physics). This randomness is a reflect of free will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:04:31 2014 No.5198290 >>5198270 why must an exercise of free will break the laws of physics? I think that's where your reasoning falters.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:05:15 2014 No.5198291 >>5198277 >there is no sound analytic defense of there not being free will. The burden of proof is squarely on the libertarians.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:06:16 2014 No.5198295 >>5198289 >This randomness is a reflect of free will. Not even wrong.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:09:17 2014 No.5198303

>>5198268
>machild playing video games and watching cartoons
>using the words "waifuism" and "social justice warrior" unironically
>uses filters because he can't handle free speech
>complains about "elitism"
>has to make a 17 minutes video complaining about how 4chan made him butthurt
>attacks us with stereotypical buzzword insults ("antisocial" etc)

Oh wow, that typical redditor "epic nerd" attitude combined with absolute ignorance of 4chan's culture is maximum cringe and maximum lulz simultaneously. How fucking immature can a man be? My sides are moving on they're own.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:12:12 2014 No.5198312

>>5198289
1. your will doesn't control quantum mechanical effects nor do the two have anything to do with eachother
2. the randomness doesn't portrude beyond sub-atomical small scale and highly specific experiments (eg Bell's randomness experiments). it doesn't result in any significant randomness on macroscopic scale or even on nanoscale

i generally like these discussions about determinism but they usually and with someone dumping "quantum mechanics" without having any knowledge about quantum mechanics

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:17:28 2014 No.5198330

>>5198289
>The Universe is, in some aspects, totally random (see Quantum Physics). This randomness is a reflect of free will.
1. Quantum physics aren't 'random', the calculations made within quantum realms are not and can never be accurate enough to declare such fact
2. Lets assume for a moment they are. How does randomness contribute to free will in any kind of way? Human intellect isn't random. Random decisions aren't free will, it's insanity.
As I said, the only way for the will to be 'free' is only to disregard rules of physical reality entirely, otherwise we aren't free and have inherent external causality behind us.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:18:34 2014 No.5198333 I think the better question is what does it matter? Is anyone really less responsible for their actions without so-called 'free will'?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:20:07 2014 No.5198337 Question: what is the problem people have with Compatiblism? I'm not saying I subscribe to it; I just was never aware of its critique.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:22:18 2014 No.5198344

>>5198303

Why is he complaining about the hostility? That's why I come here. I hate reddit because of its karma system and large circlejerks. At least here you only have tripfags with any type of weight, which is always off set by the very fact they are identifiable on an anonymous board.

I like this shit hole.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:24:51 2014 No.5198350

The most ironic thing is that total randomness is actually worse for the case of free will than determinism. How can you make a choice if there is no causation?

To consider the corollary, why would you not be able to choice from some finite set of things simply because of determinism? Sure, your choice and ability to choose at all and the actual set of choices you can pick from are all limited based on an interrelated set of causes, but you as an agent still cause things to happen, in many instances in a way that could have happened otherwise with no physical law preventing it. You can decide to get up and make some toast and work on your thesis, or you can stay in bed and shitpost on /lit/. Each event that came before could lead to either of these possibilities, and you could choose either one.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:26:33 2014 No.5198356

>>5198066
>tfw feel our planet, our species, our race, our history all exist because in the first second of Big Bang one of the anti-particles fluctuated slightly and didn't collide with another particle, thus allowing sufficient amount of matter to be formed
We are truly the cosmic feel.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:27:16 2014 No.5198361

>>5198344
this.
reddit is fucking shit because they are in an eternal circlejerk of same opinions. they upvote everything they agree with and downvote everything they don't agree with. then they post links to articles or discussions that follow their general consensus and the whole thing starts over again.

on 4chan everyone hates each other and disagrees with passion but at least it is genuine and as good as anyone else's. you can be a nobel prize laureate and someone can still call you a faggot and force his own opinion in the discussion

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:28:46 2014 No.5198366

>> 5198250

Agreed.
I'm not even sure science disproves the existence of free will though. We just don't have a firm enough understanding of the human mind yet. Sure, you can argue that our actions result from chemical/electrical sources and keep going down the chain of causation, but that doesn't fully explain what consciousness is or how it operates.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:45:49 2014 No.5198425

>> 5198250

Agreed.
I'm not even sure science disproves the existence of free will though. We just don't have a firm enough understanding of the human mind yet.
You can argue that everything has an ultimate cause including our "free" choices, but that is more philosophical than scientific.

I tend to put the question of free will in the "unsolved problem" category, kind of like the uncaused-cause vs. infinite regression problem when you ask yourself why anything exists in the first place.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:48:08 2014 No.5198432

>> 5198250

Agreed.
I'm not even sure science disproves the existence of free will though. We just don't have a firm enough understanding of the human mind yet.
You can argue that everything has an ultimate cause including our "free" choices, but that is more philosophical than scientific.

I tend to put the question of free will in the "unsolved problem" category, kind of like the uncaused-cause vs. infinite regression problem that comes up when you ask yourself why anything exists in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 14:49:00 2014 No.5198434 >>5197800 That woman looks like a fucking faggot Fuck her, her hair, her face and her shitty book

The cats Sun Jul 27 14:49:58 2014 No.5198437
File: 96 KB, 500x750, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5198356
>There is such thing as a "last universal common ancestor", the Boy Who Lived of the bacteria world that spawned everything from oil to you to the wood in your walls

3.6 billion years of dat feel

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:04:16 2014 No.5198491 File: 46 KB, 800x539, 1368040184963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5198437 >>5198356 >>5198066

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:38:54 2014 No.5198634 >>5198437 Last Universal Common Ancestor is dead now, of course. There's no way a 3.6B year old species would still be competitive today.

>>	The cats Sun Jul 27 15:40:14 2014 No.5198641 >>5198634 I'm sorry, I just meant everything shares one. I didn't mean to imply it still exists today.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:43:02 2014 No.5198653

>>5197800

Free will is directly related to the soul. Science knows about the brain but that's just the bridge between our soul and this body. Science has little more to say about that for obvious reasons.

Free will proven in 20 seconds: Choose one of those:

A
B

When you have no reason to choose one over the other, you experience free will. You can choose one, then the other. Free will happens when you have to make choices. You make choices every day and you can make different choices, at will.

Denying free will is for faggots, literally.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:43:44 2014 No.5198657
File: 118 KB, 294x371, theyneverlisten.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Kant. Always Kant.

>Freedom of the will is a necessary presupposition for practical reason.

The Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals are good places to start. I would also recommend Henry E. Allison's Kant's Theory of Freedom.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:44:27 2014 No.5198661 >>5198634 You're a dumb faggitron. Check out the reptilians and Ancient Aliens and the Reptilians and then come talk to us.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:47:47 2014 No.5198674 >>5198653 >soul >Free will happens when you have to make choices. pretty subtle m8 7/10

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:51:48 2014 No.5198690 >>5198653 You don't seriously believe in souls, do you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:53:36 2014 No.5198697 >>5198653 ⇒the sould Top lel. Neuroscience has proved that no supernatural intervention happens in the brain. Even if souls exist, then they have no effects in the physical world. Free will is physically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:56:13 2014 No.5198702 >entry-level philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:57:37 2014 No.5198708 File: 26 KB, 450x313, feelinalright.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5198702 >>5198702 srs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 15:59:07 2014 No.5198715 >>5198690 >2014 >Believing that there's nothing more than the physical world Go back to /sci/ and never come back.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:01:04 2014 No.5198719 >>5198697 You always say things like "neuroscience has proved..." and I don't think you know how science actually works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:01:23 2014 No.5198721 >>5198697 Soul is part of a metaphysical realm. Therefore, it can't be proved by the scientific method

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:01:57 2014 No.5198723 >>5198702 Great contribution to the thread, thank you!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:03:06 2014 No.5198729 >>5198719 Are you saying science can't prove things?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:03:45 2014 No.5198735 >>5198715 >thinking there's anything else Fuck off back to your cave, Plato

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:05:40 2014 No.5198746 >>5198729 Science can get some degree of validity but it can't get you truth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:07:46 2014 No.5198753 >>5198723 This thread is literally "Nuh-uh!" --"Yes-huh!" --"Nuh-uh!" --"lolphilosophag!" Real good work, faggots.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:10:22 2014 No.5198764 >>5198753 Another incredibly helpful post, amazing!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:10:51 2014 No.5198765 >>5198746 Science can falsify a hypothesis. After successful falsification we can say with 100% certainty that the hypothesis was false. See? Science does establish truth. Now pick up that fedora you just dropped, and get the fuck back to reddit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:15:34 2014 No.5198789 File: 373 KB, 975x971, ebin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5198764 u2, luvz.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:16:42 2014 No.5198794 >>5198765 You established that the hypothesis was false, not that the null hypothesis was true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:17:28 2014 No.5198797 >>5198765 This is a valid assertion, but not a true one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:19:23 2014 No.5198801 >>5198797 >>5198794 The negation of a proposition is also a proposition. Why do you fail at formal logic? Are you intellectually disabled?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:20:00 2014 No.5198804

>>5198765
Nope.
Science can't give you a theory which will be valid as long as it isn't demonstrated as false. There is only one truth, science is just a set of theories, thus it can't get you truth.
>using the fedora meme on someone who's not an atheist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:20:02 2014 No.5198805 >>5198801 >Are you intellectually disabled? Yes. :'(

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:21:07 2014 No.5198807 >>5198804 *can

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:23:20 2014 No.5198816

>>5198804
Claim: Hypothesis X is wrong.
Proof: Look at this experiment falsifying X.
QED (<--- for the plebs: that means it's proven)

This is how science establishes the TRUTH that hypothesis X was wrong.

Why is formal logic too hard for you? Did that fedora cut off the blood supply for your brain?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:28:06 2014 No.5198822

>>5198801

A proposition with a truth-value, still yet to be established.

Also, if we're talking about falsifying the null hypothesis, you never (correct, never) attain a p-value of .00. So you can never say with 100% certainty that the null hypothesis is false. This isn't formal logic, it's inductive reasoning based on statistical analysis.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:29:23 2014 No.5198825 >>5198822 Nobody was talking about a null hypothesis, you illiterate nincompoop. Falsifying a scientific theory does not require a null hypothesis.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:29:39 2014 No.5198828 >>5198816 >>5198822 2/10, mate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:32:00 2014 No.5198837 >>5198825 I guess it's okay to make yourself out to be an idiot when you're afforded complete anonymity. But why would you bother?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:33:45 2014 No.5198844 >>5198816 The statement demonstrating that the hypothesis is wrong is still valid but it can be demonstrated to be false. Therefore, it isn't true.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sun Jul 27 16:34:13 2014 No.5198846
File: 44 KB, 479x480, 42-15225264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5198697
>Free will is physically impossible.
I still don't get that. I'm big on science, but I see us as pretty free in most ways.

>>5198721
Therefore it can be disregarded

>>5198746
>Science can get some degree of validity but it can't get you truth.
Yes it can!

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:35:15 2014 No.5198851

>>5198837
Hypothesis: Snow is always black.
Falsification: Look outside. The snow there is white.

See? No statistics needed.

Can you please stop being retarded? You have left the range of funny retardation and entered the realm of cringeworthy retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:37:05 2014 No.5198857 >>5198844 Propositions are not valid or invalid, only arguments. An argument is sound when it is formally valid and its premises are true.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:37:48 2014 No.5198859

>>5198844
Let A be a proposition. Then (not A) is also a proposition. Falsifying A is the same as establishing the TRUTH of (not A).

Example:
Hypothesis A: The poster I'm replying to is intelligent.
Falsification: Read his post.
Conclusion: The statement (not A) is true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:39:00 2014 No.5198864 >>5198857 ⇒can't even into propositional logic Oh god, what are you doing to my sides?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:41:57 2014 No.5198871

>>5198864

Propositions are only true or false, not valid or invalid. Validity is a matter of formal coherence, not veracity.

I know veracity and validity have the same number of syllables--they start with the same letter! they even end with the same letter! But they don't mean the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:45:00 2014 No.5198887 >>5198859 >>5198851 Honestly, it would just take too much effort to explain what you're confused about. I doubt you would pay heed to the lesson, in any case. I can only hope you enroll yourself in an introductory science course come fall quarter.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:46:14 2014 No.5198891 there aren't any

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:48:11 2014 No.5198898

>>5198859
If the proposition which refutes A is proven to be false, than this proposition was only valid. Science gives you truth as long as the most valid theory isn't proven to false. However, there's only one truth, by definition, and it can't be refuted. If science is based on theories which can be proven to be false, it won't give you truth, only validity

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:49:58 2014 No.5198904 she was cuter in the thumnail

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:51:22 2014 No.5198910 >>5198657 >presupposition The greatest work of philosophy is founded on an assumption. The grossest assumption of all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:51:26 2014 No.5198911 >>5198871 We were talking about truth and not validity. If you want to discuss validity, make your own thread.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:52:50 2014 No.5198917 >>5198887 Why are you so obnoxiously retarded? I just explained some formal logic to you. Be thankful for the opportunity to learn something.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:53:10 2014 No.5198918 >>5198911 Nice dodge. A real salve for your ego, I'm sure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:54:00 2014 No.5198921 >>5198898 How dumb are you? When a theory has been falsified, then it is FALSE. This is a logical truth value.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:55:41 2014 No.5198931 >>5198918 Read the thread, doofus. The initial claim was about truth and not validity See >>5198719 and >>5198729

>>	shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 16:57:55 2014 No.5198937 >>5197860 Ever heard of Descartes? That guy did it pretty good, because he was a mathematician as well and he was trying to do it like maths.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:58:17 2014 No.5198939

>>5198917

1.You seem to think science proceeds on the basis of propositional logic, when it doesn't.

2. Your examples of propositional logic have actually been very confused and incorrectly formulated categorical syllogisms, betraying a much deeper confusion.

3. You have not once countenanced the necessity of probabilistic reasoning in determining the value of any hypothesis more complicated than "my car keys are in my other pants."

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:58:47 2014 No.5198940 >>5198921 If proposition A is proven to be false by proposition B and if proposition B is proven to be false by proposition C, then B couldn't have been true. Jesus, am I being trolled?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 16:59:24 2014 No.5198945 >>5198931 Neither of those were me. You seem confused as to whom you are actually "arguing" with.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:01:38 2014 No.5198951 >>5198931 You were also the one who implicitly claimed that propositions could be valid. That was what I was initially responding to. See >>5198864 and >>5198857

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:03:19 2014 No.5198958 >science >proving anything Pick 1

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:04:55 2014 No.5198961 >>5198958 The sun will rise in the west tomorrow. Prove me wrong. Brotip: you can't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:06:30 2014 No.5198967 >>5198961 The sun doesn't actually "rise" anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:07:34 2014 No.5198976 >>5198961 Read Hume.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:09:58 2014 No.5198985

here's why you might be inclined to believe in free will:

>it "feels like" we have free will
subjectively choosing leads to action, it's easy to imagine that the one caused the other, and subjective choosing doesn't appear to have an obvious cause, it "feels" spontaneous

>free will is just the ability for one's choices to lead to action
comaptibilists dont worry about whether our choices were caused themselves, their free will requires only that our actions be the necessary result of our desires, which is reasonable
here's why you might be inclined not to believe in free will:

>the causa sui is incoherent
nothing can be the cause of itself, for cause is not actually explanation in the way it is imagined in every day use. causal analysis is reduction. you take a phenomena and you reduce it to its functioning parts, the parts are just as much "in need of reduction" as the whole was, which is why no true explanation is given, just a summary of the course of events. Given that causal analysis is always reductive, it is incoherent that there could be a part of the human (the agency) which controls the rest but is not controlled by anything else, it wouldn't be a satisfactory reduction because the phenomena would not be reduced, it would just be repeated. once you've accepted that causa-sui is incoherent, free will becomes less attractive

>non causal forms of free will are preferably another discussion entirely
some people start equivocating when you discuss free will and talk about "levels of free will", based on how much you know, or how well you know yourself, your self control

these are all great and i grant that they have to do with freedom, i just think its not constructive to call this a discussion of free will when it is so unrelated to the concerns outlined above

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:11:17 2014 No.5198988 >>5198976 i did

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:12:03 2014 No.5198992 >>5198937 What did he do? Other than giving the D?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:13:25 2014 No.5198997 >>5198939 A scientific hypothesis is a proposition. It can be true or false. When it is falsified by science, then it is false.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:14:44 2014 No.5199006

>>5198940
An observation cannot be proven false. Observations are facts. Hypotheses in science are falsified with observations, not with other hypotheses. Why did I need to explain this to you? If you fail so hard at understanding both the scientific method AND formal logic, then please kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:15:19 2014 No.5199009 >>5198967 you should know that motion is relative, the sun rises, just not in relation to the earth as a whole, rather in relation to an observer on a spinning earth, the sun rises over the horizon

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:15:44 2014 No.5199012 >>5198945 I didn't claim they were yours, you illiterate piece of shit. I was showing you how the debate started and what it was about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:16:31 2014 No.5199015 >>5198997 You also seem to think that science is only in the business of falsifying hypothesis, which is also a deep misunderstanding of how it works.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:17:10 2014 No.5199019 >>5198958 A simple observation proves that you are uneducated.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:17:41 2014 No.5199023 >>5199012 You get pretty vicious once you're backed into a corner. I'll let off, then.

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 17:18:23 2014 No.5199026

>>5198846
I am replying to this, but what I am trying to say is actually about the whole topic.
>Therefore it can be disregarded
this is so fucking wrong.
>Yes it can!
such as this. The problem with testing the limits of science with scientific methods is that the limit of science is within the limits of scientific method, and therefore there is no way you can find something you can not explain with science using scientific method. This however does not prove science has no limits.

> but I see us as pretty free in most ways.
Disregarding metaphysics (assuming it does no exist)
Assume the universe is deterministic. This means everything you do in your whole life is predetermined. No free will.
Assume the universe is random. Then your actions are not predetermined. But in this case, the question is what is "you". The body, the brain, or the mind / soul? As we are assuming there is no metaphysics, you are a random physical system, which can not make decisions, therefore has no free will.

This being said we can have free will in a deterministic universe universe that is preprogrammed (assuming metaphysics exists) by a god knowing/able to test our decisions or all of us, in such a beginning state that will result in each of our decisions, or again a god or a collective mind of people could be directing the randomness of the universe.

On the other side of the line, we can disregard the physical universe and go for a everything is your creation / matrix type of an explanation, in which case the free will is the easiest to explain. It can even be deterministic as long as you do not observe everything so that there are multiple futures you can choose that fit the deterministic model.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:18:42 2014 No.5199028 >>5199015 How did you even come to such a retarded mistunderstanding of my posts? What is going on in your defective mind?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:19:29 2014 No.5199029 File: 307 KB, 2316x1343, becoz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5199028 I'm done now. Have a nice day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:20:12 2014 No.5199035 >>5199023 Goodbye. We won't miss you and your dumbfuckery. You've been dragging down the average IQ of this board for too long.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:21:17 2014 No.5199040 File: 51 KB, 366x349, possiblyconditional.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5199035

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:23:35 2014 No.5199049

>>5197810
I agree. all the current science says that there is no free will, because there is not actual conscious self, it is just an illusion. we are glorified organic robots. Some fucking knuckleheads will say that free will exists because quantum mechanics says random shit can happen, but that does not translate into humans having free will. It is just people who want to believe we have it grasping at straws. The current sciences says no. Until that changes the answer is no.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:24:57 2014 No.5199055 >>5199040 >>5199029 Ah, reaction images aka the last resort of a pseudo-intellectual who has been called out for his retardation and consequently tried to claim he was "only pretended".

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 17:25:31 2014 No.5199060

>>5198992
Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum
Meaning I doubt, therefore I think, I think, therefore I am.

When you are building a system of knowledge, you need starting points that you can build on (axioms in maths). He did a clever job by starting with the fact that you can not doubt you doubt. There is much more google of wikipedia can tell you.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:27:19 2014 No.5199066
File: 133 KB, 448x458, anw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5199055

How can one be a "pseudo-intellectual" when they never purported to be an actual intellectual?

Your trolling is so transparent. I am simply dumbfounded that you are still able to get such a rise out of so many.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:27:22 2014 No.5199067

>>5199049
⇒because there is not actual conscious self, it is just an illusion

What the fuck am I reading? This is semantic garbage and has nothing to do with science. First of all a conscious self cannot be an illusion because the notion of "illusion" requires a conscious self to perceive it. Secondly the reason why free will is discarded is because everything in the brain works deterministically and there is no place for any supernatural intervention.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:29:06 2014 No.5199074 >>5199066 Cry me a river.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:30:39 2014 No.5199082 >>5199074 Oh, I don't need to, I'm sure you float yourself to sleep every night.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:31:38 2014 No.5199088 >>5199082 That doesn't make any sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:33:29 2014 No.5199098 >>5199088 Think on it. You'll get it eventually.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:34:28 2014 No.5199107 >>5199098 Spoonfeed me, oh wise one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:45:08 2014 No.5199162 >>5199006 It's the other way around. Theories are meant to explain observations. Observations don't explain shit, they are just datas. For God's sake, why are you so hateful?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:46:38 2014 No.5199164 >>5199107 He means you cry your own river and fall asleep floating on it. At least that's what I got. I don't even know what you're arguing about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:49:01 2014 No.5199174 >>5199026 thanks

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:49:17 2014 No.5199176 >>5199162 Observations can falsify theories. Why are you so dumb?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:50:42 2014 No.5199181 >>5199164 Why would he use the exact same metaphor I used? That's a pretty lame retort.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:52:05 2014 No.5199186 >>5199176 Of course. But you need a theory in order to support this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:52:58 2014 No.5199192 >>5199181 Consistency? I don't know, man. He's your lover.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:53:20 2014 No.5199200 >>5199186 Nope. Please go back to 3rd grade and learn what science is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:54:36 2014 No.5199202 >>5197800 source?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 17:55:30 2014 No.5199208 >>5199176 You can just modify the theory to fit the data though. You have to open your mind up to alternative realities bro.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:02:18 2014 No.5199237

>>5198108
Not missing the point at all. Sure there is a whole mechanism in your brain that explain HOW the action have been made, but it is very naive to think that this brain mechanism explain WHY an action have been made. Science cannot prove that freedom does not exist, because, by it's own principles it only explain mechanism, the "how" of something. To say that the "why" of an action is also explained by brain chemical is call reductionism and it is WIDELY contested (this idea of reductionism is very old too, it doesnt come from science, but from modern philosophers).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:03:24 2014 No.5199241 >>5199202 Holy shit, why is /lit/ so sexually frustrated? It's only a picture of a woman reading a book. She doesn't even look like she's doing porn.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:04:39 2014 No.5199247 >>5199237 There is not difference between "how" and "why".

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 18:10:08 2014 No.5199273

Why do people post in these troll orgies? If anyone says "science is objective and doesn't depend on feelings", don't reply. It's trolling, obviously.

OP: the brain is not fully understood. Certain metabolic processes are contingent on the outcome of quantum fields. Since the entire brain can't be proved to be a deterministic structure, it's possible that there is some sort of "free will" or soul that is determining these quantum fields. Other than that, proofs will rely on some sort of induction about humans being too complex to reduce

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:17:00 2014 No.5199308 >>5199273 >it's possible that there is some sort of "free will" or soul that is determining these quantum fields You serious?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:17:59 2014 No.5199313 >>5199308 Look at who it is, of course he is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:19:55 2014 No.5199321 >>5199308 In my browser the post is filtered, so it's most likely a tripfag. I guess this answers your question. Yes, the tripfags on /lit/ are sufficiently stupid to post such anti-intellectual garbage unironically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:22:24 2014 No.5199331 >>5199313 >>5199321 Into the filter he goes.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 18:28:13 2014 No.5199364

>>5199308
Yes, it's epistemologically possible. I don't think it's likely at all and I am a hard determinist, anyway,

I think proof of the entire determinism of the brain is proof of no free will, yes?

>>5199321
Says the person who is dumb enough to thing use of a trip code correlates to intelligence.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:28:59 2014 No.5199368

>>5199247
Oh, this is not a scientifical statement, but a metaphysical. I suggest you to look at history of philosophy to understand how modern philosophy stopped caring about the "why" (their reason was far from being the most rational, and the whole scientific project is based on it).

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 18:29:17 2014 No.5199369 >>5199331 It will be such a loss to all of 4chan that someone as stupid as you won't read my posts. It's truly the end of times.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:32:59 2014 No.5199385 >>5199208 This.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:34:48 2014 No.5199393 >>5199331 But make sure to filter only him and not all tripfags. There are some good tripcode users whose posts you don't want to miss, for example Feminister.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:52:23 2014 No.5199490

>>5199067
no. there is no conscious self. If you have no free will, because you are just acting in a deterministic way, then you have no actual 'self.' It is called an illusion only because the way people feel, like they have agency, is not the reality. It is like saying that my laptop has a conscious self. It does not. I can sit and type into it thoughts for it to have and actions for it to execute, but it is just a regular, unconscious piece of matter. Humans are the same way essentially.

A computer can have sensors and interact with it's surroundings based on what it perceives, but the computer itself is not conscious. Consciousness as we understand it does not exist. You are no more or less conscious than the computer you are using or the chair you are sitting on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:54:20 2014 No.5199503 >>5199490 You don't know shit about neuroscience. The hard problem of consciousness is a very important unsolved question. Ask Sam Harris.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:55:33 2014 No.5199508 >>5199490 By what mechanism does subjective experience arise from neuronal activity? Can you link peer reviewed papers? You totally sound like someone who knows what he's talking about and not like a 13 year old talking out of his ass.

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 18:59:05 2014 No.5199525

>>5199490
>because you are just acting in a deterministic way
this does not prove anything because read the second last part of >>5199026 .

Watch the part about the explanatory gap in this one. You have a self, because you have perception, which is different from some biological progress.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 18:59:17 2014 No.5199529 >>5199490 Maybe YOU are too dysfunctional to be conscious, but I am certainly self-aware and capable of subjective experience.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:02:06 2014 No.5199541

>>5199503
>>5199508
>>5199529

Since do know about neuroscience I know that there isn't a point in my arguing with you, you are going to think what you want to think, or rather, just think what you do think.

This guy on TED talks explains it pretty well though in basic terms, and if you want to learn more it can lead you to some resources.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness

Don't just take this guys word or my word though, go look at the data.

>>	shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 19:03:06 2014 No.5199544 >>5199525 www.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08 forgot to add a link to the video

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:03:28 2014 No.5199547 >>5199541 ⇒Dennett My sides. That's like linking a creationist in a thread about evolution.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:04:43 2014 No.5199554 >>5199541 Subjective experience happens and requires a scientific explanation. Science will continue to research it, irregardless of whether it makes a retarded philosopher butthurt. Deal with it, knucklehead.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:06:43 2014 No.5199568

>>5199541
>think

What does that mean? Didn't you just say you don't have a consciousness? How can you even use the word "think" while making such retarded claims? How do you manage to keep a straight face while writing all this underaged sophistry trash?

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 19:08:54 2014 No.5199577 Jesus, this thread is brain cancer

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:11:57 2014 No.5199593 >>5199541 We were talking about science, not philosophy. Consciousness is a topic of neuroscience and doesn't go away just because you or Dennett throw a tantrum and stomp their feet. Back to the liberal arts department with you and stay there.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:18:20 2014 No.5199622

>>5199554
>>5199544
subjective experience=|= consiousness

Two mirrors can have subjective reflections of an object, it doesn't mean the mirrors are conscious, it means they are different.

>>5199568
>>5199547
you ought to watch the video and do some research. It is more like linking to an atheist in a thread about Christianity.

>>5199568
put it this way, "I think, therefore I am" is a lie.

I'm out. Not gonna argue cause, again, no point. You will think what ever you think based on the variables that have already happened to determine the thoughts you have and how you will react. All i can do is throw out the seeds and hope they take.

>>5199593
This thread is about the existence of free will, and therefore philosophy. Besides that science completely supports Dennett. Just because we don't know everything about it yet doesn't change the fact that literally all the current science is point toward these conclusions. It's like we are in the past and a bunch of scientists are telling you that the earth probably revolves around the sun, but they don't know exactly how, and you are an idiot on the internet who thinks they know better than the experts.

see ya

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:20:25 2014 No.5199630 >>5197892 >Not knowing anything about philosophy of science. Where do you think the rigorous methodology of science came from? How do you think it was determined?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:21:57 2014 No.5199645

>>5199622
⇒Besides that science completely supports Dennett.

Neuroscientists largely agree that Dennett is pointlessly fighting a retarded straw man ("hurr durr everyone who believes in consciousness must be a dualist") and that this quixotic nonsense is rather detrimental to actual efforts in consciousness research.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:24:03 2014 No.5199660 >>5199622 You are on par with our most cancerous tripfags. Can you please get a tripcode so I can filter you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:24:56 2014 No.5199666 >>5199645 show me that neuroscientists think that, and I will reconsider my position

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:26:04 2014 No.5199673 >>5199622 If you honestly deny your own consciousness for the sole purpose of being pseudo-intellectual, then don't expect a better response than mocking and ridicule.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:28:19 2014 No.5199683 >>5199666 Please don't reconsider your position. We don't want to lose a great clown. Your posts are top tier entertainment.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:29:41 2014 No.5199689

>>5197800
Science says next to nothing on the existence or lack of existence of free will.

Are you saying that because we can describe the function of certain aspects of our brain, we do not really have autonomy?

Neuroscience says nothing about personal autonomy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:31:22 2014 No.5199695 So, what is a good contemporary introduction into the question of free will?

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 19:31:28 2014 No.5199696 >>5199689 Don't try to minimize. Most of the brain can be expressed algorithmically.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sun Jul 27 19:31:48 2014 No.5199698

>>5199026
>such as this. The problem with testing the limits of science with scientific methods is that the limit of science is within the limits of scientific method, and therefore there is no way you can find something you can not explain with science using scientific method. This however does not prove science has no limits.
What is there that cannot be explained with science? That-Which-Cannot® isn't good enough.

Everything else is just "assuming" and "therefores" word math that made no sense or proved one thing or another.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:34:02 2014 No.5199702 >>5199695 Sam Harris' book.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:35:02 2014 No.5199706 >>5199702 >Top kek I tip my fedora to you good sir.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 19:35:53 2014 No.5199711

>>5199698
Absolutely there are things that cannot be viewed with science. Try everything. If science models the objective world, then from what we know in science, it's impossible to build a machine that can hold more data than there is data in the universe. Since we can't even deal with data that large, we can't perform science on everything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:39:27 2014 No.5199723 >>5198697 What about the birth of consciousness in the first place, amidst this infinity? Science is pragmatism, useful consistencies. Not truth. Arrow, you're pretty rotten, you know that?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:41:22 2014 No.5199731 File: 14 KB, 508x376, 1282569514342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5199702

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:42:14 2014 No.5199734

if free will doesn't exist then why are you rebuking others for thinking it doesn't exist, when their thought process is only dictated by their lack of free will? is your lack of free will not allowing you to do otherwise?

furthermore, why would you not want free will to exist? is the thought not incredibly depressing or is it just comforting to know anything you do has an excuse?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:42:39 2014 No.5199735 >>5197800 There isn't an argument for or against free will that hasn't been refuted; there probably aren't any arguments at all that haven't been refuted. The problem of free will isn't whether we have it or not, it's how we define it.

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 19:43:56 2014 No.5199744

>>5199698
Science can not prove if science can explain everything (positively) . It is the same question as the limits of mind. We can not imagine / explain it so there is no way of saying if there is anything beyond it. If we could think of anything like it, it would not be beyond the limits. The same principle applies for science.

The rest is assuming all possible 4 cases
which are:
(deterministic, non-deterministic) x (metaphysics exist, not)
We have to make an assumption because we do not know which is the real case and science can not prove if metaphysics exists, because science deals with physics that we can observe. Tell which case does not make sense

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:47:06 2014 No.5199753

>>5199673
I only deny it because It can't be true. As far as I can tell, Dennett is simply taking the logical leap that must be taken once you conclude that there is no freewill, that we are only acting out the effects of deterministic processes. It all makes sense to me. Why would I be any different than a calculator or a simple machine? I am matter and energy moving in reaction to other matter and energy, I am not conscious. A book can have thoughts and feeling, written into it, but it is still just a lifeless piece of matter.

Please, can someone explain to me how you can logically reconcile not having any freewill and at the same the existence of a conscious self?

It's like if I take a marionette and move it around and make it talk. It doesn't make the puppet conscious, it just makes it move and think how I cause it to move. If I have no free will then I am essentially a puppet being made to move by other matter. My thoughts are just the product of energy and matter interacting in deterministic ways.

I really would like someone to explain this to me, cause sometimes it seems like it would be nice to have a different view, but this is the view that seems most logical, given what we know about reality.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:47:21 2014 No.5199754

>>5199734

>Why would you want to think something bad

Because it is an accurate reflection of reality? Why would you not just lie to yourself and pretend that everything is perfect if that argument holds?

>Why attack someone for a belief that they can't control because no free will

Because they hope to change this (ostensibly) erroneous belief? If someone thinks something that is not true, whether they chose to think it or not, obviously it is right to challenge it. When has this ever not been the case?

We don't refrain from attacking the beliefs of Christians because they didn't choose to have those beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:49:39 2014 No.5199759 >>5198337 Generally people take issue with even calling that free will.

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 19:50:32 2014 No.5199762

>>5199711
This being a good point, is not completely bullet-proof, because we could find a way to recursively (or in a better way) to store more data. But it remembers me the problem of computability (the limits of computability is the same as the limit of science). Assuming P is a program / algorithm and I is a set of all possible input. We can create a program T, that test if the program comes to an end (terminates, does not get in an endless loop) and we can do this for each P, but we can not create a program T that tests every P. The proof is complicated, but you can google it. Not completely relevant though.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 19:52:37 2014 No.5199767

>>5199744
Of course metaphysics don't exist because existence is a construct of physics. They do exist in the sense that "Turing completeness" of a system of physics is impossible within itself; metaphysics really then just means the language we use that does not intension complete understanding

I mean, a tree is purely physical, but there's no way to describe a tree that fully encapsulates every phenomenon that interacts with the tree. Thus, all language is metaphysical.

Of course, language could be described in purely physical terms by some sort of metaphysical being, but there's no reason to consider that idea.

I mean, I could say that a large magical seahorse created everything merely one second ago in it's absolute state and just impregnated us with memories. It's epistemologically possible but there is no reason to care about such things

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:53:07 2014 No.5199769 >>5198066 >tfw lonely ape on rock

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 19:54:28 2014 No.5199776 lit feels like an acid conversation

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 19:54:51 2014 No.5199777

>>5199762
Yeah it may be possible to process an extremely large set of data once, you're right there. But for science to be possible, you need at least two sets of data, which would demand that the whole set of data in the universe be stored for a period of time.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sun Jul 27 19:54:55 2014 No.5199778 >>5199744 Clearer. Thank you.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:01:07 2014 No.5199800

>>5199754

>Why would you not just lie to yourself and pretend that everything is perfect if that argument holds?

being able to use lack of free will as a crutch for your failings seems more like an "everything is perfect" mentality if you're able to think in such a way. the opposite would be realizing that you're basically a robot, and if you're not autistic then this should probably make you want to kill yourself. you're not really approaching the question properly anyway, I want to know how or why you cope with this fact, don;'t just reiterate "it's true becuz le science"

people don;'t change their beliefs often, if you spent anytime studying human nature you'd know that, your whole crusade is futile

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:02:03 2014 No.5199805

>>5199734
I don't know who you are addressing, but I hold the view that free will does not exist, and I try to show this to others because I have no choice.

Sometimes I think that if everyone understood that free will is not real, that it might solve many problems in society, because people would have less reason to hate each other, but I couldn't tell you why I think that because I don't know.

There is a simple thought exercise that anyone can do to show themselves that they have no free will.

When you play that game, where you ask 'why' about any facet of reality,'why is the sky blue?' for instance, and you keep asking why until you are forced to confront absurdism- that game. When you play that game, try asking it about your own actions. Why did I post on /lit/? Why do I smoke dope? Why do I choose to live? Why do I like this song? etc.

If you play the game correctly, you will find you don't know why you do anything. Keep thinking about it and ask yourself how you can have free will when you can't even explain your actions. Whatever choice you make, ever, you can't do anything but make that choice at that moment.

You don't have free will, because you can't choose the kind of choices you will choose. Following this further you will eventually get to the Dennett view about consciousness too.

I find it comforting. It is not an excuse, it is reality. It is like Bill Hicks says, this is just a ride. None of this matters. There is no reason to be worried, or scared, or feel bad ever, because it is just a ride.

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 20:02:21 2014 No.5199806

>>5199767
>because existence is a construct of physics
We need a definition here. Metaphysics is what we can not observe by messing physical quantities.
There is reason to care about such things because they might be true and they can actually effect physical universe, the existence of which we can question. We can not know if it is true because it is possible to build sets of statements starting with both assumptions. We can only prove one of them wrong when it is in a conflict with itself, but I do not see one in any case, meaning it is ok to choose any of them as a beginning point. I _believe_ in free will and do not care if I am doing wrong by it because it would not be my fault anyway, and therefore base on the existence of metaphysics in on of the possible scenarios I have talked about. If physics exists or it is all in my mind is what I actually do not care about.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:03:56 2014 No.5199812 >>5199776 it's just /sci/'s fault

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:05:26 2014 No.5199820

>>5198022
>side note: i believe that our consciousness (and perception of free will) is necesarry to keep us from going insane. a species smart enough to understand that the brain cannot be controlled must be tricked into thinking it can because otherwise we would realize our prison and go insane
you would need to be conscious in order to "go insane"

if we didn't have consciousness we would just be moving about and completing tasks

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:05:50 2014 No.5199821 >>5199753 What the fuck does consciousness have to do with free will? Subjective experience happens obviously (you are experiencing it right now) but it has no effects. It's an epiphenomenon. How is this too hard to understand for you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:07:49 2014 No.5199828 I choose to believe op is a massive cunt

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:09:08 2014 No.5199832

>>5199800

Right okay so either I accept you're right or I'm autistic? Sharp reasoning there mate.

And I sincerely doubt that anybody uses Hard Determinism as a crutch for their failings. In fact, the feeling of guilt for failings of various kinds, I would wager, is probably semi-impossible to extinguish if attempted in isolation rather than as part of a group. I've never personally found a strong argument for free will and yet I still feel responsible to some degree if things go wrong; although of course I don't let this impinge on my course of action because there is no reason to believe in responsibility as such.

Besides, whether the idea is horrible or not doesn't mean that it isn't true. If my actions are a product of my biological nature then obviously I can't be said to be free. If my actions are a consequence of my upbringing then I can hardly see how I can be free. Presumably they are a combination of both, so how can I be free?

I cope fine with this fact. As I've said, I can't escape some feeling of guilt if something I've done has adverse side effects, but then I also feel guilty if I do something objectionable when nobody would hold me morally responsible for it anyway. In fact, I think everyone copes with misappropriated feelings of guilt at some point; if you can cope with those, you can cope with Hard Determinism.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:12:40 2014 No.5199851

>>5199800
>being able to use lack of free will as a crutch for your failings seems more like an "everything is perfect" mentality if you're able to think in such a way. the opposite would be realizing that you're basically a robot, and if you're not autistic then this should probably make you want to kill yourself

Being a robot is exactly what the human condition is like, but that does not necessitate suicide.

Look at Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus. Our struggle for meaning in a meaningless world is like Sisyphus pushing the bolder up the mountain for ever, but beyond that, Sisyphus is essentially a robot. He has to do actions in accordance with is programming. He knows this, yet some how he accepts it and learns to be happy, despite the deterministic nature of his life.

How people actually react to the realization they have no free will is of course, beyond their control (because no free will, duh). But I am constantly surprised by the amount of people who are blind to that realization. It is like people who want to keep believing they will go to heaven. People seem inclined to believe whatever theory they find the most reassuring over what actually makes sense. Can't blame them though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:13:47 2014 No.5199856 >>5198432 everything is the same

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 20:14:00 2014 No.5199857

>>5199806
>We need a definition here. Metaphysics is what we can not observe by messing physical quantities.

What if part of the universe cannot be described by quantities? Mathematical realism is not proved. Your version of metaphysics more accurately means metamathematical. I don't believe "true" metaphysics exist, and thus, metaphysics is just part of the nature of unknowing.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:19:48 2014 No.5199892

>>5199821
sure you can say it exists, but it doesn't exist in the way people understand it to exist. Like I said, a mirror can have a subjective experience as well as a human can, because they are both equally conscious. In a world where everything is determined there can't be a subjective anything because all things only exist objectively. Saying I am having a subjective experience is no different than saying a rock is having a subjective experience, cause we are both just matter that is moving around in deterministic ways.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:22:13 2014 No.5199904 >>5199892 You are so full of shit. Just making assertions doesn't make something true. I'm pretty sure most people don't dispute that we are 'just matter moving around in deterministic ways', why does this mean we don't have subjective experience?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:25:02 2014 No.5199914 >>5199892 Can you propose a scientifically testable mechanism how subjective experience arises?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:25:19 2014 No.5199916

>>5199696
Even if it can, that says very little about autonomy, or at least very little conclusive. Mathematically describing, even predicting decisions does not negate the existence of personal autonomy.

Even in some sort of mathematically deterministic system, personal autonomy can exist. Compatibilism should be considered.

shiro !!jl0pQfo/+Bb Sun Jul 27 20:28:05 2014 No.5199929

>>5199857
As told before, there is no <scientific> way we can prove either it does or not, so it is more of a belief really. It was a nice discussion going on, but sleep is about to take me, so I am leaving. Nice to see it is still possible to discussions other than OP is a faget.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:28:11 2014 No.5199930 >>5199904 Subjective experiences do not mean we are conscious. A computer has subjective experiences, but you wouldn't say the computer is conscious. It's experiences are the product of it's programming, not consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:29:22 2014 No.5199938 >>5199914 define subjective experience.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:29:35 2014 No.5199939 File: 42 KB, 500x415, full retard meme.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5199930

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:30:50 2014 No.5199951 >>5199930 >A computer has subjective experiences So that's why I feel a little guilty when I start shut down

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:30:53 2014 No.5199952

>>5199930

>Assertions no reasons

I never claimed that 'subjective experiences do mean we are conscious'. What reason do you have to believe that a computer has subjective experience? How are you even defining consciousness and how are you defining subjective experience?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:31:57 2014 No.5199956 >>5199930 >Subjective experiences do not mean we are conscious. A computer has subjective experiences 10/10 You're the master baiter. Funniest troll of the week.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 20:33:46 2014 No.5199972

>>5199916
I don't understand exactly what you mean. Of course, the decisions you make matter. It's not like we have no free will, therefore nothing matters. That idea is non sequitur. I mean, it is true that every action we make is a result of the state of the physical before we made that decision, absolutely. But that is different from saying "one human being will be able to predict with absolute certainty what another person will do". In fact, this idea is necessarily false past one immediate "step" (I have to use time for the sake of clarity, but time doesn't even really work this way). You see, the brain's state is constantly determined by a huge set of information, and effectively determining the absolute actions of one human would necessitate knowledge of absolutely everything. But this knowledge is not attainable. So humans will always be a statistical element in reality, even if we can absolutely know it's determined

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:37:07 2014 No.5199991 >>5199805 I pheeeel you man

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 20:37:47 2014 No.5199995 >>5199929 Science is the most important methodology humans have ever developed, but it's important to know how to apply it and what it is. Science cannot prove things in that sense

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:39:22 2014 No.5200007 >>5199995 why is anything more important than something else?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:39:23 2014 No.5200009

>>5199972
Right. My point was that even in such a situation, where hard determinism seems pretty clear. If that is how things are, it doesn't really negate personal autonomy. In that sense, free will still exists even within such a system.

A mathematical or biological component to our existence, even if those are the primary components, do not destroy the notion of free will, or at least not all notions of free will.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:40:41 2014 No.5200017 >>5200007 Something which is useful to know is important. Something which isn't, isn't. So for example, literature is not important.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 20:42:42 2014 No.5200031

>>5200007
Not in the objective, but humans don't experience the objective with complete understanding. Schizophrenic babbling is less important than "Fire!" to me, subjectively.

>>5200009
So you think free will lies necessarily in the subjective reality of being human, not as an absolute truth of the physical world? I would agree to that

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:43:23 2014 No.5200035 >>5200009 If you defined free action as 'originating in that agent's beliefs and desires', would this come close to what you mean by 'free will' then?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:50:34 2014 No.5200063

>>5199951
>>5199939
>>5199952
>>5199956

What is AI? What is programming? I put my ipod on shuffle and it picks a some. I program an algorithmic, aleotoric piece of music and the computer makes decisions, subjectively to create that music. It's a simple brain I control. Does a fetus have a subjective experience? A camera can see. A computer can write a poem. You can't see the program or all the variables that make up your own brain, but you can see all the ones that make a computer. One day maybe you will be alive to see robots who act like humans and you might come to realize what you really are, but more likely you will never see it. You are just an organic computer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:52:57 2014 No.5200072 >>5200063 Actually i'm a pebble passing a turing test

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:53:33 2014 No.5200073 >>5200063 The problem is that we don't know much about subjective experience, we can't talk about it clearly. Also, by your rationale a toaster and a bicycle also have subjective experience. Good luck with that lined of reasoning man.

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 20:54:07 2014 No.5200076 >>5200063 The desktop computer you are using is fundamentally different from a human brain. They cannot be described as analogues.

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 20:55:10 2014 No.5200078 >>5200073 What do you mean? Literally everything you can possibly experience is subjective.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:55:55 2014 No.5200082 >>5200073 >Also, by your rationale a toaster and a bicycle also have subjective experience. I completely agree that that they do have subjective experiences. I think a rock has a subjective experience too.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:56:45 2014 No.5200086 >>5200031 >>5200035 I think how I see it is pretty close to these suggestions, yeah. Free will doesn't have to be some magical or metaphysical property of existence necessarily.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:57:15 2014 No.5200087

>>5200078

What do I mean in saying that we don't know much about it?

Well, the fact that 'Literally everything you can possibly experience is subjective' surely ensures that we cannot speak of it clearly? If there is nothing to differentiate or compare it to it is impossible to understand it. For example, how would you describe 'existence'? You cannot - because there is nothing to compare it to as it encompasses everything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:58:17 2014 No.5200091 >>5200076 I was under the impression that they were both atoms, and fundamentally the same.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:59:05 2014 No.5200095

>>5200086

Well then your argument is hardly tenable.

Taking my definition (although I recognize that I, not you, wrote it) a crack addict, whose addiction drives them to steal, is as free as one could possibly ever be.

But to say that is obviously bizarre and counter-productive; the whole reason we need the idea of free will is to explain why such people cannot be held accountable as opposed to others.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 20:59:14 2014 No.5200097

>>5200082
>>5200063
⇒hurr durr everything is conscious

Panpsychism, animism and hylopathism belong on >>>/x/. You're a pre-socratic mystic. Please catch up on more than 2500 years of cultural evolution and scientific progress which you clearly missed out on.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:02:06 2014 No.5200105

>>5200082

If literally everything has subjective experience then it is a totally meaningless term. And if it is a totally meaningless term, why aren't you arguing that?

I don't even believe that we have reason to believe that Machines don't have subjective experience, but your argument is fundamentally bollocks. If you want to prove that a thing has subjective experience, you need to first establish was it is in precise terms. You haven't done that. Moreover, I'm not even sure that most people who are contradicting you believe that Machines necessarily can't have 'subjective experience', its just that your fucking horrendous lack of reasoning power has prejudiced everyone against you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:03:16 2014 No.5200108 File: 14 KB, 245x251, 1275937249093s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 21:06:04 2014 No.5200120

>>5200087
I don't know about your specific comment, but yes, the nature of our subjectivity does mean there are limits.

Take certain ideas like Wittgenstein's: "The world is the totality of facts." It sounds appealing, but it's still a subjective truth because facts are a subjective construct.

You're going to mistake what I'm saying here so let me explain as clear as I can hope to be: when I say, "there is a spider climbing up a waterspout", there may be something absolute that is being referred to. For that statement itself to be objective, though, it would demand that all words have unique, absolute referents. This is clearly not the case. In order for that sentence to have meaning, we must first have two people who can understand what these symbols mean. If two people spend time using basic intuitions and faculties to establish meaning for these words.

But in any case, that only pertains to language. You're mistaking the truth that there is objectivity with the idea that we understand objectively

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 21:07:09 2014 No.5200124 >>5200091 That's a very poor concept of sameness.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:10:01 2014 No.5200135

>>5200120

No I'm not at all, you've totally missed my point because what you're saying is entirely irrelevant.

I'm not talking about truth, objective or subjective at all. I'm just saying that if you adopt such a loose definition of 'subjective experience', it means almost nothing by any standard.

What is confusing about that?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:14:58 2014 No.5200151

>>5200097
it's like this, we can build a computer that has AI. One day AI will be sufficiently sophisticated to be indistinguishable from a human. The computer won't suddenly be made conscious when this happens, It will just be a more sophisticated computer program. Everything is essentially unconscious, because consciousness is an illusion, please catch up on a current neuroscience, or just watch Dan's ted Talk if you don't have time and just want cliff notes.

>>5200105
There has to be freewill for there to be a subjective experience. it the term is to have any significant meaning there has to be agency. Otherwise it is just a term meat to describe what different deterministic things are happening in different parts of the universe.

I look to my left and I see a stereo making sound. i don't think, 'oh look at that stereo, having a subjective experience' i just accept that the stereo is making sound because of all the physical variables that cause it to make that sound. Why does the stereo choose to emit the sounds of Sonny Sharrock? because that's the album it is playing. If the variables were different then the 'choice' of the sound the stereo would be different.

Now I look to my right, and I see a guy whose talking and singing. I don't look at him and think, 'oh he is having a subjective experience' I acknowledge that his thoughts, the sounds he chooses to make, are just the result of a large number of physical variables interacting. He has no more choice than my stereo about the sound he chooses to make. Neither have free will, neither are conscious. they are bout just physical objects obeying physical laws, nothing more.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 21:16:55 2014 No.5200161

>>5200135
I uh, don't know what you're saying. Are you saying humans can have extrahuman experiences? Because not only is that a contradiction in terms, it is necessary because human experience does not cover everything there is. Again, I'll bring up the proof that it is impossible to hold more data in a physical space than there is data in the physical space itself. Since humans can't know everything, everything we say and do has aspect. Of course there are objects, and we can speak on them obliquely, but I don't think your idea necessarily follows and it will absolutely lead to false conclusions. Ignoring the nature of human subjectivity does not make things more possible or anything, it's an epistemological crutch that lets you prop up "absolutes" that aren't absolute.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:19:11 2014 No.5200171

>>5200151

>There has to be free will for there to be subjective experience

Why?

>If the term is to have any significant meaning there has to be agency

Why?

>Neither have free will, neither are conscious. they are bout just physical objects obeying physical laws, nothing more.

From where have you drawn the conclusion that 'physical things obeying physical laws' excludes subjective experience?

There must be subjective experience because both you and I are having it right now. But there's no reason to believe that it's anything more than a consequence of the way our brains function, or at least that seems the most likely explanation.

Why does it have to involve something super-physical?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:26:09 2014 No.5200193

>>5200161

How have you extracted 'humans can have extrahuman experience' from what I just said?

I'm saying that your definition of subjective experience, which describes rocks and bicycles as holding subjective experience, is so loose as to be meaningless.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:31:02 2014 No.5200213

>>5200151
⇒The computer won't suddenly be made conscious when this happens
By whom? The holy spirit? Aliums? Illuminati? Kid, you have no fucking idea what AI means. Machine learning doesn't give a shit about consciousness.

⇒because consciousness is an illusion
That's like saying "your CPU is a software". Illusions cannot exist without a conscious observer. Who else should be fooled by the illusion?

⇒please catch up on a current neuroscience
... says the simpleton who believes in hylopathism. But please feel free to link me to a peer reviewed paper solving the hard problem of consciousness.

⇒or just watch Dan's ted Talk
I read a text of him ("Quining Qualia") and it was the most cringeworthy thing I ever saw. He literally presented 17 arguments (so called "intuition pumps") AGAINST his stance and zero arguments in favor of his stance, yet he ended his text by claiming victory. I cannot take someone seriously who manages to write an essay with the intent to convince the reader of the opposite of his own claims.

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 21:35:03 2014 No.5200230 >>5200193 Oh, but that's not me. I didn't make that claim at all

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:44:01 2014 No.5200262

>>5200171
Look, I'm not going to argue any more about it. If you get it you get it, if don't, maybe you might someday, buy probably not.

If anything the Occam's razor dictates that we should go with the theory that consciousness does not exist, simply because that theory makes the fewest assumptions. If you assert the assumption that consciousness exists, then you should prove that, rather than blindly accept that it exists on faith, especially when there is a perfectly reasonable working theory of reality that precludes this unnecessary assumption.

With out free will, saying something has a subjective experience is just the same as saying 'things move.' or 'things happen.' Sure, I have thoughts, but they are completely determined by an objective process. When I think thoughts and make the decision to make a sound, it is no different than my stereo making calculations to determine the sound it makes. How can you people not see this?

oh right, you can't see what you can't see.

If I could take a realistic human robot, and send it to your job or your school or your mom's basement, and you talked to it everyday, and it passed the turning test in every way, and it seemed to have original ideas and spoke intelligent thoughts, you would think it was conscious. but if one day I showed up and told you that I was controlling the robot the whole time, that all it's actions were determined by me, you would suddenly think that the robot was not conscious, and only seemed that way, when in reality it was a robot whose actions were determined by other forces. I was just pulling the puppet strings the whole time.

Yet for some reason when people accept that all human actions are determined, and that free will does not exist, that other things are controlling the actions and thoughts we have, they still think that they are conscious.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove the negative, it is on all of you to prove the positive, that consciousness exists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:45:39 2014 No.5200270 >>5200213 see >>5200262

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:47:06 2014 No.5200273 >>5200262 This is something I reasoned to myself at age 16. If people can't understand such a simple concept you cannot explain it to them. It hurts their world view too much.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:48:30 2014 No.5200279

>>5200262
⇒the theory that consciousness does not exist
Consciousness is not a theory. Consciousness is an observation that requires a scientific explanation.

⇒saying something has a subjective experience is just the same as saying 'things move.' or 'things happen.'
Subjective experience is a phenomenon that requires scientific explanation. Saying that subjective experience is somehow caused physically is a mindless and trivial platitude with no explanatory value.

Sorry for shattering your world view, kid, but the goal of science is to explain things. Science does not obey your wishful thinking.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 21:53:31 2014 No.5200307

>>5200262
>With out free will, saying something has a subjective experience is just the same as saying 'things move.' or 'things happen.' Sure, I have thoughts, but they are completely determined by an objective process. When I think thoughts and make the decision to make a sound, it is no different than my stereo making calculations to determine the sound it makes. How can you people not see this?

Your stereo is not the source of it's calculations. The "calculations" are just a human-engineered physical phenomenon. At the level you are talking, there are atoms and particles that interact by some rules. Sure. But that doesn't mean exactly what's happening is the same.

First off, reductionism is probable but not complete. A human is not the same as their atoms because we don't have full knowledge of humans and atoms. There is a gap in knowledge, we can't yet model everything a human does through atomic interactions. This doesn't mean there necessarily is extra-atomic interactions, but it's not proved that there isn't.

It's a problem, then, to say what a hammer is. Try reading Heidegger if you want to know more of why reducing a hammer to it's atoms fails to describe hammers.

You're making the mistake that just because the world is determined, it must necessarily follow that humans should view everything as a determined system. It's true, but no practically useful knowledge that comes from it.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:56:47 2014 No.5200330

>>5200262

The fact is that consciousness is a nebulous concept; I don't believe that I could define it and none of my beliefs depend on it.

>How can you people not see this?

But I've established that I am a hard determinist. However inelegantly put, I agree with your assertion that subjective experience is just a physical process. That was the point that I made in my post.

You've totally ignored what I said; 'Why does it have to involve something super-physical?' - could be changed to 'Why need we believe that subjective experience is anything more than simply physical?'. I don't really see what you are arguing against in this post since you seem to be agreeing with my point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 21:58:46 2014 No.5200342 >>5200307 >A human is not the same as their atoms because we don't have full knowledge of humans and atoms. Since when does our understanding have any bearing on what 'is'?

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:10:43 2014 No.5200399

>>5200273
yeah. thanks for posting. I feel less alone.

>>5200330
>>5200279

do you think the robot in this hypothetical situation was conscious?>>5200262
Why or why not? How is the will of the robot different from the will of the person if both are equally determined?

In my view, the thoughts and actions of the robot are just occurring. They are a phenomena we can observe, the robot itself can observe his own thoughts if the controller determines him to. The idea of something being 'conscious' or having a subjective experience is just an unnecessary arbitrary description of certain physical phenomena. To say I am conscious because there are thoughts in my head is silly. I could shout my thoughts into a cave and then the cave would have a thought while it echoes. I can set a trap to catch a rabbit and the trap will choose to activate when the rabbit moves it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:12:51 2014 No.5200410 >>5200399 >How is the will of the robot >will* sorry, I meant consciousness* how is the consciousness of the robot different from the consciousness of the man is both are equally determined?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:16:47 2014 No.5200430 >>5200410 you can also substitute 'consciousness' for 'subjective experience'

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:17:12 2014 No.5200431 >>5200342 Because we don't have access to what is. That's the problem of subjectivity

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:17:20 2014 No.5200434 >>5200399 If I had a definition of consciousness perhaps I could say. But I'll reiterate that I've never professed a reliance on consciousness in my views.

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:19:13 2014 No.5200439 >>5200410 Because consciousness comes from a specific arrangement of atoms, one which is not present in a computer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:21:02 2014 No.5200445 >>5200431 We don't have any access at all to what 'is'? Right. Sounds tenable. I suggest it must be pretty difficult to have any sort of coherent thought or argument when you have no objective truth to moor yourself to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:22:05 2014 No.5200449 >>5200439 But the point of the guy's analogy is that the computer he mentions is identical in every way to a human...

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:26:28 2014 No.5200472 >>5200445 You are moored to the objective, but may not understand it. Human existence is incredibly humble, really. >>5200449 Then he is just wrong.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:27:30 2014 No.5200476

>>5200439
I can picture a dipshit like you being put on trial in a robot populated court of law in the future and insisting that you are innocent because the feminized android you desperately tried to rape to satisfy your sickly pathetic libido after your own species found you unsuitable to mate with, 'wasn't a specific arrangement of atoms that constitutes conscious'.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:30:52 2014 No.5200490

>>5200472

>then he is just wrong.

Wow okay nice refutation. 'He is just wrong', I guess that will suffice in response to your other objection?

>You are moored to the objective, but may not understand it.

Still not quite seeing how this demonstrates the existence of free will

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:33:14 2014 No.5200503 /lit/ is either the best board or the worst board. I don't know which.

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:33:30 2014 No.5200505 >>5200476 Okay. Go write a science fiction book about my trial, and until you're finished please stop posting on /lit/.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:35:41 2014 No.5200521

>>5200490
I don't believe in free will to any capacity

>>5200503
If you can get people to starting talking through how they are using words and why they think what they do, it's good. Sometimes it's hard for people, myself included, to remember that good debate is importantly a hashing out of meaning and ideas more than a battle of reasoning

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:36:14 2014 No.5200524 >>5200505 it will be an updated version of Albert Camus' The Stranger. It will be a future classic that hipsters and weebo robots will spam on an image board in the future.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:36:14 2014 No.5200525 >>5200503 Considering the presence of someone who apparently doesn't understand how a hypothetical situation works it's probably safe to go with 'worst'

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:41:14 2014 No.5200537 >>5200521 >I don't believe in free will to any capacity Then why are you attempting to defend 'consciousness'?

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:41:16 2014 No.5200538 >>5200525 To be fair, I'm not a fan of hypotheticals because they have no referent. "Imagine a situation wherein le trole faec is right." See? I'm right.

le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 22:42:48 2014 No.5200547

>>5200537
Jesus. Maybe you should do investigation into what consciousness means before assuming we are all referring to the exact same thing?

If you believe consciousness tautologically means free will, then you understand consciousness different than I.

Anonymous Sun Jul 27 22:46:56 2014 No.5200566

>>5200547

I didn't say that consciousness and free will are synonyms. I assumed that because you were deploying a ridiculous argument, namely that there is a difference between atomically identical humans and robots, it was because you thought it could defend free will.

>>5200538

Right okay lets just discard a device which has been totally indispensable for all philosophy since forever for no good reason

>>	le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk Sun Jul 27 23:43:52 2014 No.5200867 >>5200566 If robots and humans were atomically identical then they would be the same thing

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 28 03:16:47 2014 No.5201598 >>5197995 Only started coming here since the start of the year, really. Within the past, month or even less, it seems like there's been a huge influx of people. Introductory threads to 1984, I never saw them existing before.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature