/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10249890
No our brains are literally magic. We can make choices that aren’t determined by causality while also consciously directing that choice. Our true self can cause without being caused. We’re basically God

>>10249890
>Our minds(as with everything in existence) are predicated on causality.
What caused the universe?

>does that imply free will doesn't exist.
define "free will"

>>10249890
>causality
well memed

>>10249916
he is confusing free and predictable
for example my gf is on so bright so I can predict whatever she is thinking but she can think freely

>>10249927
>for example my gf is on so bright so I can predict whatever she is thinking but she can think freely
But how could she be "freely thinking" when her mind is a product of cause and effect going all the way back to the big bang? Throw in quantum mechanics and nothing really changes, you just can't predict with any certainty given the initial state but that doesn't give any of the actors any less "freedom" in their actions. You don't choose your thoughts, they just come to you.

>>10249934
>But how could she be "freely thinking" when her mind is a product of cause and effect going all the way back to the big bang?
What caused the big bang?

>>10249927
Basically, you’re free if you have the illusion of being free. How scary it would be if your gf could predict her own actions!

>>10249936
>What caused the big bang?
Why does that matter at all?

>>10249940
>Why does that matter at all?
If it had no cause, then not everything is predicated on causality, hence her mind need not be a product of cause and effect.

>>10249936
Empty data point. Question may be nonsensical, as causality is not real without time.

>>10249945
>Empty data point.
How did an empty data point cause a big bang?

>>10249941
>If it had no cause, then not everything is predicated on causality
We don't know the cause, so does that mean no cause existed? Are you saying that causality doesn't perfectly explain our world? And even if you can't predict anything, how does that leave any room for free will? Forget causality and just focus on the fact that our minds are physical systems and they rely on cause and effect, just like everything in the universe.

>>10249961
>We don't know the cause, so does that mean no cause existed?
No.

>Are you saying that causality doesn't perfectly explain our world?
As you said: "we don't know the cause", so yes.

>And even if you can't predict anything, how does that leave any room for free will?
define "free will"

>>10249941
Great, so then our brains are a weird mix of causality and randomness. Where is the freedom?

>>10249966
>Great, so then our brains are a weird mix of causality and randomness. Where is the freedom?
Mixed in with the "weird mix of causality and randomness".

>>10249969
Okay, please distinguish our free self from the causal and random self. How exactly do we make decisions that are neither determined by causal factors nor random? I may be too unintelligent, but I just can’t imagine how that would work

>>10249965
>define "free will"
What do you think it means? At this point I think you are arguing on bad faith.

these threads both restore and destroy my faith reshaping it into something new

>>10249890
Yep, free will exists.

>>10249991
What a strange reaction to such a small sub-population.

>>10249979
>What do you think it means?
If I knew what you meant I wouldn't be asking you. You might mean Humean free will, Frankfurtian free will, libertarian free will, or any of the other formulations. Dodging my request for a definition makes me think you are arguing on bad faith.

>>10249977
>How exactly do we make decisions that are neither determined by causal factors nor random?
How exactly do we make decisions that are determined by either causal factors or randomness? That sounds like NPC behavior which I do not have first-hand experience with. Free will is a spectrum, and some of us are born with more of it than others.

>>10250022
You can make extremely self-aware decisions, but all those triggers in your brain can still be causal. People with more experience and better memory tend to make non-NPC like decision making. It’s no stretch at all to say people are different because of causal factors. But to say that there’s some magical will inside of us all that’s different for whatever reason is simply incoherent.

>>10249890
>>10249890
Yes. The free will you refer to does not exist. Congratulations on figuring it out, the vast majority of people never do and carry their illusion into the grave.
Thinking about the world, other people, and yourself in completely mechanical terms can be really enlightening, if you do it right. Good luck

Also, causality is the road everyone takes to this, but it’s actually not necessary, in my opinion: the deterministic evolution laws can in principle be used to “calculate” the past just as well as the future, so there is no real reason to picture causality as directed from before to after. If you imagine the world like in the light-cone diagrams in relativity, with time as an axis, “causality” becomes an unnecessarily narrow view of the fact that the entire future and past are already laid down in an unique consistent way.

An important step for me was studying the Lagrange equations and the principle of least action: with Newton’s law it’s natural to have a “causal” interpretation of mechanics in which at every moment the applied force causes particles to react, but with the least-action principle you see that it’s not the only way to see it, and you see the Lagrange equations as a rule that dictates the overall shape that world lines must have when seen from above (with time as an axis), without a real distinction between before and after or cause and effect.

>>10250006
>If I knew what you meant I wouldn't be asking you. You might mean Humean free will, Frankfurtian free will, libertarian free will, or any of the other formulations
In the colloquial meaning that humans are able to make decisions "free" of external influence. I think this is clumsy terminology because in some sense people "feel" as though their rational mind is detached from the rest of their mind. And that this rational faculty can think about things and generate new thoughts and thus decide to do or not do something. But I think this rational faculty is built equally on cause and effect as anything else, and that every decision you make is in some sense a series of reactions, all thoughts, all decisions, everything is built on cause and effect, so in what sense is our rationality "free" to think as it wants?

>>10249956
I just told you, little one, it’s an empty data point. We don’t know, and it’s an irrelevant tangent.

>>10250022
Free will is nonexistent. Your brain is just matter obeying causality.

>>10250083
>I just told you, little one, it’s an empty data point.
I just asked you, big one, how does an empty data point cause a big bang?

>>10250087
>Your brain is just matter obeying causality.
[citation needed]

>>10250090
You’ve already been answered. Bye, troll.

>>10250098
http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoami/findoutmore/yourbody/whatdoyourcellsdo/whatisacellmadeof

>>10250101
>You’ve already been answered.
You answered my question of what caused a big bang, but not my question of how an empty data point causes a big bang.

>>10250109
>http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoami/findoutmore/yourbody/whatdoyourcellsdo/whatisacellmadeof
No mention of causality.

>>10249890
I thought QM made causality or at least determinism in part not completely true. Id say will exists but it is not free, or that the concept itself is incoherent
A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills

>>10250109
as good as a bigfoot article

>>10250114
Why would it mention something everyone already knows? Things react to stuff that’s happened prior. Little kids know this.

>>10250119
Nope

>>10250110
Bye.

>>10250129
>Why would it mention something everyone already knows?
You'd have to ask the author.

>Things react to stuff that’s happened prior.
[citation needed]

>>10249890
The consensus is that free will probably doesn't exist.

>>10250031
>It’s no stretch at all to say people are different because of causal factors. But to say that there’s some magical will inside of us all that’s different for whatever reason is simply incoherent.
It’s no stretch at all to say people are different because of free will. But to say that there’s some magical causality inside of us all that’s the same for whatever reason is simply incoherent.

So it was already determined by the machines that Neo would take the red pill
But they didn't know Morpheus was based and red pilled

Was Neo really free?
A) yes, machines chose him because he was free
B) no, genetically designed by machines to pretend as free

But was Morpheus free?

>>10250035
>But I think this rational faculty is built equally on cause and effect as anything else
What caused the universe?

>>10250153
Troll

>>10250144
Troll

>>10250160
Troll

>>10250160
the universe

>>10250175
>Troll
Not an argument.

>>10250160
nothing
it was there from the beginning of time
hell it was there even before time

>>10250153
I can imagine a universe where people think they make choices, but are in fact completely pre-determined with the illusion of choice. Genetics and experience ultimately determine everything they do. But I cannot imagine a universe where people do have free will. Or at least, it would look nothing like this world. If free will exists, there should be no procrastination or wrong behavior. Everyone would simply freely will themselves to desire doing whatever it is that would improve themselves the most. Then our actions would simply depend on our knowledge of what benefits us.

>>10250184
Whatever you say, troll.

Everything is predetermined/happened already and there is no free will from a time independent perspective
but free will exists in a time based manner

>>10250188
Free will is logically incoherent. You’re either reacting to prior events in some way or behaving randomly.

>>10250185
>nothing
Then not everything is built equally on cause and effect.

>>10250194
why not some of both

>>10250194
>Free will is logically incoherent.
How so?

>>10250206
>You’re either reacting to prior events in some way or behaving randomly.

>>10250219
>>You’re either reacting to prior events in some way or behaving randomly.
Then free will is only logically incoherent if those are the only possibilities. Why are those the only possibilities?

>>10250219
I am going to from A to B
now I am at B I can go to C or D
and I choose A
was it random?

>>10250194
>You’re either reacting to prior events in some way or behaving randomly.
That sounds like NPC behavior

>>10249890
It doesn't. We're just following a script set in motion 13 billion years ago. None of us have any control over anything, not total control. Even the very idea of "us" is pathetically wrong. Eventually this script will end and we'll return to nothing, only for a new script to be written as existence abhors a vacuum. Maybe this script will be exactly like ours, maybe not. Regardless, we'll all be dead and unable to tell.

>>10250227
No, something in your brain caused you to choose A. In this case, it’s your desire to prove me wrong by making an irrational decision. Similar to “if I don’t have free will then how come I just raised my hand?”

>>10250233
>Eventually this script will end
If the script can end, then why couldn't it have ended before, at a point at which we could have control over something?

>>10250225
>Why are those the only possibilities?
Please inform us on an alternative that makes sense

>>10250240
We're just actors, not the director, not the screenwriter.

Listen Morty, I hate to break it to you, but what people call “love” is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed. It hits hard, Morty, then it slowly fades, leaving you stranded in a failing marriage. I did it. Your parents are gonna do it. Break the cycle, Morty. Rise above. Focus on science.

>>10250243
>Please inform us on an alternative that makes sense
Your claim is that it's logically incoherent, i.e. that no such alternative exists. Why is this the case?

Though I thinking everything is deterministic and predetermined is a very unhealthy way of thinking imo.

>>10250255
How so?

>>10250255
It is but humans are adept at voluntary cognitive dissonance. I know I don't have free will, but I behave like I do because it makes me feel good.

>>10250230
NPCs don’t exist.

>>10249890
You type like a brainlet. Pursue a job in construction and let us thinkers do the theorizing.

>>10249965
>>Are you saying that causality doesn't perfectly explain our world?
As you said: "we don't know the cause", so yes.
Find an example where causality is conclusively known not to exist.

>>10250230
Just realize this: your higher functions are directed by your limbic system. Art and culture happens because of base desires in the id. Your reptile brain controls all your higher thoughts. Spooky right?

>>10250253
Because I don’t think anyone can comprehend how we can make choices without being influenced by something. If we’re consciously choosing something because we desire it, then it is that desire which causes us to act. But if we act with no desire, then we are essentially acting randomly, with no conscious direction. Again, maybe I’m just really dumb, but I can’t imagine how we’re free.

>>10250260
>>10250261
There are things which we rather limit our consciousness to, death is usually one of those things. I think free will also falls under those lines, I cant remember but i believe there was a study and it removed the sense of angecy when people were told they didnt have free will

>>10250267
>Find an example where causality is conclusively known not to exist.
What caused the universe?

>>10250265
>NPCs don’t exist.

>>10250287
Pollacks coming out of the woodwork. Don't worry, you'll get your firing squad soon when the ultra gays take over.

>>10250255
I disagree, you have to keep in mind that it’s impossible to actually know the future even if you know it’s set. For example if I have a hard exam coming up, since I can’t know whether I have it in me or not, believing that the outcome is predetermined makes no difference.
On the flip side it’s very healthy when looking at the past and at things you can’t control in general.

>>10249910
This honestly. God works in paradoxes, and you are God. Reality is malleable, it's ultimately just an illusion, so you can both live a life of cause and effect, true determinism, or you can choose...to have a choice, and do whatever you want. Or both.

bump

this fucking thread. whats the point when people cant listen to reason. free will os a faulty concept at best and cannot be said to exist without conceptualy gerrymandering and jerry rigging. free will doesnt exist regardless of what we know about determinism in the world (which in all relevance to us is deterministic)

>>10251631
>free will os a faulty concept at best and cannot be said to exist without conceptualy gerrymandering and jerry rigging.
What do you mean?

>>10250034
>Also, causality is the road everyone takes to this, but it’s actually not necessary

what should tip everyone off is the lack of a well-formed definition of free will. if someone can explain "free will" in definite, reasonably precise language, then we have something to work with. otherwise we can't even discuss it properly.

>>10251848
cont

and this is the typical pattern one observes when they're dealing with magical thinkers. they can make any number of correct deductions, but they always beg the question (to use the phrase properly) by making unreasonable/nonsensical presuppositions.

>>10251848
How bout this:

Free Will is your ability to make change in your environment through the creation and co-creation of novel ideas and actions. Your Will is your drive, and your ability to answer to the call to action. You are not separate from your environment, you are one and the same, like a drop becoming part of an ocean, so your Free Will is actually also the Will of the environment, acting through you, like cells in a body, we are animals on a planet, just acting out our roles, both determined by cause and effect, but also able to assemble new ideas through synthesis of old and as emergent properties of your past, churned up through the everchanging structure of your brain pathways. It's almost just like spiralling fractal branching of possibilities being played out not only in spacetime, but in our thoughts as well.

>>10251871

this actually conflicts with most of the common definitions you hear from religious figures and normies. typical definitions of "free will" imply that people have some internal mechanism for decision making that is independent of their physical makeup and their environmental circumstances. this is patently false and leads to a flawed understanding of human behavior and psychology.

>>10251925
So do you agree with >>10251871 then? Disassemble this for me.

>>10251925
>this actually conflicts with most of the common definitions you hear from religious figures and normies.
Why would you use the definitions from religious figures and normies?

>>10251929

no, i believe that the definition given in >>10251871 is diametrically opposed to typical definitions.

>>10251938
>Why would you use the definitions from religious figures and normies?

what kind of question is that? of course we have to use the most commonly accepted definition and try to make it precise enough for our discourse. we cannot re-define the concept.

>>10251944
>what kind of question is that?
Why would you get your definitions for anything from religious figures and normies instead of scholars? I don't look to Deepak Chopra for things related to quantum theory.

But no mental action seems necessary or invariable in its character. In whatever manner the mind has reacted under a given sensation, in that manner it is the more likely to react again; were this, however, an absolute necessity, habits would become wooden and ineradicable, and no room being left for the formulation of new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy close. Thus, the uncertainty of the mental law is no mere defect of it, but is on the contrary of its essence. The truth is, the mind is not subject to "law," in the same rigid sense that matter is. It only experiences gentle forces which merely render it more likely to act a given way than it otherwise would be. There always remains a certain amount of arbitrary spontaneity in its action, without which it would be dead.

>>10251955

so do you agree with my statement here?
>>10251925
>typical definitions of "free will" imply that people have some internal mechanism for decision making that is independent of their physical makeup and their environmental circumstances. this is patently false and leads to a flawed understanding of human behavior and psychology.

>>10251971
>so do you agree with my statement here?
You would need to provide the "typical definitions" you've encountered.

>>10251940
It's more accurate though, most definitions fail to realize the world has both choice and cause and effect working together.

>>10251961
Uncertainty/randomness does not allow for real freedom of choice. It just makes your actions random, if unpredictable. I guess if you're satisfied that your actions can't be predicted, you could call that "freedom" if you really want. It's not though. And that's the bigger problem.

>>10251940
>>10251985

Plus, like you said here >>10251925
>this is patently false and leads to a flawed understanding of human behavior and psychology.

means that most likely the opposite is true, which is what I've stated in >>10251871

>>10251986
I think the mind is part of taming that chaos and random noise into order, and then, to meaningful action.

>>10251989
It is trying to find the "correct" course of action. But if you think about what determines if a particular course of action is "correct" or not, the variables that determine this all come in the form of information from your external environment, which is deterministic. Therefore, your actions become determined (by your deterministic environment). Any way you look at it, freedom just dissolves away before your eyes.

>>10251993
>the variables that determine this all come in the form of information from your external environment
[citation needed]

>>10250287
It is somewhat ironic that a meme that mocks detachment from reality is posted by somebody who doesn’t realise the middle school tier fact that classical physics is entirely deterministic. I’m religious so I can subscribe to human agency, but if you are not, the universe does not permit a concept like free will, when classical physics is deterministic and quantum physics is deterministic or probabilistic

>>10251994
Well either it's brain noise or sound logic and knowledge. There is no third option.

>>10252001
Well actually, you could opt to just act on impulse. There is no freedom to be found there either, but that's obvious.

>>10249890
Just learning to practice meditaion should make you able to convince yourself that free will most probably do not exist.

You will notice that seemingly random thoughts just pops up in your mind, without you being able to control which ones does or why.

>>10251993
But the environment has a will of its own, the collective changes and actions made by the beings that comprise it.

>>10251979

and i did. when you distill most definitions, free will is defined as
>>10251925
>some internal mechanism for decision making that is independent of their physical makeup and their environmental circumstances

so i've done the work for us and tried to make a reasonably precise definition that does not misrepresent the common understanding of free will. if we can agree upon this definition, the existence or nonexistence of such a mechanism should then be the subject of our discourse. if we cannot, please state why you find this an unacceptable definition.

>>10252014
>>some internal mechanism for decision making that is independent of their physical makeup and their environmental circumstances
In what sense is the 'internal mechanism' not part of the 'physical makeup'?

>>10252017

well, that's the problem isn't it? likely, no such thing exists, or at least, we have no reason to believe it does. that's what makes it "magical thinking".

the social/psychological implications of superstition and magical thinking are what make "free will", as it's commonly understood, an interesting topic.

how do causality proponents contend with the Münchhausen trilemma for cause and effect, i.e. that going backwards in the causal chain, one either finds that:
>an event caused itself (circular reasoning; physically impossible)
>there exists an effect with no cause (axiomatic reasoning; debunks causality)
>supported by an infinitely long chain of causes (infinite regress; physically unverifiable)

>>10252028
>well, that's the problem isn't it?
Yes, that's a problem with your definition. What do you think of the one in >>10251938?

>>10252013
But as we've established, the actions of these other beings, much like your own, are either deterministic or probabilistic. If you are basing your behavior on the presumption that OTHERS have free will, and not upon your own volition, then you are basically admitting to being an NPC. Not even memeing, although I'm using this meme sort of tongue-in-cheek.

>>10252036
It's that last one. Just cause it's unverifiable doesn't mean it isn't true.
>inb4 you have to take it on faith
That's exactly what I'm saying.

>>10252044

it contains a similar contradiction. a method for making "undetermined yet appropriately nonrandom decisions" is reasonably similar to "some internal mechanism for decision making that is independent of their physical makeup and their environmental circumstances"

The better question is: why do humans so desperately want to think of themselves as having free will? To me this is a non-issue and not even worth thinking about.

>>10252075
>a method for making "undetermined yet appropriately nonrandom decisions" is reasonably similar to "some internal mechanism for decision making that is independent of their physical makeup and their environmental circumstances"
That's why (b) is included in the definition.

>>10251986
Were the ends of a person already explicit, there would be no room for development, for growth, for life; and consequently there would be no personality.

>>10252065
Why take that on faith as opposed to its negation?

>>10249890
Reading this thread and seeing this pathetic level of /b/esque argumentation is pretty sad, honestly.

Firstly, humans don't have a mechanism to exert influence originating from within themselves- all actions and thoughts are a pure aftermath of external stimulus.
Secondly, causality, even in a probabilistic universe, makes the concept of the libertarian "free will" impossible. You cannot control the probability in any way, as to draw some free will-enabling superpowers.

>>10250255
Not only is it unhealthy but it's impossible. A person can know the truth that they are just a part of the chemical "soup" that is the universe but they cannot really genuinely believe it, since humans are hard-wired to believe in free will. This is why we have people literally pretending to be retarded itt and fighting tooth and nail to refloat an empty nonsensical concept.

>>10252036
This boils down to the fact that we don't know what caused the big bang.
>muh [incert misc. organized religion or unproven concept]
Lmao, no.

>>10252056
>deterministic or probabilistic
Both being uncontrollable by a human due to the lack of an internal mechanism for autonomous excertion of influence (which is impossible to exist anyways).
>NPC. Not even memeing, although I'm using this meme sort of tongue-in-cheek.
This whole topic has nothing to do with your cringy /pol/ddit newspeak. Are you 12?

>>10252090
That would be the logical route. But then 89IQ r-ratrds on here would start screaming about how you can't devise an experiment to prove it so it's wrong. I'd much more rather rustle their jimmies by invoking faith, which there is nothing wrong with if you just leave out religion.

>>10252091
>This boils down to the fact that we don't know what caused the big bang.
We don't know if anything caused the big bang.

>>10252080
We like to think that there is some sort of "soul" or "self" that is above biology and neurochemistry, free to do whatever it wants and that it separates us from all other animals.

Its the sort of story that appeals to humans.

>>10252095
>That would be the logical route.
Why is that the logical route and not the negation?

>>10252097
we don't even know it was a big bang or a small bang or even a bang
thinking outside the box is good but you can't think outside the universe

>>10252091
>all actions and thoughts are a pure aftermath of external stimulus.
[citation needed]

>>10252080
>The better question is: why do humans so desperately want to think of themselves as having free will? To me this is a non-issue and not even worth thinking about.
It makes punishment for "wrong doing" much more justifiable

>>10252099
if there are more than 4 dimensions there is more to human than it meets the eye

>>10252100
No, I was saying the negation would be the logical route.

>>10250449
I want to understand but I just don't

>>10251938
>undetermined
Defeated if the universe is deterministic
>nonrandom
Defeated if the universe is probabilistic
Overall, the mindwank crashes and burns (as usual).

>>10252115
>Defeated if the universe is deterministic
>Defeated if the universe is probabilistic
>Overall, the mindwank crashes and burns (as usual).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

>>10252109
Even if you bring quantum mechanics into it, how would that make it different?

Granted, we still dont know exactly how it works, if there are paralell dimensions etc but its very farfetched to think of some sort of non-physical dimension that is not goverend by physical laws, populated with "spirits" that would have their own free will and control us or be interconnected with our minds.

Am I missing something or what you are saying?

>>10252118
How is it a false dilemma? The universe can be either one and the definition cannot hold up in either.
Do you propose a third position that will revolutionize physics?

>>10252127
not necessarily spirits afterlife or such
but defining living things as flesh and bone is a shallow thinking

>>10252136
>The universe can be either one
What makes you think the universe is either of those two?

>>10252136
Peirce

>>10252147
>What makes you think the universe is either of those two?
Information can either exist or not exist. What would the third position be?

>>10252148
What about him?

>>10252154
>Information can either exist or not exist.
Why does this imply that the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic?

>>10252087

further constraining the definition doesn't make it any less contradictory. "or some such thing" is hardly a good way to end a definition if you're attempting to be precise.

anyway, i think you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument that free will is not well-defined in the sense that typical definitions are either too imprecise/wishy-washy to use in rational discourse, contradict themselves, or at best require some "leap of faith" or baseless assumption.

>>10252163
>is not well-defined

* not not well defined

forgive the double negative

>>10252140
I wouldn't call it shallow, more like we dont yet have reason to think it is anything else.

>>10252155
>Why does this imply that the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic?
With determinism, information about the state of matter in future periods exists.
With probabilism, information about the state of matter in future periods doesn't exist.

>>10252176
You've explained how the universe being deterministic or probabilistic implies information can either exist or not exist. I asked why information existing or not existing implies the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic.

>>10252183
It doesn't imply anything. It is so by definition.

>>10252176
>With determinism, information about the state of matter in future periods exists.
Current physics tells us going back in time is a contradiction. So determinism has lower probability than probabilism

>>10252176
>With determinism, information about the state of matter in future periods exists.
>With probabilism, information about the state of matter in future periods doesn't exist.
And if information about the state of matter only sometimes exists, then there is a third option.

>>10252194
>So determinism has lower probability than probabilism
In which probability space?

>>10252215
>And if information about the state of matter only sometimes exists, then there is a third option.
How would that be possible, given the underlying physical mechanisms?
Addendum: free will is still impossible in the third position.

>>10252226
>How would that be possible, given the underlying physical mechanisms?
How would it be impossible? If everything is deterministic then there is only one option, and if everything is probabilistic then there is only one option.

>>10249890
Free will is an illusion we need to prevent ourselves from going crazy

>>10252221
ok let me be more verbose
>With determinism, information about the state of matter in future periods exists.
Assume determinism is correct, then this is the future of the past. If you go could go to past (even if theoretically) you could strengthen/prove determinism claim

But current physics tells us going back in time is not a possibility. And probabilism doesn't make any bold claims like determinism. So which is more like to be true?

>>10252235
>So which is more like to be true?
A mixture of the two.

>>10251822
Well have you seen a consistent definition of free will here? have you ever met a compatibilist?

my fucking point. this thread is full of pseudointellectual charlatans.

>>10252235
*internal capslock* Determinism is irrelevant to free will - its a "damned if you do, damned if you dont situation". Neither view supports free will. And either way I think on the macroscopic scale we live its clear things are deterministic.

>>10252056
Ok, prove that all of reality, known and unknown, is positively deterministic then.

>>10252892
Good question so long as you know its irrelevant to whether free will exists.

>>10253175
Why's that?

>>10253338
Its easiest explaining through a dialogue whereby you initiate your reasons as to why you think it does.

>>10250283
No idea. As a corollary that means causality could have, ergo causality does perfectly explain all of our observations.

>>10253378
Why would whether all of reality is deterministic or not have no relevance to whether free will exists? Isn't that the crux of the current argument, as stated in >>10252468

>>10253912
if youre going by that box then there are deterministic and indeterministic worlds with both free will or no free will

The fact that threads like this are full of replies show that /sci/ has been infested with /his/ and /lit/ fags

if you account for everything, free will doesn't exist
the thing is, it's pretty hard to account for everything otherwise everything in physics would be figured out by now, and results are not so predictable even though they are already predetermined

>>10254465
be thankful. /sci/ is easily the board most likely to go extinct. its slow as fuck and a wasteland. we're saving your desperate asses.

>>10254469
Stephen Hawking said the human will is like the weather. Predetermined but unpredictable.

>>10255079
Hawkings cheated on his wife with his nurse and liked to spend his free time in strip clubs and reading dirty magazines (his prize in a bet about one of his theories being correct was dirty magazines).

if this was any other guy we wouldnt believe him and say "fuck ofd to /b/, /gif/ or /s/".

>>10254469
>if you account for everything, free will doesn't exist
What do you mean?

>>10249910
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7-t9p8Zac

>>10255123
Why does looking at dirty magazines make you wrong? Are a Christian who got lost? This is a website with a lot of boobs on it.

>>10255123
Why does looking at dirty magazines make you wrong? Are you a Christian who got lost? This is a website with a lot of boobs on it.

>>10249910
If this were true, experiments to demonstrate causality's effects on the human mind would fail. Can you provide even one definitive example of this not being the case?

At the end of the day, even if there were extradimensional features of humans, they would still be bound by the rules of causality. Free will is as much a shield from truth as the notion of an afterlife is.

>>10255133
>that video
So life CREATED the universe so that it could live in it, not the other way around. So what is this strange life form that can live outside the universe (it had to be "somewhere" before it created the universe) and that has the power to create whole worlds for itself to live in out of nothing? Oh right. It's God. It's always God.

>>10255079
I agree with him on that.

>>10255124
You can predict the outcome of everything with 100% certainty if you know all the factors affecting it. For there to be free will or true randomness, it would be impossible to predict the outcome even if everything was already known.
Example: predicting the trajectory of something in vacuum is easy since there's not much that affects it. In the real world with air resistance, nonuniform gravity, it's a bit harder, but you can get a rough estimate which is pretty close to the actual result, however it will still be off by even a very minuscule and insignificant amount due to perhaps some quantum phenomena or other property that has yet to be observed, however that 99.99999999999% accuracy is good enough. This is useful for simple systems such as these, however with larger, more complicated systems such as determining the exact words or exact choices made by a human, it is rather difficult. One could predict how they will react in general to a situation if they know a bit about them, but it will be pretty hard to predict the exact words that will come out of their mouth, at what pace, tone, etc., but if you know enough, such as the speech patterns, neuron firing order, weather and affects to their behavior, etc. the more you can predict and if you know enough, you can predict the exact result with 100% accuracy.
In conclusion: if it can be predicted, there is no free will or true randomness.

>>10255398
>You can predict the outcome of everything with 100% certainty if you know all the factors affecting it.
[citation needed]

>>10254414
Yeah, that's the obvious answer, wehat's even more obvious is your "free will" varies from perosn to person. One person lives life thinking it's all determined, then they literally flow with the will of the environment. SO does the man who realizes he can have will and novel action, but he does it in a way that is different from the determined man, phenomenologically.

>>10255777
>"free will" varies from perosn to person
i dont think so

>>10252006
Imagine being this much of a brainlet. If you can't meditate for more than 10 minutes without having a single thought legitimately makes you are retard. Go back to watching your Marvel movies manchild.
>inb4 I m-meant for the requirement to learn how to m-meditate!
It only took me about 3 minutes to get a hand on it, and by 5 minutes I was already a pro (I was 16 in ap world that got me interested).

>>10255987
>i dont think so
Free will is a spectrum, like gender.

>>10255987
never heard of the phrase "learn some self-control"? its a thing for a reason. Simply put, the less educated someone is the less free will they have.

>>10249890
>does that imply free will doesn't exist.
ye

Free will doesn't really exist cause humans are controlled by desires and emotions which we had no hand in creating, these come up on their own with no choice involved.

>>10249890
What is unfree will then?

>>10249890
"hurr durr muh causality"

>>10255410
It's intuitive enough, if you need proof for that, you're just a brainlet. Do you need proof your dick is there too?

What this question doing on /sci? We cannot give definition for Truly Free Will and we cannot proof any suggestions about this, so question is meaningless for science

What is this question doing on /sci? We cannot check and prove any assumption about this, so science have nothing to do with it

>>10255987
It's true though

>>10256990
>It's intuitive enough, if you need proof for that, you're just a brainlet.
Not an argument.

>>10257030
Why do you think science is incapable of answering this question?

a whole lot of NPCs ITT who seem to have been unlucky enough to be born without any free will

>>10257123
>Why do you think science is incapable of answering this question?
Can you suggest an experiment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Believing_in_free_will
>Among philosophers
>A recent 2009 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 14%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 12%. More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans.[214]

>Among evolutionary biologists
>79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free-will according to a survey conducted in 2007, only 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.[215]

The consensus is clear.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550609351600
>Do philosophic views affect job performance? The authors found that possessing a belief in free will predicted better career attitudes and actual job performance. The effect of free will beliefs on job performance indicators were over and above well-established predictors such as conscientiousness, locus of control, and Protestant work ethic. In Study 1, stronger belief in free will corresponded to more positive attitudes about expected career success. In Study 2, job performance was evaluated objectively and independently by a supervisor. Results indicated that employees who espoused free will beliefs were given better work performance evaluations than those who disbelieve in free will, presumably because belief in free will facilitates exerting control over one’s actions.

>>10257141
>>10257150
See >>10257136

When you give a shit, you do better. When you don't think you have a choice, you just do whatever. The Will is real, you have to train it like a muscle or your brain, so that when you act you act with efficiency and meaning.

>>10257598
Whoops, meant to type

>>10257136
See >>10257150
>>10257141

Free will exists for humans, but in reality it doesn't. I mean you won't notice you not having free will since the things that actually control you are too many and too small for us.

Could our failure to solve the question of free will indicate that we ARE infact living in a simulation?? Maybe we can not understand free will or where our will comes from because it is imposed by something/someone simulating us!

>>10257150
>Do philosophic views affect job performance? The authors found that possessing a belief in free will predicted better career attitudes and actual job performance.
That's because most people are brainlets and don't actually understand the implications of there not being a free will. Ironically, the implications are actually really simple: it doesn't change A SINGLE THING.

>>10257598
Having free will is neither here nor there when you have passion. You can train your "muscle" even if you don't have a free will. No one seems to understand such a simple thing.

>>10257774
This is true! Will could very easily be inducted into our 3D bodies by a 4D or Higher phenomena, something from The Bulk, as it's called by higher dimensional physicists. That would make it nigh undetectable to us if it was operating in or at least from higher dimensional space.

>>10257813
>That's because most people are brainlets and don't actually understand the implications of there not being a free will. Ironically, the implications are actually really simple: it doesn't change A SINGLE THING.
t. dunning kruger

>>10257813
>>10257818
How about this. Fewer people would be so debilitated by the knowledge they are not free if they realized that time is an illusion, just a measure of the expansion of the universe, which will expand along a predefined trajectory no matter what you do. In short, that we live in a block universe. When you've realized this, all you have to do is get exited about what future lies ahead for you, do the "best that you can" and keep your zest and fervor for whatever it is that you do in life.

>>10257829
that's an interesting non-sequitur..

Anyone who seriously discusses this long-settled "problem" is automatically a brainlet. There isn't one, move on to more interesting questions and stop wasting your time.

>>10257832
If it doesn't make a difference, and you can't prove it eitherway, why not just entertain the mindset of having free will, to see if it makes you happier in anyway? It's the mark of a smart man to be able to entertain a thought without fully believing in it, or however the saying goes.

>>10257842
>Anyone who seriously discusses this long-settled "problem" is automatically a brainlet. There isn't one, move on to more interesting questions and stop wasting your time.
t. dunning kruger

>>10257846
Why would I waste my time doing that when I'm perfectly happy even while knowing I have no free will? Makes no sense.

>>10257848
If you're actually happy, then that's fine, keep on going. Just don't assume nobody has free will, there's literally no absolute proof either way. It's unscientific of you, more like dogmatic.

>>10257852
I'm agnostic on the issue, leaning toward "no free will". I really don't spend too much time thinking about it.

>>10257854
Same, but "for free will". Agree to disagree is literally the best we can do until new evidence appears. We need to stop making this thread until then.

>>10257141
>>10257150
This is pretty good evidence for though.

>>10257870
Me >>10257854 again. I look at it like this. It's a kind of teleological view of the world where everything is going toward a singular outcome, whether you have chosen it or not. Call it the fate of life in the universe, if you will. This fate can be either continued life or death. Every action every living thing has ever performed is a microstep toward this end. So you can either be part of this mass march toward our inevitable fate, or you can sit around fretting about whether or not you have "chosen" it (possibly securing our collective demise). It's on your shoulders.

>>10257870
Also, people being butthurt about their illusion being burst is absolutely no kind of evidence of free will.

>>10249890
This is the more redpilled discussion of free will I've come across:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
hint: we dont have it

>>10257902
>Also, people being butthurt about their illusion being burst is absolutely no kind of evidence of free will.
There's already scientific consensus, being a contrarian doesn't change anything.

>>10257909
There is no scientific consensus. Stop lying. On the contrary, most scientific experiments thus far have suggested we don't have free will. Educate yourself on the subject before you spout random nonsense.

>>10257897
Well, what if reality is quantum branching into multiple parallel universes and timelines? That's totally a possibility, we just don't know. Then it's not that there's one outcome, there are multiple, then it just comes down to whether we are "swept" along the branching timelines, or choose, or maybe a bit of both, which is I think the most likely possibility.

Go with the flow, I guess, either way, is the lesson learned here.

>>10257916
>There is no scientific consensus. Stop lying.
see >>10257141
I bet you don't believe in climate change either.

>>10249936
In order for an event to have a cause, that cause had to occur before the event. Nothing occurred before the big bang, so it doesn't make sense to ask what caused it.
A better question is "why did it occur?" or "why does the universe exist, instead of not existing?" and we don't have an answer to that.

>>10257925
>Nothing occurred before the big bang, so it doesn't make sense to ask what caused it.
Then not everything is predicated on causality.

>>10257921
That's old news. Those stats haven't moved since the 60s. What they are expressing are their cultural beliefs. This is because of a lack of solid evidence. What solid evidence there has been so far has all pointed toward no free will. There just isn't enough of it to make a definitive determination one way or the other. I really don't know why people are so hell-bent on clinging to their fairy godmother. Emotionality is the only thing I can think of.

>>10257909
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

>>10257917
Again, there is no freedom with anything quantum. This has been stated in the thread a million times now.

>>10257932
>That's old news. Those stats haven't moved since the 60s.
For good reason, once the scientific consensus has been established there's no reason for the stats to change.

>>10257928
Everything (a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang) is predicated on causality. The physical laws didn't even exist at moment 0.

>>10257934
>1 hour of some islamophobic pseudoscientist rambling about free will
what's the tl;dw?

>>10257936
>Again, there is no freedom with anything quantum.
This. People desperately wanting there to be free will shows how hard the ego wants to cling onto itself.

>>10257942
>Everything (a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang) is predicated on causality.
Everything (a tiny fraction of a second after I used my free will) is predicated on causality.

>>10257947
>ego
more pseudoscientific than free will

>>10257945
There is no free will. Everything about you including desires is based on genetics and environment. This is a good thing since it eliminates the reasons for hatred and should make you more compassionate.

>>10257936
Proof? Definite proof that there is positively no freedom with anything quantum or multi-universal-branching? How can you guarantee that at this stage in the research? If you have proof I'd love to see it, but until then I just can't believe that hypothesis with any certainty.

>>10257950
You're telling me that people don't have a sense of "I" and "me" ? It takes no pseudoscience to notice that in fact they do.

>>10257955
>There is no free will. Everything about you including desires is based on genetics and environment.
Based on what? There's scientific consensus for the existence of free will, and so the burden of proof is on you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

>>10257948
1. Strawman.
2. Who is the "I" and where is it located? The self is an illusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

>>10257957
Burden of proof lies with someone trying to prove something EXISTS. Prove free will exists.

>>10257970
>There's scientific consensus for the existence of free will
Except there isn't.

>>10257972
>Burden of proof lies with someone trying to prove something EXISTS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
>When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1]

Since there is scientific consensus that free will exists, you claiming that it doesn't exist challenges the status quo, and so the burden of proof is on you.

>>10257977
>Except there isn't.
see >>10257141

The reason people believe in religions are: Ignorance, Helplessness, and Ego. These are further fueled by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. We also don't have free will as there is no actual thing within us calling the shots but rather the unconscious brain running a bunch of neural processes. Look at the case of the sleepwalker who killed his in-laws. Our brains are able to do so much without our conscious awareness. Even if you want to say we have a little bit of free will (which I don't agree with), it is influenced so much by your heredity and environment that it may as well not exist at all. Your (unconscious) brain is in control and we falsely think our consciousness was in charge of actions.
We don't have souls. Your identity developed from what society told you or expected from you. There is no afterlife because identity is a misconception. In this life, we'll never know if there is a god or what god is, so any religion that claims some knowledge of god has it wrong. Same with afterlife. There is no reason for humanity to continue but, evolutionarily, this ideology does not have survival or reproduction so the people who saw the meaninglessness in life and no reason for humanity to continue didn't reproduce. We're left with a world full of descendants of ancestors that bought into the delusion.

>>10257984
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

>>10257997
>https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
Not an argument.

>>10257972
I think you are warping the usage of burden of proof, you are just using it to justify your skepticism.

>>10257997
So now evidence that you perform better when you just THINK you have freedom of choice and free will is appeal to authority?

>>10258002
It is when those that were surveyed have not thoroughly contemplated free will, have a different definition of free will other than metaphysical free will, are too busy with their meme NPC lives to figure it out, are brought up in a society that constantly reinforces the existence of free will, or are not willing to be honest with themselves.

>>10258020
>So now evidence that you perform better when you just THINK you have freedom of choice and free will is appeal to authority?
He/she probably rejects the consensus on climate change as an appeal to authority as well.

>>10258024
>those that were surveyed have not thoroughly contemplated free will
Based on what?

>>10258020
Not the one I replied to. But just because job performance is better under a certain mindset doesn't make it true.
If religious people are happier and more productive than atheists, it doesn't make religion true.

>>10258032
It makes it better.

>>10258028
Watch from 0:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwxQWhb2EHo&t=40s
Only the guy at 1:40 actually knew.

>>10258056
What do these people on the street have to do with the philosophers and evolutionary biologists who were surveyed?

>>10258059
Because even smart people are flawed human beings at the end of the day.

>people unironically think humans are so special that our minds exist in a different universe that allows us to make free choices

I wonder how history is going to look back on us.

>>10258127
There is no separation.

>>10258127
>our minds exist in a different universe
?

>>10258165
How else do you handwave causality in literally every single observable system but pretend it doesn't occur in the human mind?

>>10258201
Quantum mechanics

>>10258203
Absolutely delusional. Although quantum mechanics is not deterministic, it is probabilistic or seemingly random. Neither of these give us free will. If you want to argue about human observation changing quantum behavior, it is merely measurement that affects quantum behavior, regardless of a human observer.

>>10258211
>merely measurement that affects quantum behavior
Wasnt this disproven with the delayed choice experiment

>>10258216
"If you look at the detailed description of the experiment on Wikipedia you'll see that there is no conscious observer involved at all. There's just a chunk of electronic circuitry (the "coincidence counter") processing the signals on the wires connected to it. It runs just fine and does exactly the same thing whether anyone looks at it or not."

>>10258201
Higher dimensional induction of our souls, extending down through the dimensional planes into our bodies from the Godhead. Duh.

>>10258203
Indeterminancy exists at the micro level. Explain how this means you have free will.

All these anti-freewill brainlets in this thread. Nihilists hell bent on remaining responsibility free, NPCs the lot of you. The double-slit experiment alone put the nails in the coffin of determinism. The amount of extremes you have to push to not believe in free will. Cause /effect is too simple of an explanation for something much more complicated like a conscious mind. Cause and INFLUENCE maybe, but not an extreme. You are all trivializing something you shouldn't. There are other proofs if you seriously need them. Or, here is a thought experiment. Think of Schrodinger's Cat, but instead of a box, think of your skull, and instead of a cat, your brain. Now, replace the isotope with your consciousness. You making a decision is exactly like the isotope decaying...or not decaying. The end result is free will, but in a finite universe, as even though your will is free, you could only choose from a limited list of possible decisions. Lastly, randomness would be impossible if causality truly ruled everything's actions. Discovering a truly random system would end this silly debate.

>>10258535
Different timelines could be being formed, and you could be able to choose your path down the timestream, like being swept down a river, you don't have total control, but you DO have an amount of agency. You cannot rule this out completely, not without evidence that there are no parallel timelines/branches.

it's not that free will doesn't exist because the universe is detemrinistic, but that the universe isn't deterministic precisely because we have free will

>>10260127
Exactly, thank you

>>10259291
Based schizophrenic anon

>>10260311
>when you can't understand someone just label them crazy, you will look "correct" to complete sheeple like yourself

good job matey, proud of you

>>10249890
Babby’s first Schopenhauer?

>>10260383
Your thought is just a little scattered

>>10260473
Wasn't me

>>10260475
>Wasn't me
Sure it wasn't anon *winks*

>>10260487
k

>>10250087
Idiot.
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/70

>>10260563
But it's obvious in the spirit/body example that the spirit would be "free" from cause and effect and the body wouldn't. That's the key difference

>>10260563
Where did the "goals, feelings, motivations, thoughts" come from? Heredity and environment.
I'm surprised whoever made the comic is able to comprehend the bearded guy's argument but still seems to support black hair guy.

>>10259291
So the isotope has free will?

You free will brainlets would benefit a lot from this course:
https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/your-deceptive-mind-a-scientific-guide-to-critical-thinking-skills

Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true.

>>10260699
You anti-free will NPCs would benefit a lot from this course:
https://www.edx.org/course/yes-we-have-free-will-neuroscientific-and-philosophical-evidence

Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't make it not true

NEET cop out number #7835, just get a job and stop blaming society you smelly fat fuck.

>>10256987
>is basically a god
>reality is your bitch
>you can adopt any form you wish
"I know, how about looking like roadkill ? Genius"

Behaviour is 100% genetic, so i think letting people believe in free will is best since it enables to kill the inferior subhumans among us through the justice system, after all that thief/murderer/jaywalker "choosed" to do the crime, wink wink.

Can't wait for sharia law to be enacted worldwide, the death penalty is direly needed.

>>10260699
>>10260717
Final Light of the Gods Pill:

>You make your own truth real

>>10260717
A course on critical thinking so you can think for yourself or a course supporting a one-sided view so you can feed your confirmation bias? Hmmmmm.

>>10249910
Michael from Vsauce has debunked that

>>10260886
>A course on critical thinking
literally a non-subject, if you need a course on it you're never going to make it anyway

>>10260920
>if you need a course on it you're never going to make it anyway
Thinking this way is exactly the reason you need this course.

>>10249890
>Our minds(as with everything in existence) are predicated on causality. does that imply free will doesn't exist.
What, exactly, is your POINT?
>I don't think you have one
>This literally doesn't matter at all in any practical terms
Also this is more PHILOSOPHY than SCIENCE.

But I'll give you ONE CHANCE: Tell me what the POINT of this statement is.

>>10260975
Not OP but if free will existed, it would have to somehow be interlaced with neuroSCIENCE.

>>10260886
>A course on critical thinking so you can think for yourself or a course supporting a one-sided view so you can feed your confirmation bias? Hmmmmm.
Should this course have some supporting arguments from climate change deniers?
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial-1

>>10261075
In the course, he cites a 2011 study by Richard Muller who didn't believe in global warming until the data of his study actually showed the Earth has been warming, so like a good scientist, he changed his viewpoint in accordance with new evidence.

>>10261112
>In the course, he cites a 2011 study by Richard Muller who didn't believe in global warming until the data of his study actually showed the Earth has been warming, so like a good scientist, he changed his viewpoint in accordance with new evidence.
>https://www.edx.org/course/yes-we-have-free-will-neuroscientific-and-philosophical-evidence
>This course will explore Libertarian Free Will and discuss philosophical arguments and neuroscientific evidence for and against its existence

>>10249890
(1/2)
The brain is a collection of neurons sending electrical signals along pathways called axons. Neurochemicals help conduct these electrical signals. The way the neurons are wired together (and fire signals to one another) determines the kind of signals that they send to the nervous system—which determines how we behave.

As a biological organ, your brain is determined by genetics. And the structure of your DNA is not up to you; therefore, any action that is a result of the genetic structure in your brain cannot be said to be free. Of course, genetics does not play the only role in determining how your brain is configured. In fact, biologically, our brains are able to reconfigure themselves based on our experiences with our environment.

However, your choice to place yourself in a particular environment is a result of your brain structure, as well. And once we retrace this process all the way back to whenever your brain started to function, we realize that none of your actions was ever up to you. They were all simply the result of a brain structure that was beyond your control.

It turns out, however, that not all physical systems have outcomes determined by the laws of physics. One of the major discoveries of the 20th century was quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics, some physical events—that is, events at the quantum level, or the realm of entities smaller than atoms—are truly random. Thus, if the outcome of some series of neural firings was dependent upon how or when a certain quantum event occurred, we could say that there is more than one possible outcome—that there are alternate possibilities.

The problem is that this fact won’t actually help us defend the idea that we have free will. First of all, it’s not at all clear that the brain is a physical system whose outcome is dependent on certain quantum events. The behavior of the system is predictable, even though the behavior of the parts is not.

-David Kyle Johnson PhD.

>>10261133
(2/2)

Or think of a computer: There actually are random quantum events happening inside your computer all the time, but none of them dictates the outcome of its processes. When you run a certain program or click a certain icon, you’ll always get the same result.

The reason for this is that the causal reactions that dictate how a computer behaves happen above the quantum level—at the level of chips and circuits, at which any quantum effects are averaged out. What’s more, the causal reactions that dictate how a brain behaves happen at the level of chemicals and cells, where the effects of quantum randomness are not felt.

Consider what goes on in the brain during decision making. First of all, our brain functions by sending signals back and forth, and different parts of the brain vie for control by sending inhibitory signals back and forth along pathways between those parts.

For example, if you have an emotional reaction to something that causes you to want to behave a certain way—but you know, rationally, that it’s not the best way to behave—your emotional limbic system and your rational prefrontal cortex will basically battle it out. Your limbic system will send signals to your cortex, suggesting that you lash out, and your cortex will send inhibitory signals to your limbic system to try to dampen its influence.

Unfortunately—according to New York University neuroscientist Joseph DeLoux—the inhibitory connections running from the cortex are never as strong as those running from the limbic system. Thus, even for adults, our emotions control most of our actions. We may think that our reasoning is responsible for the decisions we make, but most of our decisions are driven by our emotions; afterward, we just rationalize our emotional decisions.

-David Kyle Johnson PhD.

>>10261138
Also, Readiness Potential.

If we consider scientific experiments about what goes on in the brain during decision making, things look even worse for free will.

In the 1960s, the neuroscientists Hans Helmut Kornhuber and Lüder Deecke discovered that it’s possible to measure brain activity before a decision occurs and actually see the processes that led to the decision being made. As it turns out, those processes happen before the decision is consciously made and have nothing to do with the part of the brain responsible for conscious decisions. They called this phenomenon a readiness potential.

Since the 1960s, Kornhuber and Deecke’s findings have been supported and reiterated in many ways. In the 1980s, Benjamin Libet showed that the readiness potential occurs 0.35 seconds before a decision is consciously made.

In 2008, neuroscientist John-Dylan Haynes performed an experiment in which people decided which button to push while watching a series of letters being displayed and reported what letter was displayed while making their decision. Haynes found that unconscious parts of the brain were busy doing their work to bring about the eventual action seconds before the reported letter appeared—long before the conscious decision was made.

Neuroscientist Itzhak Fried did a similar experiment where he observed neurons more directly. Not only was he able to see the brain unconsciously deciding what to do before the conscious decision, but he was even able to predict the conscious decision with 80–90 percent accuracy before it was made.

What these experiments seem to indicate is that your conscious decision is an afterthought. The brain is literally creating the illusion that we have free will.

-David Kyle Johnson PhD.

>>10261120
Most philosophers that support free will are compatibilists not libertarians.

You posting that link is like posting a course on the existence of God to an atheist.

>>10260667
How is that obvious?

>>10260685
>Where did the "goals, feelings, motivations, thoughts" come from? Heredity and environment.
And?

>>10261270
Then there's no metaphysical free will....
You were completely influenced by forces external to "you."
Let's say Domino #1 is knocked over by wind, and Domino #2 is knocked over by Domino #1, and Domino #3 is knocked over by Domino #2. Would Domino #2 be ultimately responsible for knocking over Domino #3? It had no other choice.

It becomes much easier to accept the conclusion once you let go of the feeling that there's something special about you.

>>10261576
>Let's say Domino #1 is knocked over by wind
What caused the wind?

>>10261576
>You don't have free will if this will is the result of preceding causes.
Your definition of "free will" is absolutely useless then. And I do not accept it because it's stupid.

The correct way to define free will is that quality which a sober person has in greater quantity than a drunk person, that which an ordinary person has in greater quantity than one who is mentally ill, that which a person who is awake has in greater quantity than one who is sleepy, etc.

Define freedom
Define will
Define free will

>>10261639
There are two "free wills."
Metaphysical free will is the one I'm referring to.
Conventional free will is the one you're referring to.
Metaphysical is the one incompatibilists like Sam Harris refer to when they advocate we don't have free will. Conventional is the free will compatibilists like Dan Dennett say we do have.

For a good argument against the metaphysical free will see:
>>10261133
>>10261138
>>10261140


We have the conventional free will.
We don't have the metaphysical free will. This is not useless. It means none of us are truly responsible for anything we're ever done, whether good or bad. No reason for any individual to feel special. But also, we should no longer see evil people as evil, but rather a victim of their environment. From this observation, we should focus on improving the environment in which people live in. In most cases, prisons should be to rehabilitate and prevent, not to punish. No reason to hate people. But also no reason to praise. This is why I believed in free will for so long, I've been praised my whole life, felt special, and I didn't want to let go of it.

>>10261602
Nothing with free will.

>>10261951
>It means none of us are truly responsible for anything we're ever done
This is where we disagree. Somehow you jumped from "there's no type 2 free will" to "there's no responsibility of any type" without justifying that leap, when my comments can be applied almost identically to the issue of responsibility. I agree with the rest though.

What I think you're referring to as "metaphysical free will" seems like an inherently incoherent notion. What would a world where such a thing existed be like? And if it's a complete non-notion, like square circles, why would you associate "free will" with it as opposed to the more common notion?

>>10250154
My understanding was that the Matrix was a simulated universe created by the machines to keep human brains busy with fake sensory perceptions, while they harvest energy from our bodies. So there's no reason to assume that humans shouldn't have complete agency to their own perceived actions although it is within the rules of the simulated universe.

>>10262309
>while they harvest energy from our bodies
I know it's dumb, but this triggers me every time.

>>10262312
Right. I do not know what type of energy they're extracting. Could be body heat but that seems very inefficient because human bodies need to be kept at around ambient temperatures for our cells to not die, and the minuscule heat differences cannot drive a heat cycle of significant efficiency.

>>10262345
WHat if they had a shitton of humans, like over 100b, all stacked next to each other (like in the towers, or even closer)

there is no such thing as information
no such thing as random
no such things as chaos or order
no such thing as free will or freedom of choice
what you imagine your mind to be is not what it actually is, which is a feedback effect

its very sad to understand how bad things really are

>>10250034
How do you do it right exactly?

>The free will you refer to does not exist
Which version does exist then?

>>10262293
>What would a world where such a thing existed be like?
One in which we had souls. It would have to be something with a core identity generating the desire/belief. One that isn't completely influenced by genetics and environment. Even people who no longer believe in souls still hang on to this type of idea. A generator of thought that is independent of the unconscious brain. People think the conscious brain is the generator of thought, but experiments show it is just the receiver of thought.

Again, the same argument I posted can apply to conventional vs metaphysical responsibility. It's impossible to act in a way that you and others don't have free will or responsibility, so we still keep the conventional versions. We can still live in a society with conventional responsibility. It's just that with this new information, we should modify our underlying beliefs about justice and accomplishment. No need to hate bad people. No need to feel pride in accomplishment. (Gotta give up the GOOD and the BAD). Also, since there's no need to feel special (ego, the self is an illusion but that's another argument), no need for greed beyond the means of basic needs. If I was a billionaire right now, my goal would be to spread this ideology (basically Buddhism) and to change society in which everyone's basic needs (base of Maslow's hierarchy) is met. The best system under this ideology is likely socialism.

>>10262661
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQsnHkfs3sA

You may not want life to be meaningless, but remember: The fact that you want something to be true is not a reason to think it is. If the troubling answers are the best answers we have, and they really do entail that life is meaningless—then, life is meaningless. We can’t abandon basic logic simply because it doesn’t tell us what we want to hear.

>>10263964
You guys should really watch this. It clears up a lot of stuff about the self, identity, consciousness and the like, etc
(It's based on a book by a reputable polymath, no youtube quackery)

>>10264035
The meaning of our existence has been given to us by evolution, and it is simply 'to live'. Whatever you do in life, it has to help you, your loved ones, your tribe, your country, your species, your planet, life itself to live. It's as simple as that. No untold tomes of thinkery necessary.

>>10264445
Not him but will do, seems interesting. If you've studied another book by Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach, he describes the MU puzzle. The point of it is that intelligence has a way of breaking out of loops. Once we can't solve the MU puzzle we know to break out of the loop of trying to solve it, but lower intelligence such as computers don't.

I've been thinking about the myth of Sisyphus and how our lives are basically like his. Also a loop. However, we die around 80 years old, but leave behind children to continue the loop. Now apply this to humanity. If we were truly intelligent, we'd stop reproducing and break out of the loop just like the MU puzzle. But we won't. That's the irony of life, once an organism gets super intelligent, it realizes it should quit life. (Not necessarily through suicide as an individual but suicide as a species from ceasing reproduction)

>>10264451
But why live? No way humanity will survive billions of years til the heat death anyway.

Ye I say everything is determined, so there is no free will. Cuz like... shouldn’t everything be predetermined cuz Big Bang?

>>10265121
>Cuz like... shouldn’t everything be predetermined cuz Big Bang?
What caused the big bang?

>>10265139
What caused God?

>>10264874
Why eat we if were just gonna it out shit later