/sci/ - Science & Math

Explain my consciousness and could a clockwork construction obtain consciousness

>>10438025
>sam harris

Kill yourself.

>>10438055
This

>>10438025
If free will doesn't exist, and you are in a desert, starving, what is the logical course of action?

>>10438025
I dont have a problem with determinism but Sam Harris is the worst proponent of this 'school of thought'.

bait thread, op has checked out, hide it

>>10438068
why?

>>10438052
>consciousness is unexplained therefore I have freewill

Just as bad as theists.

>>10438061
>>10438061
You aren't freed from your need to survive yet, thirst forces you to find means of survival, so you can't freely climb the highest dune in the desert because "you want to" without expecting to die. You're tied to your instincts.

The idea behind free will works like pure math. That's to say, pure bullshit.

>>10438112
So your answer is: The fact you chose something indicates that you have no free will. I bet you can easily ascribe choosing to sit down and let yourself die to free will not existing eithet. Go fuck yourself

>>10438086
Can you provide evidence of consciousness?

>>10438025
causality was BTFO thousands of years ago. Free will is a fact of life because nothing necessarily necessitates other things to happen. There is a true free choice being made somewhere at the beginning of the line.

I disagree with free will for one reason. From the very beginning of the universe every single particle was shot off in a specific way. If the universe were to reset right this second and expand exactly the same. There shouldn't be any reason to believe it would turn out any different than right now. Sorry, sitting in an emergency room so this is probably somewhat of a cluttered thought. Hopefully I got the point across.

>>10438128
Can you?

>>10438135
>was shot off in a specific way
>the universe will be the exact same if it reset

free will doesn't exist; for you.

>>10438076
Racist, hateful white supremacist enabler. Also a neo-conservative

>>10438158
I tried really hard, but I couldn't find an argument in your post.

>>10438205
Sucks, maybe next time you should ask your programmer to teach you how, or are you not allowed to do that because your a robot-npc devoid of free will? You might as well die though.

>>10438135
Quantum indeterminacy refutes Laplace's demon. Just so you don't assume determinism always holds.
Still, it doesn't give us free will.

>>10438174
I've only read and watched his philosophical and spiritual stuff and it is in line with my beliefs. I haven't really gotten into his political stuff since I'm not that interested in politics. His main political qualm I encountered in his spiritual work is that religion convinces people that doing something like flying a plane into a tower will get them into heaven.

well i don't have a choice in the matter, do i?

>>10438231
That's called islamophobia, and it's a form of racism.

>>10438146
No, except anecdotal experience

>>10438285
fuck the muslim race am I right

>>10438025
I never got the "no free will" argument

What you are is what you are. The decisions you make are the decisions you make. That your decisions and thoughts are, in reality, an extraordinarily complex series of chemical reactions makes no difference to the fact that they're still YOUR thoughts and decisions. What is meant by "freedom," if not that?

Can't imagine the kind of pseud to write a whole book about this.

>>10438220
>Quantum indeterminacy
nice meme

you're right though it doesn't affect the free will argument. randomness is not any more "free will" than determinism.

>>10438285
I think given the consistent track record of islamic based attacks well warrant a fear of the religion. Certainly not racist.

>>10438285
What's wrong with racism ?

>>10438313
Excellent book

>>10438309
It'a not random. Much like a bullet fired from a gun isn't random. It has a set path because it is bound by the laws of this universe. Exactly like every particle in the big bang. They're bound by these laws as well.

>>10438285
Fear of people who hold wildly delusional beliefs about the world and reality is now racism, nice.

>>10438332
Oh have you done an experiment recently that proves this? Congrats on your nobel prize!

>>10438295
Same.

>>10438285
Is he wrong in his assertion? Is jihad not a thing?

>>10438025
Your question implies people have a choice whether to believe in free will or not.

>>10438309
>an extraordinarily complex series of chemical reactions
There's more to this. I do recommend reading the book to gain a better understanding. It's under 100 pages.

>>10438025
Define free
Define will

>>10438285
ben pls go and stay go

>>10438339
>Oh have you done an experiment recently that proves this? Congrats on your nobel prize!
Have you ever taken a course on classical mechanics? It's high school physics. Billiard balls all hitting each other may seem random to you but they're following the laws of physics.

>>10438362
They do. It's not free, but the message can influence their beliefs. Much like their environment and genetics have influenced them.

>>10438342
So we agree consciousness has no proof and therefore doesn’t exist?

>>10438371
>free
costing $0.00

>will
a traditional male name, short for William

>>10438220
If you add a randomness dial to your biological machine it wouldn't make you any more "free".
Sam discussed this with Dan Denette who's a "compatibilist" and famous for saying there is no such thing as "consciousness". Dan couldn't see the point in saying "we have no free will" because it's simply a useful concept and we all act like we have free will anyways so, he asserts, that it must be what people are talking about when they say "free will" even though this is not really how most (read: religious) people think but rather their notion of "free will" is "libertarian free will" which even Dan disputes and calls it illusory.

>>10438384
Having no proof doesn't imply non existence.

We have no proof of a creator but it is possible one exists. (Just not the one people worship)

https://www.osho.com/iosho/library/read-book/online-library-burden-dependence-whole-989faf2b-140?p=9e8984b932b410dfd9568924d62ba210

>>10438369
>You can't choose many aspects of who you are therefore you can't choose any aspect of how you live your life
>If you made a decision based on past experience, it wasn't really your decision
What a retard

I'll, pass thanks. I wouldn't waste my time if it was under 1 page.

the scientific consensus is that free will exists

>>10438339
Yes, I used to do these expiraments as a child with marbles. Do you think the laws of physics were different at any point in time during the universe? That would be impossible without a metaphysical influence and this thread isn't the place to discuss that. However, my point still stands.

>>10438309
>complex series of chemical reactions
and those complex series of chemical reactions are nothing more than a super complex series of atoms, which are nothing more than a super-de-duper complex complex series of particles.
At some point, all of this bullshit becomes absolutely useless.

>>10438377
Great, so the universe is made of billiard balls? Care to share your results?

>Have you ever taken a course on classical mechanics?
Have you ever taken a course on quantum mechanics?

I'm getting my bachelors in physics this year. Do you even know what "the laws of physics" are?

>>10438389
>If you add a randomness dial to your biological machine it wouldn't make you any more "free".
I didn't say it did. I was showing the axiom of determinism doesn't always hold in all cases.

I agree with Sam on the matter of free will. Dennett just changes the definition to sell his books.

>>10438402
No it doesn't. He's right. You reacted based on certain stimuli. Whether that be light, sound, touch, smell, etc. If that stimuli had never been presented to you, would you have acted in that way? If not, then your action wasn't your decision. Your action was a set of chemical reactions based off of that stimuli. You didn't choose to act that way, you were stimulated to do so. That doesn't sound like free will to me.

How the fuck are smart people arguing about this? Doesn't the entire discussion depend on your definition of free will?

>>10438025
It's still up for debate until we figure out what consciousness is. I personally agree that life is simply the most complex rube goldberg machine there is, but I can be proven wrong. Come back in 50 years.

>>10438401
Sweet, I have some marbles here with me, as well as an upside down bowl. Care to give us a demonstration of your deterministic model for symmetry breaking?

>>10438402
My point is that it's useless no matter how complex it is. The physical world encodes your mental information, that doesn't mean your mental information isn't real. It's just a more complex and foreign representation, but it's still "you"

>>10438403
>Care to share your results?
>I'm getting my bachelors in physics this year

Do you disagree with the atomic structure of matter? Weird behavior on the subatomic scale doesn't discredit classical behavior on the larger scale.

>>10438408
Because it triggers them and their specialness.

>>10438391
So you don’t look down on me for believing in a god?

>>10438403
He didn't say the universe was made of billiard balls. They still follow the same laws. I'd assume someone with a bachelors would know that. Whether a billiard ball or a particle, they are still bound by the laws of the universe. Do I really need to pull them all out? First law of thermodynamics, second law, we can move to Newton's laws. Boyel's laws perhaps? Because the point is, they all still follow these laws. Here's the thing my man, I have no doubt you're more educated than me. You're clearly no where near as smart as I am. If you're dumb ass came in here swinging around a FUCKING BACHELORS. You're clearly room temp IQ.
>>10438413
Why would I need a bowl? Are you assuming our universe has some kind of physical boundary? Is that what the bowl is supposed to be?

>>10438411
You don't even need to figure out what consciousness is. Free will is incoherent either way. Either everything about your action is influenced previously external to your consciousness, or you act in a random manner right at that moment. Neither are free.
If you act right in that moment, what did you base your choice on? Previous influences or random choice.

>>10438423
Yup I caught that too. Fucking fraudster.

Btw this is called "unity of knowledge".

>>10438384
My own consciousness exists, but I can't prove it to you.

causality is a religion

>>10438422
First of all since we don't have free will I don't look down on anyone. Second of all, if you believe in a creator that's not involving any religions then you could present a valid argument in which there is something rather than nothing so it'd require something external creating the universe we know (maybe even in other dimensions). But religious belief in deities I'm not too fond of.

Why am I experiencing life from my perspective and not a different one?

>>10438423
Don't be too hard on him, clearly his curriculum didn't provide an adequate education on philosophy or logic.

>>10438433
Mine exists. I don’t know about yours, p-zombie

>>10438423
There's a difference between a bachelors and a bachelors from a national research university with an 8.4% acceptance rate. If you really wanna swing dicks I'm right here.

>derivative chemistry bullshit
>Newton's laws
Is he baiting? I can't tell. Try the principle of least action, conservation of quantum number, coordinate and scale invariance, and poincare symmetry, for starters.

>Why would I need a bowl?
sigh. drop a marble in the exact middle of the bowl. Which way does it roll off? It's still following the laws of physics, isn't it? Obviously we're assuming the bottom of the bowl is round.

The bowl represents the equation of motion.

>>10438432
>>10438447
>philosophy failures
oh, that explains it

>>10438445
This is a very metaphysical question I have trouble grasping myself. I asked it in humanities and a really smart anon pointed me toward Advaita Vedanta. He said we have Awareness and everything else (matter/energy). From what I recall, Awareness (all one awareness, without our identities) is the true reality. And somehow it didn't conflict with the hard problem of consciousness because of this apparent dualism. However, a lot of it was metaphysical and can't be confirmed through science. But none of it was the religious BS of gods that we usually hear. It makes sense to me in a way. The realest thing we know is our awareness and our brains interpret the world through gathering info through senses and processing them. I don't remember what he said exactly about that question but he might have hinted that this separation of experience is an illusion since the one Awareness was reality. Again, it wasn't religious mumbo jumbo, just metaphysical.

>>10438453
I have a bachelors of criminal law from an Ivy you fuck. That doesn't make me a lawyer. You have a bachelors from a "top university" you still only have a bachelors. A 4 year degree. There are high school students that graduate with their bachelors you dumb fuck.
~~~long exhale uwu sigh
No, putting a marble in a bowl here on earth would not be the same as a particle instants after the big bang. There wouldn't be enough mass to act like a marble on earth. Burn that bachelors. Better yet, kill your professors so they don't do the same disservice to everyone else.

>>10438460
Expanding on this, he said eastern philosopher Gaudapada said the universe can't have come from nothing (or whatever caused the singularity) since that makes no sense. The universe can't be eternal either since something eternal does not change. So the third option was that Awareness is the cornerstone of the universe. Something like that.

>>10438453
Come back when your prefrontal cortex matures at 25.

>>10438469
>Something eternal does not change
How about something like steady state universe or a cyclical one

>>10438025
Why does it matter ?

>>10438481
Plausible. I'm not sure.

>>10438122
No, "you" are an amalgation of countless neurons firing meaning if anything happens to this neuron mass so does "you". Since your existence is dependence of neurons or biochemistry then you have no free will as your will can be modified by any neuron arresting chemical like alcohol for example.

>>10438466
You tried to claim authority based on a class I took in 11th grade and now look like a total fucking idiot. Get a grip.

>putting a marble in a bowl here on earth would not be the same as a particle instants after the big bang
There were literally trillions of instances of symmetry breaking instants after the big bang.

>There wouldn't be enough mass to act like a marble on earth
So they don't have equations of motion? The fuck? The marble on the bowl was just an analogy for minimizing the action. Is your mind literally completely incapable of abstraction?

>Burn that bachelors. Better yet, kill your professors so they don't do the same disservice to everyone else.
Is this how you act every time you lose an argument?

>>10438473
Don't come back.

>>10438496
I tried to claim authority based on a class you took? What in the fuck are you even talking about? YOU tried to claim authority you dumb fuck. YOU were the fucking retard that brought up your *almost* bachelors degree. I didn't bring that up. YOU did. Holy shit dude, thank God you grew up privileged. If you had to get by in your intelligence you would be absolutely fucked. I didn't lose the argument. You still havent said anything of merit. You just started screaming DID YOU DO THESE EXPIRAMENTS THAT MIMIC THE CONDITIONS OF THE BIG BANG?!?!?!?!?! THEN HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY KNOW IT WORKS LOKE THAT WOWOWOWOW YOURE USING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I KNOW THE LAWS OF PHYSICS I ALMOST HAVE A BACHELORS. WHY ARE YOU BRINGING UP MY BACHELORS?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's how you look from a 3rd party observer. Every single person in this thread knows you're retarded except for you.

>>10438507
Whew mate, that's a lot of caps lock. I was wondering when you would give up on making "arguments."

You said
>Have you ever taken a course on classical mechanics? It's high school physics.
You were asking about my education so I filled you in, and then you started whining like a total bitch. Buyer's remorse about your narc degree?

>>10438524
That wasn't me. I know ID's aren't a thing in /sci/ but that was a different dude. Which is why here >>10438423 I said "He" not "I". Good thing you didn't shoot for a bachelors of English. You'd fuck that one up too, idiot.

>>10438524
He didn't say that, I did. Why? You were implying classical mechanics doesn't hold on the lager scale here >>10438339
If you think the bullet's path from the gun is random then you need to redefine what you think is random.

>>10438025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww

>>10438550
>Nothing to do with free will

>>10438025
>its a /sci/ pretends to be /lit/ episode
Funny how a book that tries to somewhat introduce neuroscience into determinist philosophy and /sci/ skips straight past it to shitpost about the metaphysical shit

>>10438545
>You were implying classical mechanics doesn't hold on the lager scale
How have you not grasped that what I'm claiming is that idealized classical mechanics itself is not deterministic? Billard balls hitting each other is not the only classical system. The scenario where the ball drops at the center of a symmetric hill, it is essentially "random" which way it will fall. This is called symmetry breaking, and while classical systems can't really have perfect symmetry to begin with, it is extremely common in quantum field theory. (I know you are going to object that quantum systems can't have perfect symmetry either, but the point still holds based on the "monkeys all the way down" argument which was your argument to begin with)

>>10438579
I can see it for a quantum system, but how would you isolate the system from all forces on a falling billiard ball for example? A tiny molecule in the air could nudge it in any direction. Or a quantum fluctuation. You couldn't account for all variables in a large scale.

>>10438616
I said idealized classical mechanics. But it still applies, think about it a little bit:
Say a quantum fluctuation decides which way the ball falls. Well, what if this quantum fluctuation was also product of symmetry breaking? Then the whole thing is still random. It doesn't matter how microscopic or macroscopic in the hierarchy you get, there's symmetry breaking at every level, it's a fundamental mechanism of physics.

>>10438342
>>10438295
>>10438146
>>10438128
>>10438086
>>10438052
>>10438450
>>10438433
>sci discovers solipsism

>>10438643
I see what you're saying. But still, something nudged the ball, a force on it, random or not. It moved in respect to the direction and amount of force, which is classical mechanics. I wouldn't say this symmetry breaking wasn't due to some force or even an imbalance in the ball's density.
And like I said earlier, Laplace's demon doesn't hold due to quantum mechanics, throwing absolute determinism out the window.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

>ITT people who haven't heard of the uncertainty principle

>>10438677
t. someone who doesn't understand either the uncertainty principle or the free will argument

>>10438673
Dude I already explicitly said that it doesn't apply to practical classical systems as a whole, because they are not fundamental. Look up what idealized means.

also there's nothing inherently more probabilistic about QM, at least nothing proven to be so

>>10438655
literally baby's first philosophical thoughts lmfao. these niggas are fucking stupid

>>10438688
>t. someone who doesn't understand either the uncertainty principle or the free will argument
So you disagree with Hawkings who uses the uncertainty principle against the idea of Determinism which is the same thing as having no free will?

>>10438702
source? And by that I mean a quote from Hawking

Also, I don't give much credence to things scientists say in their dotage

>>10438025
How do you even define free will in sense that religious people propose? The ability in any particular instance to intercede between the laws of physics and the antecedent to produce action or outcomes distinct from those which occur mechanistically or probabalistically without said input?

>>10438428
This to the nth degree. Belief in the classical definition of free will is nothing more than dualism.

>>10438052
>could a clockwork construction obtain consciousness
why not? For all you know rocks have qualia too.

>>10438693
well, there is solipsism and then there is giving up and burying yourself in lazy rationalizations.

I have reached the "giving up and not giving a fuck" stage long ago but it's not like you can ever refute it.

1. We have free will.
2. We are all special; even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. God loves you and created man in his own image.
Denying your free will, is just a way to dishevel responsibility because you feel some fundamental and profound guilt, something man has done since the beginning. Eve blamed the serpent and Adam blamed Eve. We don't have anyone to blame but ourselves, my friend. We and our own deliberate choices are to blame. You may blame habit, or custom but forget that it was you who forged and strengthened their links in the first place.
Rather than continue to blame external affairs for your own floating adrift aimlessly, you should look inside, deep inside your soul. That is where you should direct your focus and your questions. Repent and believe in the Gospel.

>>10438887

>>10438897
why do white people make this face

>>10438897
>le Firefly space science man fictitious character face as an argument against God
Cringe.

>I made le epic preach post on sci, why aren't I getting (You)s yet??

>>10438961

>>10438025
There's no magical jewish free will, but there's natural deterministic free will. Sam Harris is a brainlet.

Everything you do is only a result of all actions taken before, freewill is an illusion, its more like adding chaos to novelty

>>10438441
I bet you are one of those liberals who thinks we should accept pedos and ISIS fighters because they had no choice

>>10439252
People ITT don't understand free will. 99.999...% of the matter follows very predictable statistical laws. We are the infinitesimal percent that doesn't. To the universe, we seem to be an extraordinary string of coincidences. But it's not coincidence. It's free will. Whether you brain is a deterministic computer or not makes no difference, whether your decisions are just a product of nature+nurture or not, makes no difference.

>>10438052
it already does

Free will doesn't exist because everything that happens has a reason. Everything has a cause and effect. You didn't role a 5 because the dice was 1 mm too high, and the wind was blowing 0.01 due east, which is why you rolled a 2. If you can account for these variables, you predict the future. It's just that human brains aren't that powerful, and we can only account for so much.

Free will is what you call when you don't have enough information. Most people try to justify it as "it's unpredictable" and "you can change your life at any moment" but forget that everything happens around your brain and your bodily chemistry. Heck, even to get to this thought, I needed a chain of events and hormones, which were caused by my upbringing and the food I ate, that would manipulate my brain just the right way to post on 4channel. If you had EVERY variable under account, then you can objectively say the next event. Humans don't have all the variables, so we just call it free will.

Just my 2 cents

>>10438025
Pick accordingly

>>10439294
>Everything has a cause and effect
Easy for you to say. You see everything from the point of view of the past.
Of course hindsight is going to look like a domino effect. That doesn't mean it was truly the case.

>>10439325
Like I said, as humans we don't have enough information, so it seems like magic. If I knew the brains of all 7 billion people on this planet, the positioning of the earth and the sun, the positioning of all the bodies in space, I could create a line of events. It is always the case, which is why you can predict how dice roll if you control the environment.

>>10439294
A. There's no proof of deterministic universe

B. Determinism or lack thereof does not imply free will or lack thereof

>>10439352
Thomas Aquinas pilled.

I didn't read that book but from interviews Sam Harris seems to attempt to conclude that free will doesn't exist from laughable empirical experiments about decision-making and self-reported time at which such occurred. Free will is an absurd idea philosophically from the get go, because you don't control your thoughts period, and even the chain of 'reasoning' is completely out of your control and therefore so is your ultimate "decision", you don't need any b.s. study to dismiss free will.

>>10438025
I don't get why people are bothered by the idea of not having free will. What difference does it make?

>>10438897
>>10439089
>>10439117
seething

>>10439467

>>10438872
I can think of one that does

>>10439262
Not accept but understand and be compassionate toward. If they pose a liable threat to society then the best course of action for now does seem to be isolating them from society as a preventative measure to avoid a repeat of their actions.

>>10439277
>People ITT don't understand free will.
>Whether you brain is a deterministic computer or not makes no difference,
>whether your decisions are just a product of nature+nurture or not, makes no difference.

brainlet that doesn't understand free will

>>10439294
based and redpilled

>>10439441
He mentions more than just the experiments.
Different sources of evidence are required for some people to accept a conclusion. Some want experimental evidence so he presents it as well.

>>10439461
Then they are not special anymore. If you accomplish something that you weren't truly responsible for, no reason to have pride.

>>10439747
I fucking knew it. You faggot Liberal piece of shit. Hope you get stabbed by someone who "had no choice but to stab you".

>>10439882
What will that change for you?

Because I've never seen evidence we don't.

>>10438387
Based and retardpilled

>>10438025
>Sam Harris
no

but if there is a will there is a way, so if we dont have free will then whos do we have

>>10438052
Any individual’s consciousness is a stream of inputs and outputs to a set of hardware running a positive/negative feedback algorithm with memory that relates behavior to positive/negative outcomes.

The reason we are having so much trouble developing an artificial consciousness is that we don’t want to develop an artificial body with a violent survival mechanism, we don’t consider them human enough to be conscious, we’re still narrowing down training without relying on huge amounts of input, and generating that data without being absolutely fucking psyochotic; like we are on the Internet because we receive very little feedback relative to what we get by reading a person’s face, body, and vocal tone in person.

>>10438086
>>consciousness is unexplained therefore I have freewill

Consciousness isn't JUST unexplained, it's literally explainable. It's because consciousness is a recursive process and every time you peer to understand it better it becomes altered, deeper, and more complex.

The notion of freedom is an illusion. We're limited to our physiological and psychological hereditary. Society's role is to reduce the inequalities that inevitably arise. Free will means to self-perpetuate under physical laws without subjection to any external/separate mind. But, if I make the decision to not decide (or if I think to not think) I have still did the opposite of what I intended. Contradiction. Therefore, free will is an illusion
ni99er bitch

>>10440482
>The reason we are having so much trouble developing an artificial consciousness is that we don’t want to develop an artificial body with a violent survival mechanism, we don’t consider them human enough to be conscious, we’re still narrowing down training without relying on huge amounts of input, and generating that data without being absolutely fucking psyochotic; like we are on the Internet because we receive very little feedback relative to what we get by reading a person’s face, body, and vocal tone in person.

Oh yeah, THAT'S why we're having trouble developing artificial consciousness. Not because it's extremely difficult, but because it would be violent. Gotcha.

>>10439769
the problem with that is that if you present many arguments, people who don't want to accept a conclusion will only feel the need to discard the weakest one to undermine his credibility and his conclusion altogether.

>>10441498
That's the people's fault for being brainlets

>>10438025
Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
With that in mind, panpsychism is obviously true and you're correct that there's nothing special about human consciousness.

>>10438025
What biological mechanisms push biological determinants to tell everyone they don't have free will? If you reply to this post, do you have free will or are you being pushed to do so by the invisible hand of genetics?

>>10438397
Your post is a confirmation of his assesment, well done.

>>10441782
Mood, hormones, addiction to forums, boredom, loneliness, the natural instinct that makes you want everyone to bend themselves to your opinion even if they don't even know you, everything amassed together makes this discussion inevitable.

I think there is free will, but it is bound by everything around you and everything that has been around you. The "hammering in" described here >>10438369 limits the extent of what you can choose, because you cannot choose something if it is not already known to you (whether the knowing is conscious or below).

What you can do is choose to have different things hammered into you. Of course, this ends up as a feedback loop that ends when you get comfortable and stop moving around.

You can't decide with complete freedom what you want hammered into you, because what you want is a result of that very hammering.

>>10438052
Your consciousness is a an adaptation to a universe comprised of stochastic processes. It is not so much a dichotomy between determinism and free will, so much as it free will vs an uncountable set of probability distributions upon which the organism makes it's best guess via consciousness as a survival strategy. Free will is sort of correct in a certain way in which the conscious mind does make assessments based on its incomplete understanding of reality and the inherent probabilities of certain events occurring if the decision is made. With that being said, you are not free to decide either the circumstances under which those choices are made, nor are you free to decide the probability distributions which accompany every single one of those choices. It's really a matter of "you" being an incomplete set of knowledge, and only having the freedom to pursue what you think is best in a relatively short temporal frame.

People who think randomness has anything to do with free will gotta be literal retards. If all reactions that lead to a decision are clearly chained or if there is a quantum dice rolling mixed in it makes no difference, it's out of your control.

>>10438025
>Why do people have a hard time grasping we don't have free will
Well, apparently they don't have a choice about that.

>Just admit there's nothing special about you!
Maybe they would if they could

>>10442461
This.

>>10442486
>What you can do is choose to have different things hammered into you.
>You can't decide with complete freedom what you want hammered into you, because what you want is a result of that very hammering.

So where does your free will come in? How do you make a decision on what should be hammered in without previous influence?
You said there is free will then proceeded to show there is no free will.

>>10438406
Determinism is true, but thermostats can still control the temperature. They do it via laws of physics, which, when analyzed at the subatomic level, are indescribably complex, but which can also be analyzed at a much grosser and less precise level where we're able to make sense of them. You do it via the laws of physics which are indescribably complex, but which can be analyzed at a much grosser and less precise level in terms of concepts like "intention" and "choice."
What causes Hurricanes? A process of evaporation, associated with water vapor and air pressure, which grows on an exponential level.
An insane person might object and say that cannot be it at all: After all evaporation doesn't exist. It's just shorthand for an indescribably complex process involving air molecules and water molecules.
Okay? That doesn't mean evaporation isn't real.

>>10438025

Pretentious self absorbed fuck putting the theory as of its proven facts


this is why they used to exterminate bookish types

>>10442870
There is free will within the bounds of your hammering.

I mean to say there is no free will.

>>10439752
nice argument you fucking retard

>determinism isn't free will, but things just being random instead totally is!

>>10442241
Haha wait so that was actually his argument? Random conjectures that have no proof or reasoning behind them? Book must be even more useless than I thought. Does he even give a rigorous definition of "free will" in the 100 pages he spends talking about it?

>>10438025
Why do (You) have a hard time grasping the fact that troll threads belong in >>>/b/ and on-topic relevant high-quality threads belong on all other boards?

The real answer is that it doesnt matter.
Free will exsisting or not does not change a bit about how we should live or see the world, so it is utterly meaningless to get your panties in a twist over whether it exists or not.

>>10444937
It affects how you believe that certain types of offenders should be treated. Lack of belief in the dualistic idea of free will typically leads one to believe in reform rather than punishment. Personally, I believe that reform leads to much higher rates of societal (and perhaps technological) advancement than punishment. This results from my lack of belief in dualism or free will.

>>10445135
>reform vs punishment

false dilemma
I want neither reform or punishment, I want exclusion of criminals from social coexistence for utilitarian reasons, mostly because reform is not at all possible in a vast number of cases.

>>10445142
I agree that some may not be able to be reformed. In these cases, I think it is better to isolate these people together. We can still gather information from these people if we provide them with the ability to educate themselves and those around them.

Isolate them from society, but still attempt to educate and utilize them for the benefit of technological, and perhaps societal, advancement.

>>10440482
you have no idea what you're talking about

>>10438132
this, but don't expect the /sci/tard pseudo intellectual philosophylets to understand

>>10438332
>>10438377
Classical mechanics are wrong you moron

>>10444173
Where is the free will in any of the things you mentioned? Now I cant tell if you were just being sarcastic in your post.

>>10444937
Reducing the feelings of pride and hate.

>>10445187
How was causality BTFO thousands of years ago?

>>10445190
>Something wrong helped us land a rover on Mars

>>10442486
So you're more of a compatibilist. You can't move the Knight like the Queen, but you've still got a few specific moves at your disposal.

>>10440727
Difficulty is relative, but it’s hard to call anything “intelligent” when we keep adding a kill switch to it and moving the goal posts because every time we breach some feat because now that we know how THAT part of the mind works, we realize we’re just mimicking it and there is some OTHER aspect of consciousness that separates us from machines.

We’re basically dealing with the opposite end of philisophical zombies, where any individual can never be sure anyone else is conscious, except in the case of AI we can never be sure it has achieved consciousness or not.

>>10438025
I don't believe in free will. It makes the fact that I am a sad fat pathetic human being bearable. It's not my fault, it's been written since the big bang that this collection of atoms would become this big fat sack of autistic shit. Thank you Ben Stiller for showing me the light though I shouldn't have thanked you, I had no choice but to discover you.

>>10439352
>A. There's no proof of deterministic universe
All laws of nature are mathematical, and mathematics is deterministic.
>B. Determinism or lack thereof does not imply free will or lack thereof
Lack of determinism means lack of free will (any will actually), because brain becomes random.

>>10438025
This is kind of an obtuse question, because you could just say that the universe has determined that X person doesn't grasp determinism. Then asking why is self-defeating based on your claim.

Haven't people argued about this for like centuries. There is a really interesting arguement over God's omniscience and free will

>>10442486
If you choose between unknowns, it's still choice all right, just this choice is not free: normally you would want to choose the best option, and if choice was free you would choose what you want, but for unknown choice it's not what you choose because your estimate is misguided by ignorance, that's why only redpilled edgelords have free will.

>>10438025
Believe me, I don't understand either. Every single person I know irl believes in free will. Linquists, mathematicians, chemists, doctors, a lawyer, bunch of CS guys... people who are objectively smart and accomplished both academically as well as in their professional field. Not ONE understands this basic concept.

Everything we know about physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, and every bit we learn each passing year, clearly implies that free will is an impossibility. The fact that there can never be free will is right there in the law of causality. It can be explained in a million different ways, given countless real-life examples, and STILL these people don't get it.

It's literally exactly like when people - or the church - first heard that humans and other primates shared the same ancestor species. Outrage and denial, for literally no other reason than because their egos couldn't handle not being all that special and unique. Why do human beings have to apply their stupid fragile, snowflake egos to literally everything?

Why did humans evolve thoughts that they can organize if it serves no purpose considering "decisions are made before we can process them consciously", like no will claims?

>>10446288
The fact that there exist more complex and useful algorithms that deal with image manipulation doesn't mean that photoshop has more free will than paint.

>>10446327
or better yet that they have free will at all is what I meant. It's a non-sequitur.

>>10446327
You didn't get what we said. People who claim that we have no will, claim that all of our decisions are made prior to them appearing in the form of thoughts. If that is the case, what is the purpose of us having thoughts. Since the work is done before.

>>10446363
Your consciousness (whatever that is) is an alien entity watching a POV movie of the being it inhabits. It has no control over anything in the movie but it pretends that it does.

>>10446363
Anon I believe it's you who doesn't get my point. Think of it this way. The fact you have a basic decision making algorithm that simply react to surface level stimuli and one that is more complex and accurate due to the ability to factor in multiple variables, doesn't make the latter less deterministic. Also, several fmri studies show supposedly conscious decisions being pre-determined unconsciously.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/libets-dualism/4DA1A261AB03F9F609370478B339389B
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3625266/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2112

>>10446410
But the argument is that the latter is not even in use. We use our conscience to organize thoughts , but your argument is the thoughts are organized and decided before they reach our conscience therefore our conscience has no purpose.

>>10446460
I'm sorry, but you can't even follow your initial point.
>Why did humans evolve thoughts that they can organize if it serves no purpose considering "decisions are made before we can process them consciously", like no will claims?
This is a non-sequitur. Possessing a better algorithm for decision making doesn't make said algorithm deterministic, nor a product of free will.
As far as this thing goes:
>We use our conscience to organize thoughts , but your argument is the thoughts are organized and decided before they reach our conscience therefore our conscience has no purpose.
It's an entirely separate matter and it makes no sense. You probably meant consciousness, but even so you have to define consciousness and how it relates to free will.
I invite you to read up on those three articles in >>10446410 and see how some simple decisions arise.

>>10446484
Yeah, I meand consciousness, the thoughts you have in your head, what is the purpose of those if everything is organized and determined unconsciously.

It is my initial point, I just rephrased it.

>>10446502
Can you not read? The purpose is to improve the algorithm in charge of decision making which ultimately leads to survival.

>>10446127
I couldn't agree with you more on this.
Apart from the ego, I think another factor is that people are too busy/preoccupied with life to actually sit down and think about it. Or if they're close to making the connection, their brain jumps to thinking about something else.

>>10446517
How does it improve it when it is not used?

"Also, several fmri studies show supposedly conscious decisions being pre-determined unconsciously."

>>10446398
What is the purpose of this alien :O

>>10446410
"fMRI is not accurate"
"neuroscientists don't really know that much about the brain"

>>10446537
>How does it improve it when it is not used?
Not him but it is used right now since our brains are thinking of it and discussing it right now.

>>10446537
What? The fact that it evolves through use and trial and error has nothing to do with it being less deterministic. What are you even talking about? Try to spend 3 seconds reading responses before replying. You keep losing track of what you're talking about mate. We(you)'re talking past each other at this point. I'm off to bed.

>>10446559
But he just said that our conscious decisions aren't actually conscious and decided before. So we're not using it then.

>>10446571
God you're fucking retarded. You use consciousness, thinking and free will interchangeably and force equivalent or causal relationships between non sequiturs like 'but how can there be muh thinking without free will". Reread your post-chain.

>>10446584
Okay I will explain in easy terms because you are dum dum.

What is the point of decisions popping up in your head as in "you are aware of said decision" if what is decided is decided before we are aware?

>>10446546
To gather data on this universe and to use that data to improve upon it after this universe dies and is reborn in Universe 2.0

>>10446603
Moving goalposts again and asking questions about the hard problem of consciousness. Non sequiturs again. Nothing to do with free will. The answer to your question is 'no one knows why we are conscious'. But whether you are conscious of "it feeling like something to pick red over blue" (ie: the choice arising in consciousness), or not (ie: the choice not arising in consciousness) doesn't inform whether the decision was the product of free will.

>>10438025
becaues the idea of having it or not is a really good way to work out your futile muscles

>>10438025
I’m going to flick you in the head over and over and don’t you dare ask me to stop because I don’t have the will to

>>10438025
Why would you ask people to behave in ways you know they can’t since they haven’t got a choice?

>>10438025
For the simple reason that they don't understand that this fact doesn't change anything.

>>10446940
Here we have an example of just >>10447080
such a person.

>>10446936
You have will. It isn't free.
Hence the term free will.

>>10446940
See >>10445358

>>10445358
More like invite the feelings of apathy and nihilism, poisons on anyones sense of self. But the self is an illusion, isn't that right Harris?

>>10447366
Have you ever consistently meditated for any significant period of time (i. e. daily for a month)? Not having free will is interestingly an observable phenomenon and doesn't necessarily have to be a negative experience, quite the contrary.

>>10447547
>Haha bro just be a nihilist
>>10447538

>>10447551
So what is your point?

>>10447551
>Haha bro just believe in shit

>>10438132
>I can conceive of cause and effect being separate lmao

>>10446936
This is one retarded anon

people pragmatically act as though they have free will, because if they accept the truth of the matter they would have to go digging to see who is telling them what to think, and then we'd have another world war over jews again.

>>10447547
I don't believe in free will but not doing so hasn't led me into the delusion that I'm suddenly a prideless sack of shit who thinks hate is scary and bad.

>>10447599
Secular Jews are the ones that tell us we don't have free will. They are the real heroes. The whistleblowers on the puppet masters from Israel.

>>10447820
Next is getting rid of the illusion of self.
There is a self, it's just not what you think it is.

Introspect on your true identity, you won't find it.

>>10448089
There is no self, you fucking pretentious faggot. Just a sack of atoms arranged differently than dirt or air or anything else. Nothing unique.

>>10438052
>Explain my consciousness
Prove your consciousness.

>>10448423
That's not a helpful way to think. There is a self in that if you stab someone you are causing them to subjectively experience pain. There is no self as in there's no core identity in anyone.

>>10446363
There's no need for such purpose. I trust you're familiar with the logical fallacy of attributing purpose to us even being here, seeing as life is so unlikely? It is what it is. The sun, the orbit of the planets, the states of matter and all things standard model, and indeed life itself exist as a side product of the way matter and energy interact on a macroscopic level. There's no purpose, because none is required. It's coincidence. And the "reason" it all exists to allow us to ask these questions is simply that if it didn't, we wouldn't be asking them.

So in a similar manner, our experience of consciousness and our thoughts are just an emergent property of our intellect exposed to stimulus given experience. We are chemical and electrical software running on a biological hardware, programmed by everything we've experienced since being born.

If free will existed you could change the past.

>>10448826
Even if you could change the past, it wouldn't give you free will. Where'd your desire to change the past come from?

>>10446363
Only 7 pages. Worth the read.
https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/evolution_of_consciousness_2017.pdf

>>10438025
Obviously free will does not exist. I remember taking a college course on psychology(I know, so qualified) and hearing about a case in which a little girl, who was normal in every way, was locked in a dark room since birth, with no windows and her parents feeding her. She's now a ward of California, and completely mentally retarded. If she had an environment to mold her, it would have been a different story.

>>10449534
>She's now a ward of California, and completely mentally retarded. If she had an environment to mold her, it would have been a different story.
That girl's name?
Hillary Clinton