/sci/ - Science & Math

Define free will.

Absolutely it does. The soul also exists (i will defend if needed)

>>10637766
Being the arbiter of your own actions

No. Look up Libet's experiments.

>>10637753
Depends on how much you reinforce primal systems and habit loops. Most of us lose agency over our actions as we age. Gain control before its too late.

>>10637772
Prove it then.

>>10637779
Libet's experiments only hold if you hold that determinism and free will are incompatible. A plurality of philosophers argue for compatibilism - tying free will to the notion of responsibility (i.e. you authentically acted, even though you could not have done otherwise).

Look up Frankfurt's argument.

>>10637774
Not an answer. That doesn't rule out determinism.

>>10637753
Not in neurotypical people. The lack of free will is what allows them to predict each other and why the same is impossible with autistic people.

>>10637780
Masturbation doesn't release much dopamine, I think. What the hell it even means "hypofrontality"?

>>10637817
sperg cope

I am a compatibilist and my software has free will because I pass action delegates I chose to an object of a class that I named "Motivation"

>>10637822
Predicting tohers actions is incompatible with free will - the better you can predict their behavior, the less free will they have and vice versa. If others can correctly predict you, you no loger have the capacity to change your behavior once the prediction has been made.

>>10637827
Wow, this really is an autistic argument.
Your free will (or lack thereof) is unrelated to predictions about your actions. If you fall off a cliff, you don't hit the ground because someone predicted you'd hit the ground, you'd hit the ground because that is the nature of causality. The same would hold true for your actions.

>>10637753
I think you control your own actions but all of your choices are influenced by things you experienced in the past

>>10637834
Not autistic. The thing is that once the result can be predicted, it can no longer be changed. You can predict the fall because it cannot be stopped, the same way people can predict your behavior it cannot be cahnged anymore. This is the necessary consequence of the Newcomb's paradox. The better you can be predicted, the less free will you have.

>>10637834
Not autistic. The thing is that once the result can be predicted, it can no longer be changed. You can predict the fall because it cannot be stopped, the same way people can predict your behavior once it cannot be changed anymore. This is the necessary consequence of the Newcomb's paradox. The better you can be predicted, the less free will you have.

>>10637877
so is it okay to imprison people before they commit crime?

>>10637897
no, I never even implied that

>>10637756
based

>>10637753
>Do you think free will exists?
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>>10638050
Elaborate

>>10638050
[citation needed]

>>10637772

Interesting, I want to see your argument.

>>10637811
It shouldn't rule out determinism.

Whos pic is ops pic?

>>10637827
Influencing choice is incompatible with free will, prediction is fine. If choice is predictably free from influence, it's free all right.

>>10638147
on the dopamine side surely is re callbiration, unless that's included in motor function.

>>10637753
No because I believe in an omniscient God and faith is incompatible with free will.

>>10637897
Yes, if you want to prevent crime.

You are neither a slave or free.
Why does anyone think like this?

>>10638148
No, it is not. If I can predict you are going to do X, you cannot have the capacity to do Y instead, otherwise I couldn't be able to predict it.

>>10638059
>Elaborate
>>10638076
>[citation needed]
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.

>>10637753
In the way that a metaphysical part of us (soul) influences our decisions, no.
In the way that given two completely identical universes would everything inside behave exactly the same, we don't really know. We like to say that quantum-mechanics is "truly random" but in reality we don't know that.

>>10637753
Probably not. Our decisions are likely determinstic and just a response to the conditions we're in.

>>10637895
Well, but then we look at how predictable you could theoretically be, and from there it's easy to pose an omniscient being which is perfectly able to predict the future, and then your argument must conclude that there is no free will at all.

>>10638513
Randomness isn't choice, though, so the point is moot.

>>10638553
But it is!
If the universe isn't truly random, then there is no free will.
But if it is, then one definition of free will (being able to do something different under the same conditions) would be satisfied.

>>10637753
God not this shit again. You can't possibly know what is going to happen to you next, so what is the fucking difference if it does or doesn't?

>>10638561
> If the universe isn't truly random, then there is no free will

Fucking sperg, read the above. Literally 60% of philosophers polled take the position that you're a dipshit.

Read up on the topic (compatibilism) or gtfo this board.

>>10638513
>>10638533
>>10638561
>>10638724
Either such a being cannot exist, or the free will cannot exist. There could be formed two froms of free will, hard and soft.

Hard free will can only exist where your behavior cannot be predicted, as free will implies power to change the outcome, which is impossible once the outcome can be predicted.

Soft free will can function even despite predictability. Your behavior can be predicted, and can still have free will regardless. This may not be strictly impossible, depending on your definition of free will. But there is an important caveat that you cannot be aware of the prediction, otherwise you could change your behavior because of it, so that it would no longer match what was predicted. This makes soft free will near logical impossibility, but similar principles exist in quantum physics, so it may not be an empirical impossibility.

>>10638513
>>10638533
>>10638561
>>10638724
Either such a being cannot exist, or the free will cannot exist. There could be formulated two forms of free will, hard and soft.

Hard free will can only exist where your behavior cannot be predicted, as free will implies power to change the outcome, which is impossible once the outcome can be predicted.

Soft free will can function even despite predictability. Your behavior can be predicted, and can still have free will regardless. This may not be strictly impossible, depending on your definition of free will. But there is an important caveat that you cannot be aware of the prediction, otherwise you could change your behavior because of it, so that it would no longer match what was predicted. This makes soft free will near logical impossibility, but similar principles exist in quantum physics, so it may not be an empirical impossibility.

>>10637753
Why wouldn't I, when the other option is believing I am a "slave" to my own motives and learned preferences? Like what, I am a slave because I don't ever decide to stick my dick in a light socket or eat something that tastes bad?

>>10638553

the lack of understanding what it means to be "free" (in terms of "free will") makes me cringe. to be free doesn't mean, one can do whatever he wants by will. it means, to be able to recognize reason and make decisions based on those reasons.

nothing more and nothing less.

>>10638799
The hard/soft distinction doesn't apply to the compatibilist argument. The compatibilist bit is about how we chalk up responsibility for what caused an action. Get off Wikipedia and get on the SEP.

>>10638829
I am not the person who you were arguing in the meantime.

>>10638813
That’s will, not free will. Our decision making process is more complex than other animals, but that doesn’t our wills are free

>>10638832
I've not been in since the post you started responding to

>>10638843
no. that's wrong. the one who's only have a will, is not free in his will. the one who's able to recognize a reason and for that reason change his mind, has free will.

Yes

If you ask someone with Alzheimer's the same question twice, once before and once immediately after they forgot you ask the question, they will give either a different answer or the answer in different wording

Free will

>>10638893
ans that's totally fine with my definition. your error is in supposing, i'd deny that alzheimer-people do not have free will. i think they have as long as reasons are the reason for them to change their mind - even if they come to different conclusion every time (and can't remember decisions from 5 minutes ago, because their memory doesn't work anymore). if the alzheimer is a reason they can't recognize reasons, than they do not have free will.

>>10638480
> evolutionary biologists
Dude these guys rarely touch a human brain. You should ask neuroscientists at least

U got to consider things like the halo effect. Just because u can think does not mean u are free. Don't u know that ideas can possess u?

The human is more than pure logic, it comes with systems much older that reason. Reason is the tip of the iceberg.

>>10639038
yes, i'm familiar with this findings. my point is: even if "being able to recognize reason" (which is, by my definition, free will) makes only up for 1% of my decision, it is the 1% that matters the most. because that's the only thing we can reflect on. it is more or less impossible for me to investigate my own subconscious "willings".

>>10639094
and to add an even more important point: besides not being able to reflect on my subconsciousness, way more imporant is, that i'll never - by definition of subconsciousness - be able tp influence/change it. so: what i can't change anything on can't be part of me being free. only things i can change upon, can be part of my _free_ will. even if it's only 1% of my decision-making.

>>10637753
no it doesn't and stop spamming with free will threads

>>10639038
>you are more attracted to you are more attracted
>you like what you like
>you vote what you vote
>therefore no free willy

>>10637753
There’s no evidence of free will and it would contradict known physics.

>>10638874
No

>>10639130
No.

Between the demands of the subconscious and influence of our past conditioning, free will is doesn't exist. Limited will, maybe, but we are not completely free.

>>10637753
do we really have to have this exact same thread every fucking day

>>10639141
Did you actually decide to make that post?

>>10639134
Yep. It would violate the conservation of energy of free will existed because an interaction would have to occur with neurons that was not from other material sources, or the “free will” could never be imposed upon reality.

>>10637766
Having a consciousness with the power of self-determination, where control of the will is solely in the hands of the agent whose will it is.

>>10639154
Oh, that doesn’t exist, since physical states of the brain influence decision making.

>>10639148
I don't understand why you think free will has to by definition be against any physical law, since you are defining the person as that living body already. It's like saying you are something outside of reality from the beginning and expecting the physical body to fly away, but free will from the scientific view should be about whether the system can access rational axioms and choose to act either on them or not. It's a system that can associate whatever choice it does with itself, and define itself by those choices. A computer can't do it, a human mind can.

Yes, bc a rock can't do shit, an ant can do some shit, a mouse can do more shit even and humans can do alot of shit. It's degrees of shit you can do. So free will is about degrees

>>10639172
>I don't understand why you think free will has to by definition be against any physical law, since you are defining the person as that living body already.

Wrong. Never did that anywhere.

>but free will from the scientific view should be about whether the system can access rational axioms and choose to act either on them or not. It's a system that can associate whatever choice it does with itself, and define itself by those choices. A computer can't do it, a human mind can.

That’s determinism, not free will. The decisions taken by the physical brain are ultimately just the consequences of atoms bouncing about.

>>10637756
Is this supposed to be a pro-freewilltard argument?
It gets posted every time like it's meant to counteract free will denial in some way.

>>10638480
>Believing
>belief
>consensus
>the state of argumentation on /sci in 2019
Sad.

>>10639154
The brain is completely material and influenced by the external deterministic/probabilistic environment and is thus devoid of any "power". "Free will" is nonsensical empty philosowank, as evident by your "definition" being anchored on equally void concepts, such as "consciousness" and "self-determination".

>>10639176
Nothing you named possesses any degree of free will.

it is FACT. you look at two objects, they r different. you don't live in two worlds @ once. beings obviously didn't start the motion of heaven so the universe is infinite & timeless. your body is made of matter so you can never find the quantum particle.

>>10639187
>>10639187
>Wrong. Never did that anywhere.
So, you didn't understand it.

>are ultimately just the consequences of atoms bouncing about.
Is it hard to understand the difference between bouncing balls chaotically on a snooker table and a machine like the brain that can evaluate statements?

In the first case the atoms don't create a rational system for decision making, in the second case, it does. Again, free will isn't about the ability of flying away like Harry Potter and defying know physical laws, and I don't know why you think that and how you would expect to have a debate on whether you can do magic or not here.

>>10639172
>whether the system can access rational axioms and choose to act either on them or not
Even if you completely ignore the joke free will is on the physical level, you still corner yourself in, because choices are made on the subconscious level before being made "consciously"- this kind of eliminates humans as free will entities, per your definition.

>>10639193
It as, bc you as a human can reply to me. But a rock can't. That's the useful idea of free will. I can't really understand the fatalist view of a movie, bc it can't even be tested

>>10639176
>>10639211
>but i'm only pretending to be retarded
Fuck off, namefag retard.

>>10639201
i am the creator of this proof. anyways it has some profound consequences: because you have volition, you can learn to change your physiology with your thoughts, but only to the degree that you stay alive.
you can determine what will keep you alive by measuring pathways of the body in response to stimuli (parts of brain r removable)
because of evolution we all have just about the same triggers, thus justice & work ethic are based on will, not biology. you feel pain or pleasure, happiness, sadness due to your environment; if you were not capable of feeling you would not have free will

>>10639218
No, I'll fuck off when i want because i have free will
I forgot the e in the namefag.

>>10639208
>because choices are made on the subconscious level before being made "consciously"

Not really, this is more often about random choices as in "pick a hand", and the results vary.

And if you take Libet's experiments for example, Libet himself modeled what he called Free Won't to explain why sometimes people wouldn't do what their subconscious told them to do, and defined Free Won't as the conscious power of veto.

From simple intuition, if you define all brain activity as unconscious then you throw away the current model that relates what people see and feel with part of their brain activity. And just like any part of the brain, as current theory says, these neurons are also able to make decision, so the unconscious doesn't necessarily always causes the conscious decisions.

>>10639207
>So, you didn't understand it.

Nope.

>Is it hard to understand the difference between bouncing balls chaotically on a snooker table and a machine like the brain that can evaluate statements?

That machine is just made of atoms bouncing around. What it turns out is predetermined and ultimately no more “free” than an iPhone.

>In the first case the atoms don't create a rational system for decision making, in the second case, it does.

Irrelevant.

>>10639224
What's more is it is okay to kill plants because I have been under general anesthesia and though my body was alive I did not exist

>>10639236
So in your belief system, if the machine wasn't predetermined, then that would define free will.

>>10639211
I only reply to you because photons hit my eyeballs which sent electrical signals to my visual cortex where blah blah blah.

>>10639224
>My bare asssertions constitute a proof lol xD

>And if you take Libet's experiments for example, Libet himself modeled what he called Free Won't to explain why sometimes people wouldn't do what their subconscious told them to do, and defined Free Won't as the conscious power of veto.

>A different part of the brain is dominant over another part, so free will

Nope.

People who think free will is an illusion are people with shitty lives that don’t want to take any accountability.

Here’s a thought experiment that destroys anti free-willers. Imagine we have a super computer that knows all the variables that make up the state of the universe at any given time. Using the laws of physics it predicts I am going to raise my left arm in 5 seconds. But I have already made up in my mind that I will do the opposite of what the “all knowing” super computer says. Anti free-willers btfo’d.

>>10639239
>So in your belief system

Don’t have one.

> if the machine wasn't predetermined, then that would define free will.

That’d just make it random.

>>10639244
I didn't say you have free will I said you were born with it

>>10639235
>Not really
No u
https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
>what their subconscious told them to do
That decision to ignore it is also coming from the subconscious.
The point is that all your conscious decisionmaking is actually unconscious and you consicous level doesn't actually have any control over it.

>>10639245
>People who think free will is an illusion are people with shitty lives that don’t want to take any accountability.

Cool ad hom. Not an argument.

>Here’s a thought experiment that destroys anti free-willers. Imagine we have a super computer that knows all the variables that make up the state of the universe at any given time. Using the laws of physics it predicts I am going to raise my left arm in 5 seconds. But I have already made up in my mind that I will do the opposite of what the “all knowing” super computer says. Anti free-willers btfo’d.

It wouldn’t predict that, though. So......your thought experiment is just wrong.

The only place where free will does not exist is in your dreams

>>10639247
Nope. Babies don’t have free will either. They’re little grub creatures whose only desires are “mom”. “Eat” and “poop”.

Let me simplify the proof the law of identity says a is a you are aware only of this universe because a is a you exist because you are aware of the universe

>>10639255
All living beings have free will a plant does not have free will a plant does not have consciousness you had free will but you gave it up I'm just looking how far I can push you just into degeneracy

>>10639246
>that would just make it random

No, not according to your definition of free will. According to you, if there is determinism then there isn't free will, so I wonder, my stupid friend who somehow doesn't believe nor disbelieve anything, what are the conditions for free will and how they differ from what you called "random" here?

>>10639248
Then you are saying consciousness is somehow something non existent in the brain, since you are assuming all brain processes to be unconscious.

>>10639259
>All living beings have free will a plant does not have free will a plant does not have consciousness you had free will but you gave it up I'm just looking how far I can push you just into degeneracy

Take your meds. No idea what you’re saying anymore.

>>10639260
>No, not according to your definition of free will.

Actually, I never gave one.

>According to you, if there is determinism then there isn't free will

Correct, but this doesn’t mean that determinism not existing means free will does exist.

>what are the conditions for free will and how they differ from what you called "random" here?

They don’t. Free will is a contradictory and impossible idea.
Either a system is influenced by prior events
Or it’s random and useless.

>>10639268
I had a bot bash your brain out

>>10639268
imma kill U

>>10639265
Basically- you have a surface "consciousness" process that is fed all its input by the black box subconscious.
Butthurt doesn't change anything- and this is even without involving the physical causal chain that annihilates every possible argument for "free will".

>>10639268
>They don’t
I didn't ask if they do or not. And I didn't say you explicitly gave me your definition of free will. And that is exactly why I ask you: What is your definition of free will, so that I can check the parameters and come to the conclusion that: 1. this is the right definition of free will
2. free will is impossible.

At first you were emphasizing how free will was physically impossible because of determinism, now you went a step further and said free is Logically impossible. So please, go ahead and define it, let's see if it passes my 2 requirements. So far, all I know is that free will can't coexist with determinism, and isn't just randomness as well. I wonder what the shit you are going to say now

there is no subconscious well you are moving around in physical space you are also moving around in your brain if you get an automatic idea that's because you processed it to its full extent and it was placed at an axis

>>10639278
Again, you are saying consciousness is some magical aspect of the brain that is itself unable to process information. I wonder how it even receives information if it can't process it. Your laziness doesn't change anything.

>>10639252
It wouldn’t predict it. It would tell me its prediction and I will automatically do the opposite. Anti-free-willers/I-have-a-shitty-life-but-its-not-my-faulters btfo’d

The question you have to ask yourself is: If I could go back in time and replay a decision under the exact same conditions, is it possible to choose something different?

>>10639286
>go back
>same conditions

I'd like to change the topic two since Free Will exist what is the book or whatever movie that is the substitute for the Limitless pill you read it and you're that much smarter you have all the information

>>10639285
But it would have predicted your decision to ignore that prediction. Your hypothetical is so poorly thought out. Lmao.

>>10639248
>The point is that all your conscious decisionmaking is actually unconscious and you consicous level doesn't actually have any control over it.

In neurotypical people. In autistic people it does.

>>10639282
>there is no subconscious

Why do people keep talking about things like "on autopilot" or "their brain"?

>>10639280
>So far, all I know is that free will can't coexist with determinism, and isn't just randomness as well.

It’s nothing. Either it’s deterministic or random. Neither are free will.

>>10637772
Defend it then

>>10639295
You don’t get it. No matter what the computer predicts, I will always do the opposite. Therefore determinism is impossible. Therefore anti-freewillers btfo’d.

>>10639283
It's not magical since it doesn't actually exist. It's an macroscopic abstraction philosoplebs use to argue about retarded shit.
"Processing information" is also a deterministic process since you have predetermined I/O. With a total information about the system, your whole "free will" can be exactly predicted. There's no point in pretending to be retarded and ignoring the causal chain and arguing in some nensensical abstractions, such as "consciousness".

>>10639296
>In autistic people it does.
Source?
Also, autismals follow the causal chain, just like the rest of the universe and are thus predetermined.

>>10639303
>You don’t get it. No matter what the computer predicts, I will always do the opposite. Therefore determinism is impossible. Therefore anti-freewillers btfo’d.

You don’t get it. It’d predict you’d do the opposite of whatever it said, especially when you’ve said so multiple times.

>>10639304
>, just like the rest of the universe and are thus predetermined.

Bell inequalities make it unlikely that it is.

>>10639313
>It’d predict you’d do the opposite of whatever it said

How is that possible?

>>10639304
>consciousness doesn't exist
>it's a macroscopic abstraction
So does it exist or not?

>>10639303
Not an argument.
The same way 2 objects with set relative velocity collide with one another and produce a physically determined action, your reaction will be as predicted precisely by a total information machine- it deconstructs all the memes and operates on the base level.
What mechanism separates you from physical causality?

>>10639319
Probabilism doesn't save free will.
Even if you assume a probabilistic universe, you still have no control over random events- even worse, it makes all your action inherently chaotic.

>>10639303
If you act in a random way you will die.

>>10639157
>>10639191
That's fine. I was just offering a definition. It makes clear that free will is entirely incompatible with physicalism/materialism, and stands to be a definition which accounts for most people's ordinary understanding of free will.
PS: physicalism/materialism is false.

>>10639313
Oh god some people you just cant argue with. I’ll explain one more time for you though. The computer will predict I raise my left arm or my right arm. I do the opposite. It can’t predict “the opposite of whatever it says” because it hasn’t predicted anything for me to do the opposite of, but lets throw out logic and entertain that idea. I will simply do the opposite opposite of what it says. Anti-freewillers btfo’d

>>10639327
It's an overarching concept for certain properties of the brain- it cannot be defined and carries no real meaning, though, since it has no solid empirical grounding. Basically a hollow shell philosomemers fill in with whatever is convenient to their non-argument at the moment.

>>10639322
>How is that possible?

“Imagine we have a super computer that knows all the variables that make up the state of the universe at any given time. Using the laws of physics it predicts I am going to raise my left arm in 5 seconds. But I have already made up in my mind that I will do the opposite of what the “all knowing” super computer says. Anti free-willers btfo’d.”

If it knows enough to know you’d raise your arm, it’d also know that you intent to do the opposite of whatever it predicted, because it can apparently read your mind and you’ve asserted numerous times that you’d do the opposite of whatever it predicted.

>>10639339
> free will is entirely incompatible with physicalism/materialism
True.
>PS: physicalism/materialism is false.
Source?

>>10639339
Berkeley was too smart for his time.

>>10639342
>Oh god some people you just cant argue with. I’ll explain one more time for you though. The computer will predict I raise my left arm or my right arm.

No, it wouldn’t.

>>10639351
Wow. Convincing.

>>10639342
>>10639360
It will just predict your subconscious decisionmaking and outmeme you on a level you can't "fight" it on.
see https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

>>10639360
Thanks!

I’m sorry you don’t understand how causality works.

>>10639346
>>How is that possible?
>If it knows enough to know you’d raise your arm, it’d also know that you intent to do the opposite of whatever it predicted, because it can apparently read your mind and you’ve asserted numerous times that you’d do the opposite of whatever it predicted.

I mean how is it possible to predict the oppostie of what you predict?

>>10639191
>"Free will" is nonsensical empty philosowank

Surely even the fact that you can think this is a type of mental free-will in of itself?

>>10639366
Dont ask him that his brain will explode trying to figure it out

>>10639376
>Surely even the fact that you can think this is a type of mental free-will in of itself?
Not really.

>>10639366
It wouldn’t have made the initial prediction in the first place, because making a prediction known before the actual event changes the variables, rendering old data possibly invalid. This doesn’t work for something like the orbits of the planets where human activity has no influence but does on the scale of “raising your arm”. It’d only reveal its prediction after it came true and bamboozle you, because this is necessary to not change the variables, or predict an event that can’t be altered by the information being revealed like “Phobos will impact Mars in five days.”

>>10639348
1. A material/physical thing is a thing we can perceive (directly or indirectly).
2. The only things we can perceive are experiences.
3. Therefore, material/physical things are experiences.
4. Experiences depend on minds to exist.
5. So material objects depend on a mind to exist.

So, materialism/physicalism is false, because the mind is the most basic aspect of reality.
>>10639349
Agreed.

>>10639384
So what you’re saying is...even with all the information in the universe available, a prediction still cannot be made because it “changes the variables”. That doesn’t sound like a deterministic universe. Anti free-willers btfo’d

>>10637753
Yes.

Suppose some finite sort of Laplace's demon applied only to you in a room, and a deterministic Universe, meaning the initial conditions suffice to determine what happens. Inside this room, you have access to whatever output Laplace's demon produces, since you can make it as a computer for this room. The computer only needs to take your initial state in the room, and it can predict anything you will do 10 seconds earlier. The time itself can be extended in order to accommodate your desire to understand the predictions and think about them, but 10 seconds is enough to illustrate the problem. The problem is that, whatever prediction the machine makes about you, it will always tell you beforehand and it needs to rely on the fact that you will 100% obey them. So in order for this to be possible, it can only work on a person who always carry out predictions as instructions, that is, brains who always even with the knowledge of what was predicted are unable by a mysterious new circuitry, to not do otherwise. Since this is not how the brain works, as you can verify in the laboratory, especially how the conscious mind works, it is impossible to consider the human mind as a determined function of a certain initial state.

>>10639395
>So what you’re saying is...even with all the information in the universe available, a prediction still cannot be made because it “changes the variables”.

Nope. A prediction is a wrong prediction if revealing the prediction prior to the event, which you deem necessary for some reason, would alter the world in such a way that it doesn’t actually come true. That prediction wouldn’t be made in the first place.

>That doesn’t sound like a deterministic universe.

Determinism with multiple conceivable paths is still determinism.

>Anti free-willers btfo’d

Free will can’t exist even when determinism doesn’t.

>>10639402
>>10639395
How is this different than saying that line:
return !prediction
has free will, because it will always return the opposite of what you predict it will say?

>>10639402
Wrong. It’d predict any actions you make in response to the revelations too.

>>10639410
It simply says that determinism doesn't cancel out free will, since the initial state Doesn't imply you can't use your reason(unlike the return !prediction) to do what whatever you want. A puppet(as it has to obey physical law) with a mind but with no strings attached(as it isn't predictable by a initial state).

>>10639427
The initial state does determine everything afterwards, even your reactions to the revealing of future states.

>>10639404
Well we can at least agree that even with all of the information in the universe a prediction cannot be made. So the universe isn’t deterministic.

Can you explain why you think free will cant exist?

>>10639432
>The initial state does determine everything afterwards
Nope, since the case I used here is a variant of the Halting problem, you can see the predictor as the oracle saying if a machine(you) is going to halt, however the machine(you) are taking the oracle's prediction as a parameter. The oracle has all the initial data it needs, yet it can't compute by following deterministic laws what is going to happen.

>>10637753
Incoherent concept

>>10639438
>Well we can at least agree that even with all of the information in the universe a prediction cannot be made. So the universe isn’t deterministic.

Wrong. I only said that predictions that were literally wrong wouldn’t be made.

You’ve lied, and been caught in it. GG

>Can you explain why you think free will cant exist?

Something that makes conclusions independent of external factors would be random and useless.

>Nope, since the case I used here is a variant of the Halting problem, you can see the predictor as the oracle saying if a machine(you) is going to halt, however the machine(you) are taking the oracle's prediction as a parameter. The oracle has all the initial data it needs, yet it can't compute by following deterministic laws what is going to happen

Yes it can. Following deterministic laws would tell it exactly what reactions you will have to every revelation it reveals. You’re just saying “You can’t model a system if that system changes over time” in a really retarded way.

>>10639410
Change the boolean return to a non binary return

>>10639472
So you can make predictions about things like planets moving, but somehow magically it cant be done with humans? Hmmm maybe that magic is free-will?

>would be random and useless
That’s an opinion, not logical reasoning. So you think free will can’t exist because your opinion is that it’s useless...right.

>>10639495
>So you can make predictions about things like planets moving, but somehow magically it cant be done with humans?

Nope, didn’t say that. You lied again, and got caught again. Bye.

>>10639475
You are either binary or non-binary, pick a side.

>>10637756
Donald's conclusion does not follow from his premise. Mickey's response is some Nietzschean meme bullshit.

>>10639499
Ok. Before you go can you answer this question - Given all the variables that make up the state of the universe, laws of physics etc. Can you make a prediction about the future?

if you answer...
>yes
Refer to previous thought experiment about all-knowing super computer and simply choosing different from the prediction. Determinism btfo'd

if you answer...
>no
Obviously determinism btfo'd

>>10639382
How so?
Is freedom of thought and the concept of ideas beyond material reality not itself a form of freewill?

>>10639193
He doesn’t understand and you can’t convince someone of this on this platform, it needs to be in person.

>>10639303
Oh my god well if this is any proof of the presence of low IQ on this board

>>10637753
To a certain extent yes

>>10637753
avoid everything that releases dopamine, congratz ur free


Also try water fasting / dry fasting


Theres ways to increase ur freewill, but once you've achieved freewill there is no turning back.

>>10637753
no

>>10637753
nope

>>10640043
based

>>10639495
this pic is hilarious

>>10639191
>The brain is completely material and influenced by the external deterministic/probabilistic environment and is thus devoid of any "power".
That's true only for burgers, other people have homeostasis.
Fix your education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis

>>10639191
The dunning kruger is strong in this one.

>>10639643
brainlet lurker here why couldnt a mouse have some degree of free will? Is free will all or nothing?

>>10638874
Glad to see fsjal is still alive.

The most honest answer is we don't know because we don't know what the fuck consciousness is.

>>10637817
It's the other way around stupid sperg. Spergs cannot handle free will, and therefore are unable to cope with random situations that 'neurotypical' people can. Spergs HAVE to do one particular thing in one particular situation, if that one particular situation changes, they sperg out because their sole dependency of chemicals firing in their brain cannot deal with situations spergs are not programmed for.

>>10637753
Kind of

>>10639635
>beyond material
No such thing.

>>10639394
>So material objects depend on a mind to exist.
And any given mind is... a material things to everyone else.

>>10640078
All the functions and components of homeostasis come from the outside- from your prenatal development of organs, to the ions to the enzymes made from the protein of things you ate.

>>10640130
That is because neurotypical people expect a small number of precise responses and doing anything different from that freakes them out. It's not that Aspergers couldn't figure out what to do, they only cannot figure out what they are allowed to do in front of neurotypicals without being seen as dangerous.

So, this is something that always gets to me... we've all heard of post-nut clarity, right?

I am honestly, a completely different person before and after. I will literally think some things are a good decision, whilst afterwards, think the complete opposite. It is kind of scary how easily influenced my actions are by a hormone. So much so, that I feel I am the one in control and making conscious decisions, however, clearly I am not.

How do we reconcile this fact that our 'conscious decisions' are literally dictated by hormones, and thus, not free will at all?

>>10639303
Brainlet the post

>>10637753
> not believing in determinism

>>10640262
It's a myth that's how.

>>10640341
I feel it has to be. I've read the arguments for and against but have already struggled to comprehend how free will couldn't exist, because the counter argument, that it doesnt exist, feels so compelling (as its literally our reality). However, when I consider the fact I outlined before, it is a very real tangible example of the lack of free will. Its a very tangible example of why free will doesn't exist, yet it feels like it does. I was still conciously making decisions, but my literal thought process was hijacked by the presence of particular hormones, thus eliminating all the 'freedom'.

>>10639394
>assumes the mind isnt material
absolute brainlet

>>10640357
You can "know" about the reality of free will's non-existence, but you can't internalize it properly- even the most stern proponents can't. People just have the perception of free will hardwired in to the core- this is why most people struggle with the idea so much and try to avoid it through any means.

Fuck you

>>10640372
Based double-digit IQ posters

>>10639303
Your thought experiment doesnt work because it involves a paradox - the computer requires information about the outcome of its own prediction in order to compute that prediction.

It cant predict the persons action without knowing the outcome of its prediction beforehand because the persons future action is contingent on that outcome so that he can perform the opposite of that outcome.
Its a paradox like the liar or grandfather timetravel paradox.

Your thought experiment is garbage.

>>10640378
BASED incompatibilist poster!

*BLEUUUUUURRGGHCOUGHS*
*check it like a polaroid picture*
*COUGHS*

>>10640378
While your post is intelligent and well thought out. You, and others are still not getting it. If we live in a cause and effect, deterministic world. The computer would be able to predict whatever I do because my actions are completely determined. But it can’t because I have already made up my mind to do something different to what it predicts. Yes it is a paradox, which is why predicting my actions is impossible, which removes the deterministic argument against free will.

>>10640384
It's still predetermined by the physical causal chain, irrelevant of any impossible thought experiments.

>>10640384
A paradox is impossible. It cant happen. Your thought experiment cant happen. Therefore it cant be used in any kind of evidential capacity.

The reason why it doesnt work isnt because the anon has "made up their mind" because the computer presumably knows whatevers going on in his mind and can use it for prediction. (You could possibly make an argument that the world might be probabilistic but your thought experiment doesnt touch on this at all so its irrelevant to the validity of what we are talking about here.)

The reason why it doesnt work is because the computer needs to time travel in a paradoxical way to make it work. The type of temporal dependence the prediction event, prediction outcome event and action event have between then renders it impossible. Nothing to do with the persons free will. Support for this comes from the fact that you could replace the person with a machine designed to produce a sign the opposite of the prediction outcome (and so doesnt have free will) and the paradox would be maintained.

Again, you need to use a hypothetically possible situation in order to use this thought experiment. The liar paradox doesnt completely invalidate the ability to evaluate truth in a statement and your thought experiment doesnt invalidate determinism.

I also want to bring to your attention as an aside that doesnt have to be related, that prediction and determinism arent necessarily the same thing and a computers inability to predict something (assuming its not paradoxical) doesnt mean determinism doesnt exist.

>>10640403
BASED incompatobilist poster BTFO free sill poster

*BLEUUURGGGHHCOUGGH*
pic related

>>10640403
Being able to predict something is precisely a function of determinism.

Look, you are obviously highly intelligent. Answer this one question. Can an all knowing thing(computer/god/alien) predict the action of a human?

>>10640411
>all knowing thing
Cannot exist in-universe.

>>10640411
prediction is a function if determinism but
determinism isnt a function of prediction lad.

And yes an all knowing that can predict the action of a human.

>>10640425
>And yes an all knowing thing can predict the action of a human.
Ok. Now answer this. Can the human, knowing the prediction, act differently?

>>10640432
Its logically impossible for an all knowing being to calculate the prediction in the first place because its a paradox.

>>10640436
So it's logically impossible to predict the actions of a human in a deterministic, cause and effect universe?

>>10640436
>>10640432
ill change my answer since i realise an all-knowing wouldnt have the same constraints on computation. I think no the person couldnt change their minds given that them being told has already been taken account in the prediction but obviously there would be considerable constraints on possible futures in the case where the person is told. But then again thats no different from possible constraints in everyday life; for instance, impossible objects.

>>10640441
Even in that case, using a computation machine rather than an all-knowing person, why would such a paradox that is an individual case generalise as a statement that human actions cant be predicted? Thats an absurd generalisation you havent justified.

As ive said before what youve said is equivalent to saying that because the liar paradox exists, all statements of truth and falsity become invalidated.

>>10640445
>I think no the person couldnt change their minds given that them being told has already been taken account in the prediction
The conclusion I was waiting for you to say. Which brings the argument back to the start - opinions on free will. Stalemate.
>>10640448
If predicting a persons action, even after telling them the prediction is a paradox, then not all predictions about the future can be made. Which means we are not in a deterministic universe. Sure there are a lot of actions that can be predicted. But you need to be able to predict all actions if determinism is true. Unless you you think we live in a semi-deterministic universe? Which leaves room for free will.

>>10640371
I was the same. But then I have empirical evidence of literally feeling the complete opposite about certain decisions based on the presence or lack thereof of hormones in my brain.

Hard to deny free will's non-existence with such experience.

>>10640461
I meant could change their mind sorry spelling mistake.
If the omniscient prophet has already taken into account the consequences of him telling the person about their future (since the prophet is all knowing) then I dont see why the person could change their mind.

re: second comment

But the paradox isnt possible. It could never happen and so it doesnt have any logical consequence for our universe... The paradox isnt even a consequence of determinism itself but the temporal contingencies. I dont quite understand why you think it disproves determinism.

>predict all actions
predict all POSSIBLE actions.

And again given an omniscient god thing then the paradox doesnt apply but Like i said before I dont see why the person should be able to change their mind.

Also semi-determinism doesnt necessarily entail free will. Randomness doesnt entail free will because choices are not random. Making the universe more random therefore has no real bearing on free will.

>>10640461
And again, being unable to predict something doesnt entail non-determinism. Technological differences mean that machines now compared to 50 years ago are way better at predicting things or can predict what was once unpredictable eventhough the universe hasnt changes.

I still dont quite understand why you think your argument disproves determinism. An analogy to your argument is that because pic related can be drawn but is not possible in real life, then real life is somehow wrong. Dont you see how wrong that kind of argument is?

>Hey MULTIVAC, guess if I'm going to raise my arm or not
>...PROCESSING.... I will write my prediction on this piece of paper, but we will look at it after the event.
>Nope! I'm gonna look now...
>...PARADOX... but that defeats the entire purpose of this test as your outcome is based intrinsically to what I write on this paper, if anything, thereby confirming determinism as I can entirely dictate your future action by my action
>"Just write your prediction on the paper!"
>"ok"
>opens paper... *U R 4 F4G3T*
>;-)

>>10639193

In what way do humans not possess free will?

>>10639187

But you are your brain though.

We have free will but it's constrained to our vessel and universe; potentially 'local universe'.

There was no character creation screen. No free will in this case.

Can't you see it's a spook question?

Earth is one of the few places where there is true free will.

If we remembered our connection to; the Source, or God, all of our past-lives, and our plans for this life, it would interfere with our free will to make mistakes and explore and learn naturally.

That is why there can be no proof of God and why It allows horror to take place. But, everything balances out with karma.

>>10640192
is a thought, material?

>>10640866
Yes. A configuration of neurons firing in a certain way.
With enough precision and scanning resolution/depth, you'd actually be able to determine which exact neurons make up a thought. The brain has been demystified for some time.

>>10640469
>feeling
Solid argument.
>hormones
Literally no point in talking about this on such a level, since the lack of free will boils down to physics, not its derivative physiology.
Since every single particle that makes up a human is part of a causal chain since the beginning of time, you don't have a mechanism to exert influence of your own- free will is completely nonsensical.

>>10640469
Free will is a spectrum.

>>10639303
It doesn't contradict determinism, brainlet.

>>10640262
I didn't know hormones could literally take control of your hands and force you to do something. And I don't even have this post-nut contrast, why don't you use an example like seizures?

>>10640489
Lmao

>>10639303
Your paradox needs time travel to work, it's impossible due to impossibility of time travel, not due to impossibility of determinism.

>>10640935
Fundamentally disagree with your wholly specific empirical reading that negates and erases any form of metaphysics.

We are more than a collection of interacting atoms in some sense.

>>10640935
>Since every single particle that makes up a human is part of a causal chain since the beginning of time, you don't have a mechanism to exert influence of your own- free will is completely nonsensical.

Interesting
A video game is governed by physics and yet even within that there is free-will

>>10641053
>We are more than a collection of interacting atoms in some sense.
Source?

>>10641054
Is that undercooked analogy supposed to be an argument?
What part of the causal chain bamboozles you exactly?

Not with how much it costs to pay attention. Am I right, folks?

>>10641165
Read Avicenna.

>>10641270
>millenia-old philosopseud ramblings
Some other time...
What was your argument for magic again?

>>10640935
>you don't have a mechanism to exert influence of your own- free will is completely nonsensical.
Isn't it human who makes choice? How is it not a mechanism to exert free will?

>>10641432
What the fuck is a choice even?
Neurons firing, having primed action potential due to past environmental physical influence- tie in that chain of linked physical events and it leads to the beginning of the universe. Where exactly is your "mechanism" for choice when you're basically a predetermined ever-changing arrangement of particles? Do you think your brain is fucking magic?

>>10637753
No.

if you've never taken a psychedelic or haven't had a near death experience you arne't qualified to post in this thread

>>10638513
Randomness isn't necessary for compatibilist free will.

I've never seen a solid definition for it determinism however has one and it's pretty obvious that isn't true even machine learning disproves it.

Brainlets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

>>10641470
Choice is reduction of several options to one result.
The mechanism is in the brain, exactly. It's not magic, why do you think it's magic?

>>10643480
>assume indeterminism
>oy vey indeterminism
kek

>>10637753
Yes, even if its determinate by experience, environment and brain chemistry. You people forget that we as we are just total sum of all of that. That's what make us humans. Everything! Daim glad to be a genius.

>>10637756
Based

>>10637753
Who the shit fuck even cares?
Spend your time trying to figure out shit that actually benefits mankind. Curing disease and shit like that.
Philosophy is a meme.

>>10637895
yeah but try running a time analysis on a hybrid system

>>10638874
Post the rest of the comic please

>>10637834
soros' theory of reflexivity would disagree with you
kys

>>10637779
Great read

>>10637753
Anyone wanna get a prefrontal leukotomy?

>>10643615
>options
What the fuck is wrong with your comprehension?
You don't have "options", retard.

>>10640990
People who cant produce dopamine freeze like statues. Watch awakenings with Robert De Niro and Robin Williams.

>>10637753
If by free will we mean the ability to analyze situations with specific sets of data to make an informed and intelligent decision, yes. If we mean so quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo, then no.

Yes.

>>10637756
fpbp