/sci/ - Science & Math

It's a silly question because we do have free will in the sense that we choose how to act. The fact that external factors have an influence on how we act doesn't necessarily change that. It's still your decision. If you imagine that you learn of something you will do in the future you can always choose not to do that. Then you can argue that the act of observing your future choice was an external factor leading to your decision to do something else, but at that point the discussion becomes meaningless.

It's sort of like saying that if you flip a coin a given number of times, it must necessarily happen in one specific sequence. You can define that as deterministic dependent on how you flip the coin and other external factors, but it's a meaningless distinction. Even that series of coin flips is such a complex event with such a huge number of variables and influences that for all intents and purposes it is a random event.

tl;dr: on the human scale free will is a thing, but you can always be a nitpicking retard if you want to

>>11696501
http://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

/thread

>>11696501
I don't know, man. Does a tree make a sound if?

>>11696501
We have free will because we can choose to abstain from food/water/air until we die. We can set ourselves on fire and sit on our ass until we die. You tell me if someone fully governed by chemical impulses born out of say evolutionary processes can consciously and voluntarily decide to sit still while burning to death.

>>11696568
>You tell me if someone fully governed by chemical impulses born out of say evolutionary processes can consciously and voluntarily decide to sit still while burning to death
Yes.

>>11696501
Neither of those evolutions in the image imply or deny free will

>>11696587
retarded post

>>11696595
Wrong

>>11696600
retarded post

>>11696501
anyone who posts about free will being an illusion is a fucking hypocrite. they're trying to win over support for a philosophical idea that proposes nobody can make any choices anyway - so if they weren't full of shit, they wouldn't try to convince anyone of anything.

>>11696501
>determinism
>>>/x/

>>11696727
retarded post

>>11696501
fact is that we will never know and in the end it doesn't matter anyways as from our point of view we appear to have free will. Its just another one of those unsolvable topics that pseudointellectuals that call themselves "philosophers" like to waste their time on. Jesus told us to love and please God, so thats what you should do.

>>11696736
sorry bro, not my fault if I was predetermined to make a retarded post. why bother replying?

>>11696837
i was predetermined to point it out
retarded post btw

>>11696840
seems pointless to rebut my arguments if I don't have the choice to agree with you anyway

>>11696841
i don’t have the choice to not call you retarded, retard

>>11696844
seems pretty naive to get so butthurt over a deterministic automaton writing replies to your shitposts. do you get this steamed over NPC dialog in videogames?

>>11696850
no one is butthurt anon, pointing out your low IQ is a factual statement

>>11696501
The best argument for determinism is that it treats human volition the same as any other physical process.
For free will there is a pretty good thought experiment. Imagine you had a computer that ran a model of every physical process in the universe (I understand that this would be computationally impossible, but if determinism is true such a model could be created given enough time and energy). Now, this model would be able to predict things about your behavior such as 'you will be sitting at your computer in 10 seconds from now'. Knowing this fact, it seems absurd that we couldn't change our behavior; for example, by standing up.

>>11696603
Wrong
Free will is not contingent on determinism or non determinism, they are separate things.
You are the retarded one for defending this position twice.

>>11697003
Okay, you stand up. The computer now reveals a message written 20 seconds ago that says "you will go against the prediction I tell you and stand up". Your move.

>>11696501
This image is silly. Free will requires determinism.
>you have less free will because you’re more determined

>>11697927
>retrocausality
Kys retard

>>11696727
Why not? Trying to convince people is just another link in the causal net. The fact that people can be 'convinced' in no way suggests free will, it just means that communication from others is one of the environmental factors that shapes them.

>>11696830
>doesn't matter if we massively underestimate the importance of genetic predisposition and environmental conditioning
>it's unknowable so don't waste time talking about it, but here I am and I have gnosis of g*d btw
>you should devote your apparent free will to the servitude of an omnipotent & omniscient deity

I applaud your gift of obliviousness.

>>11696568
All this indicates is that it is possible for some impulses (some kind of psychological satisfaction, for instance) to overwhelm survival instinct, and that people can be conditioned to 're-prioritize' their impulses. This is supported by the fact that the behaviours you describe are vanishingly rare, especially in people who are neurotypical (whereas we may expect relatively 'odd' seeming behaviours from genetic outliers, diseased/injured people and those conditioned by intensive regimens who are neurally atypical as a result).

>>11697003
Problem with the thought experiment is that the computer doesn't factor in how informing you of its prediction impacts your behaviour, despite that being an obvious variable. It would have to either inform you of predictions so briefly before they occur that you have no time to respond (or constantly revise them until that point), or just hide predictions until after they were predicted to happen.


Honestly a bit disappointing, /sci/. I've seen less cope in /lit/ threads about 'free will' and that place is chock full of mystics. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when even dudes like Dennett make pathetic compatibilist arguments... I guess some cows are just too sacred.

>>11698589
>>doesn't matter if we massively underestimate the importance of genetic predisposition and environmental conditioning
>>it's unknowable so don't waste time talking about it, but here I am and I have gnosis of g*d btw
>>you should devote your apparent free will to the servitude of an omnipotent & omniscient deity

irrelevant
misrepresentation
yes

>>11696830
Amen