/sci/ - Science & Math

Still reprehensible.

It is people who decide what is legal or moral.

>>12159487
Because of the laws of robotics

Execution of jesus christ was legal. This shows that the ultimate power lies with the crowd. In other words, might makes right.

>>12159487
Why is revenge not legal if we have free will?

>>12159487
How can you argue against punishment for murder if the act of punishing is a result of determinism? Victim, murderer, law enforcement, and judge are all blameless.
As a determinist you must accept everything.

Purpose of law is evolutionary guidance. It´s not the fault of criminal, but it is the fault of his genes. For society to function, bad mutation needs to be cut out of reproduction and good ones promoted.

It is reasonable to believe in free will.

1. If some fact or statement is immediately perceived to be true then it's reasonable to belief the statement is true unless your perception is challenged by a valid reason why it could be wrong.
Examples: I remember that yesterday I drank a cup of coffee. There are no valid reasons to believe my perception is wrong and that in fact I didn't drink any coffee yesterday. In absence of such counterevidence, it's reasonable to believe that I actually drank coffee yesterday. I do not need to come up with a mechanism for how my memory works to believe it, nor do I need to give precise technical/philosophical definitions of memory and the word "drank" for it to be reasonable for me to believe this fact. My immediate perception of this fact is enough for it to be reasonable, in absence of evidence or reasons to the contrary.
2. I immediately perceive my own free will (the ability for me to make choices, i.e. influence the future).
I perceived it when I was a child and I still perceive it. In fact, my own perception in free will has been central to the way I live and the way I think about the world. I regularly spend time thinking about how to improve my own future which would make no sense in a worldview where I am not able to influence my own future (for example, in a worldview where everything is already predetermined).
3. The only reason I'm aware of that attempts to challenge my perception of free will is the notion of determinism. That is, the state of the universe at one point in time completely determines how it will look at all subsequent points in time, which is theoretically predictable.
If you have any other reasons for me to doubt free will that are unrelated to determinism feel free to point them out in this thread, I'd be happy to discuss.
<cont>

>>12159548
<cont>
4. Determinism is conclusively disproved by quantum phenomena.
For example, the splitting of an atom which is an indeterministic process (impossible to predict the measurement using any theoretical laws of physics) can have large scale direct influence over the real world. For example, I might test if an atom is split after some small amount of time, if it is then I go to the store while if it's not I stay at home. Since the measurement is indeterministic and has large scale real life consequences, it conclusively refutes determinism.
5. Therefore, I don't know any good reasons to believe that my own immediate perception of my free will is flawed and not to be trusted.
6. Therefore, it's reasonable for me to believe that I have free will.

Discuss.

>>12159490
Shut up reddit.

>>12159552

Suck my balls faggot

>>12159550
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.-Bob Samples. This, free will is a foundational assumption in the philosophy of law. And we ought to be judged accordingly, irrespective of the truth of free will. But intuitively we have free will, it's only in atheist metaphysics where people needed to come up with schemes to say we didn't. None of which are consistent with the actual science. https://youtu.be/BqHrpBPdtSI

Humans can only exist as distinct objects if they possess some irreducible quality of humanity. This irreducible quality is the humanness of the human called will. Will is free by definition.

You either accept free will or you eliminate all objects. You cannot accept "determinism" and objects simultaneously because all objects are immediately reduced into pure matter / energy.

I've literally never heard anyone give 1 good reason why they deny free will.
At this point I genuinely think they deny it only to cope with their failures in life and to justify their own horrible decisions.

>>12159487
Kentucky

Because it's written

>>12159487
Why is incarcerating for murder immoral if we don't have free will?

Why are you asking why people and society do things if we don't have free will?

>>12159599
Honestly, their denial of free will stems from the materialist view that is highly dominant in science. The problem is, materialism is as stupid as religion, but most people don't know :(

>>12160490
More like the blatant disregard of 'science' for things it can't measure such as qualia, consciousness, etc. Only proves how much of autistic brainlets the people in science are, no intellect, just sheer persistence. Makes me sick.

>>12159548
Probably my all time favorite reply. I'm quite happy to see someone in /sci/ that isn't a generic edgey materialist. Are you into philosophy? :)

>>12159563
The very concept of materialism is absurd. It's intuitively impossible for perception to araise from matter.

>>12159552
> answers question
> shut up reddit
The absolute state of /sci/

>>12159487
>>12159487
why does your mum spread her legs when she sees me, if she has no free will, anon?
action & reaction, anon.

prison as a punishment happened in countries that got cucked by foreign leaders.

As usual, /sci/ doesn't answer the question scientifically.

>>12160636
What kind of science answers a question like "why is <x> illegal"? Anthropology?

>>12159487
Why do we do math if 2+2=5?

>>12160702
Good post.

>>12159487
God you guys are retarded
We have laws even though its deterministic because the existence of the law determines whether a fraction of murders are committed, determinism doesn’t mean things happen regardless of states of affairs, it means that they happen as a result of states of affairs. Murder isn’t illegal to punish murderers, its to prevent murder.
What a fucking stupid question

>>12161059
>even though its deterministic
But there's literally 0 evidence for this claim. There's no reason to prefer deterministic interpretations over nondeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics unless you already presuppose determinism, which begs the question.

>>12159550
>Determinism is conclusively disproved by quantum phenomena.
Based retard
Our human inability to predict quantum phenomena does not make it indeterministic

>We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

>>12162922
>There's no reason to prefer deterministic interpretations over nondeterministic interpretations
There's no reason to prefer one over the other.
It's just retards that want to jerk themselves off:
> i believe in free will, therefore QM must be indeterministic
> i don't believe in free will, therefore QM is deterministic (pseudo-random)

Once again lost humanity fags are posting ON a /sci/ence board.
They don’t understand anything of simple physics but here they are making arguments based on something they don’t understand.
Let’s suppose they’re right, but we’ll have to add that quantum mechanics only work on small particles, saying otherwise is just making stuff up.
Now you have this particle that can change its course on its own, they interactions of other particles with this one free will particle will result in a cascade of events that will fire a neuron. This is the argument as I perceive it.
Now my problem with this is that free will is part of the detention of Being. But the only piece of this machine that can act on its own is one particle, and if you add more free will particles they too will all act on their own independent of each other. This raises a problem that the free will particles don’t act as one. That means there isn’t free will because there isn’t a unanimous decision taker.
Now let’s say that this particle is what gives you the ability to have free will, you will have to wonder where that comes from, as said earlier such a reasoning-line is the same thing as a bingo machine dropping a ball with a million of statements built around it. Again no free will to be found.
Feel free to respond with basedjacks

>>12159511
The execution of Jesus was illegal; for, if it weren’t for it, Jews and the destruction of Europe would not have been a thing to begin with.
So, yes, it was illegal and now everyone is being punished for it; whether it’d be a Jew or any single one of the descendants of those ancient Romans that were turned away from him by the kikes to begin with.

>>12159487
Because people who are your masters told you so. Do as you're told, cuck.

>>12162939
But I believe in free will and I don't have strong views of whether QM is deterministic or not. If we find any evidence that QM is deterministic I would be perfectly happy to accept it.
My whole point is that using laws of physics as a proof of determinism doesn't work because there are equally valid interpretations of laws of physics which are deterministic and indeterministic, unlike laws previously known like Newtonian mechanics which are strictly deterministic in all interpretations.
Thus in absence of all evidence for determinism, it's reasonable to trust our perception that we do indeed have free will.
>>12162935
You are right that I could have worded my point better. Indeed the Boehmian interpretation of QM is deterministic, however my point is that there is no reason to prefer it to indeterministic interpretations. Thus physics gives us no evidence for why we should believe determinism is true.
See my response to anon above.
>An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
There is 0 reason to believe this could be possible. Our current understanding of physics indicates strongly that this is actually impossible.

>>12159552
>you're a plebbitor if you think killing a sentient being is bad
Kys faggot

>>12162989
It's not reasonable, there are many experiments done which indicate a persons "free choice" is decided before they become aware of their "choice"
For example an experiment was conducted in which a persons brain activity was monitored in an MRI scanner. The person would report when they became consciously aware of a decision (to press one of two buttons). The fMRI data shows that the decision (which button) to press was decided before they became aware of the decision. And it was several seconds before it entered their conscious awareness

In this case, the decision is made before someone is aware of it, and then they are made aware of it. It seems that people feel like they have free will, but only as a self-deception of the brain.

To say "i feel like i have free will, therefore I have free will" is pretty stupid desu
We already know human perception is flawed

>>12162967
>quantum mechanics only work on small particles, saying otherwise is just making stuff up
Quantum mechanics has huge effects on large bodies, as I already explained in my previous post. Let me give you another example:
I take an atom that easily splits and decide to perform an experiment. If I observe that the atom is split, I go on a killing spree. If the atom stays put, I stay as I were before. Now the splitting of the atom is a strictly quantum mechanical phenomenon which cannot be deterministically predicted.
Now if my going on a killing spree could be deterministically predicted, that would mean that the splitting of the atom could be deterministically predicted. But it can't. Therefore the large scale phenomenon of me going on a killing spree and killing lots of people, having massive influence on the world, cannot be deterministically predicted.
>Now you have this particle that can change its course on its own, they interactions of other particles with this one free will particle will result in a cascade of events that will fire a neuron. This is the argument as I perceive it.
If you're talking about me then no, that's not my argument at all. I do not seek any reductionistic explanation for free will. I don't think it is needed, as long as we can reasonably believe we have free will, just like we don't need to have a reductionist physical explanation for consciousness or memory in order to believe we have one, in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Now you may propose that your given explanation is the only possible physical explanation of how free will occurs. I see no good reason to believe this. Why is it reasonable to call a particle a "free will" particle?
>Now my problem with this is that free will is part of the detention of Being
I've no idea what you mean by this sentence.
<cont>

>>12162967
>>12163014
<cont>
>But the only piece of this machine that can act on its own is one particle, and if you add more free will particles they too will all act on their own independent of each other.
Again you seem to presuppose that the particle itself has some sort of free will. This is an interesting story but I see no reason to believe this. Why would the particles act independent of each other?
Again, nowhere in my argument did I attribute free will to any particles. I see no reason to do this for my argument to work. We don't seek an explanation of a mechanism for free will from quantum mechanics, we merely quantum mechanics to understand that belief in determinism is without evidence, which means belief in free will is completely rational.

The rest of your post seems to fall apart from these objections as well.

>>12163009
>It's not reasonable, there are many experiments done which indicate a persons "free choice" is decided before they become aware of their "choice"
I am very aware of these experiments. I don't see them as a good defeater for belief in free will. Indeed it seems completely consistent and possible for someone to choose a course of action earlier than they consciously become aware of that choice. It would only be problematic if you choose to identify your self completely with your own conscious processes. However, I see no good reason for this identification. Indeed, it seems completely obvious to me that there's way more to who I am than my conscious processes (the subconscious, however you define it, definitely exists).

>>12163026
I think most people would agree that free will requires it to be a conscious decision, but that's besides the point.

A person can feel like they have free will, but this doesn't mean they have free will.
If a person trusts their own intuition and perception 100% they're probably too stupid to see how stupid they are

>>12163043
>A person can feel like they have free will, but this doesn't mean they have free will.
Yes. I dealt with this point many times already in my posts. That's exactly what the argument is about. Our perceptions, including the perception of our free will, may be wrong. So the question is when we should trust our perceptions to be true? And my argument was that we should trust our perceptions if there are no reasons or evidence for our perceptions being flawed or incorrect.
And since there are no good reasons to believe in determinism, it's reasonable to trust our perceptions and believe we have free will.
I suggest you actually read my posts ITT again before asking any more questions, because it becomes tiring to repeat myself.

>>12159599
You are too dumb to think of one yourself aren't you anon?

>>12163058
There used to be a good reason to believe in determinism. Namely the great success of Newtonian physics in describing the world in a completely deterministic way. At the time it could have been reasonable to think that we would eventually arrive at a complete, deterministic description of the whole universe, therefore determinism seemed more likely to be true.
But now, with our knowledge of quantum mechanics, which eliminates all hope of verifying determinism by means of laws of physics, I am indeed not aware of any rational reasons to keep believing in determinism.
Perhaps you have one? Feel free to share.

>>12159548
Why then do you feel the need to write paragraphs of plilosophical prose on an incel image board? Do you perceive it to be right? What does that even mean? How can you come to any conclusions about anything with your prosaic jargon if you didn't rely on definitions? Honestly you sound like a highschooler who's just discovered philosophy. Discounting the importance of definitions in writing describes a juvenile academic.

>>12163009
All they found that there was some non-trivial correlation between some brain activity that happened before the conscious choice and the choice they did - about something completely meaningless where they had no reason to prefer one alternative over another. So all the results are really saying is that subconscious has some influence over our choices, and especially large when we don't really have any reason to choose one way or the other and any serious deliberation is pointless. Which I don't think anyone needs fMRI to figure out. What it absolutely doesn't demonstrate or even suggest that somehow our feeling of conscious choice is "a delusion".

If you just want to discredit libertarian free will, you don't need to bother with science of empirical results at all because it's just conceptually makes no sense. Luckily libertarian free will isn't needed for anything and is a bit like "people's democracies". One redundantly has the word "people" twice in it in different languages but has a fuck all to do with people having the power, one has two words meaning "free" but has fuck all to do with any real freedom that matters.

>>12163054
>we should trust our perceptions if there are no reasons or evidence for our perceptions being flawed or incorrect.
If theres no evidence for or against your perception, you shouldn't simply trust it or distrust it, you should remain ambivalent

It seems you just want to find any argument that supports what you already believe, regardless of how worthless the argument is

My perception is that you have no free will, that you're an NPC. I have no evidence against that perception. Therefore you are an NPC with no free will.

This is the kind of retarded conclusion I can draw when I pretend to "think" like a brainless cuck

>>12163069
I don't even have to go to quantum mechanics for that. I just have to doubt the workings of the fundamental mechanism that make me, me. We have no control or will over our instincts, we just react to them. That is a simple enough reason to deny free will or any superficial notion that we are in control of what we do or how we do it.

>>12163071
>Why then do you feel the need to write paragraphs of plilosophical prose on an incel image board? Do you perceive it to be right?
Yes.
>How can you come to any conclusions about anything with your prosaic jargon if you didn't rely on definitions?
We regularly rely and reason about things without defining them. Even in fields lauded for their rigorousness and formality like mathematics. A good example is Tooker, who enlightened me to the fact that mathematicians have been (largely correctly) reasoning about real numbers for a long time before they were rigorously defined.
Indeed, even the best definitions in mathematics that we currently have rely on other words and notions that have not been defined because they are viewed as completely obvious. Definitions need to stop somewhere or become circular.
>Discounting the importance of definitions in writing describes a juvenile academic.
Except I didn't discount the importance of definition. I merely explained that one does not need to rigorously define a thing before one can reason about it. Indeed, we do it all the time. You just talked about definitions without defining what definitions are themselves. Am I supposed to call you a highschooler who's just discovered philosophy now?
But perhaps you have a good reason for why we need to give a precise definition of free will before we can talk and reason about it. I'd be interested in hearing it.

>>12163076
You sound angry.
>If theres no evidence for or against your perception, you shouldn't simply trust it or distrust it, you should remain ambivalent
Talking about evidence for perception makes no sense. The perception IS the evidence that it's true. According to you, we should be ambivalent about literally everything in life, because we only believe them based on perception of one kind or another.
>My perception is that you have no free will, that you're an NPC. I have no evidence against that perception. Therefore you are an NPC with no free will.
If that is indeed your perception and you have no evidence to the contrary, then indeed it would be rational for you to believe that it's true.
>>12163080
>We have no control or will over our instincts, we just react to them.
You assume a distinction between our instincts and our will. I cam imagine situations where my instincts are distinct from my will but I can also imagine situations where my instincts coincide with my will. My will to eat can coincide with my instinct to eat. But my will can be the opposite, and the historical fact of people who have died from hungier by going on a hunger strike demonstrates that it's very possible to overcome one's instincts through one's will.

>>12163098
Dying from hunger strike isn't overcoming the instinct of hunger. In fact I'd say that people who die in such ways are actually reacting to another stronger instinct, which is fear. They're afraid of the pain that comes with living in a way that led them to perform a hunger strike in the first place. So they kill themselves in the easiest way that works for them. By deluding yourself into avoiding one instinct, you are actually reacting to another stronger one. How can this be? Some people can delay reaction of instinct. Psychopaths delay fear the way normal people delay hunger. So it really depends on your genes. And hunger strikes don't delay the instinct, it's still there, the action of starvation is actually a reaction to hunger, your body is still fighting for you to eat, so you haven't really overcome anything. Your stomach still produces the gastric juices to force you to eat, you still feel the Hunger pangs that come with not eating, etc. Everything you do is a reaction to instinct.

For the same reason that not wearing a seatbelt is illegal; because the law is not moral or scientific.

>>12163098
Dying from hunger strike isn't overcoming the instinct of hunger. In fact I'd say that people who die in such ways are actually reacting to another stronger instinct, which is fear. They're afraid of the pain that comes with living in a way that led them to perform a hunger strike in the first place. So they kill themselves in the easiest way that works for them. By deluding yourself into avoiding one instinct, you are actually reacting to another stronger one. How can this be? Some people can delay reaction of instinct. Psychopaths delay fear the way normal people delay hunger but they don't overcome it, they're still afraid of getting caught and losing their freedom. So it really depends on your genes. And hunger strikes don't overcome the instinct, it's still there, the action of starvation is actually a reaction to hunger, your body is still fighting for you to eat, so you haven't really overcome anything. Your stomach still produces the gastric juices to force you to eat, you still feel the Hunger pangs that come with not eating, etc. Everything you do is a reaction to instinct.

>>12163080
There's a real difference between just giving to your most prime urges and restraining them due to long-term considerations, moral principles etc. You can stretch the meaning of "instinct" to cover everything, including our long-term attempt at survival and getting along with people around you but then the claim that we have no control over our instincts becomes pretty meaningless and uninteresting.

We are in control of what we do to various degrees depending on the circumstances and who we are - insofar as we can talk about us existing as persons. Sure some hypothetical Laplace's demon might be able to discard the concept of people making choices and controlling their actions and just think of us as lumps of matter obeying the laws of physics, but at that level he could also disregard our existence as persons. But for some reason the "free will is an illusion" crowd tend to specifically like to tell people that they don't make choices, rather than that they don't exist. Sometimes they even use shitty analogies like we are some "puppets" being controlled by our "strings", but this is half-assed reductionism. There's still residual dualism left there, as if there was some extra "soul" that was being pushed around by the laws of physics, when in reality it makes no sense to distinguish yourself from your strings.

>>12163158
No instinct has one meaning and we already know how it manifests, hormones. Whatever I've said about instinct can be linked to hormones testosterone, adrenaline, ghrelin, etc and all other combinations. I do not stretch the definition, it's you who can't see the fundamental link between mammalian or reptilian instinct and behavior.

>>12163158
>There's a real difference between just giving to your most prime urges and restraining them due to long-term considerations, moral principles etc.
If our morals were based on pure logic and not egotism we wouldn't be eating meat.

>>12163145
Nice try but you're so obviously just grasping at straws now.
All you did is to identify all the choices we make with some external instinct, without providing any reason for doing so and going directly against most people's direct perception of will and instinct being two distinct things.
Also,
>And hunger strikes don't overcome the instinct, it's still there, the action of starvation is actually a reaction to hunger, your body is still fighting for you to eat, so you haven't really overcome anything
They overcome the instinct to eat the food that's available and indeed offered to the hunger strikers, not hunger itself. Obviously they're still hungry, that's the whole point of hunger strikes.
You also need to clarify what you mean by instinct to make sure your claim that we are determined by our instincts is not tautological (which it is if we define all we do as instinct) and because your understanding of the word instinct goes contrary to what most people, myself included, understand instinct to be. Indeed, you believe that there is some instinct that is forcing a person who is on hunger strike to refuse all food that he's offered, while most people would say that the only thing instincts do is tempt him to take the food and the striker is able to overcome this instinct through his will and not anything else. In face of this radically different understanding of the word "instinct", you have to explain why your understanding is preferable and indeed what you understand it to be.

>>12163186
You are hopelessly retarded, it's almost like your instincts make you ignorant on purpose, like to protect the fragile worldview you've managed to construct for yourself. I already told you the reason, you're just too retarded to see it. We do things because of instinct, and they're there because of evolutionary pressure to stay alive and procreate.

>>12163203
>I have no more arguments so I am just going to call you retarded in response to your well-structured logical rebuttal of what I said.
Happy to see it. Hope I didn't damage your ego too much.

>>12163158
>Sure some hypothetical Laplace's demon might be able to discard the concept of people making choices and controlling their actions and just think of us as lumps of matter obeying the laws of physics
There is 0 reasons to believe this is possible (even theoretically) BTW. This has been a theoretical possibility at the time of Newtonian physics which has been completely deterministic in its description but now we know about quantum mechanics which eliminates all hope of proving determinism through laws of physics.

>>12163222
QM doesn't actually change what I said since I didn't talk about perfect prediction. QM just introduces some probabilities there, but it wouldn't necessitate Laplace's demon to think of us as persons making choices, or fundamentally different from other forms of matter following laws of physics and probabilities of QM.

>>12163233
QM introduces complete indeterminism. Laws of physics can no longer predict where I am going to be tomorrow, not even approximately. For an example just imagine performing a quantum experiment with 50% chance of outcome A and 50% chance of outcome B. If I get A that exact day I travel to the opposite end of the world. If I get B I stay put. Now at best the laws of physics we know of can predict probabilistically where I am going to be tomorrow with 50% certainty. But now imagine picking 2^30 such different locations and perform 30 such quantum experiments to pick one location. It's abundantly clear that now any laplace demon can tell essentially nothing at all about where I am going to be, except that I will be on earth (knowledge for which no laws of physics are needed). Now you may argue that the fact that I'm performing a quantum experiment changes everything and is not what usually happens. But you have no reason to believe that similar quantum effects don't happen every day that accurately predicting my location ahead of time impossible without me needing to perform quantum experiments.
In any case, there is no reason to believe that Laplace's demon is possible, even theoretically.

>>12163252
>that accurately predicting my location ahead of time impossible
that make* accurately predicting my....

>>12163252
That isn't limited to people making choices, Laplace's demon has to take quantum indeterminism into account in general. It does not mean that Laplace's demon has to think about you as a person making choices, any more than it means it has to think about dead lumps of matter like rocks or whatever having agency just because there's some quantum indeterminism there. Moreover I think the more quantum indeterminism affects our choices, the less choice-like it actually makes them. Choice is all about control and you want your values, desires and ability to conceive what would happen if you did what to *determine* what you do. Not some quantum coinflip.

>>12163269
>That isn't limited to people making choices, Laplace's demon has to take quantum indeterminism into account in general. It does not mean that Laplace's demon has to think about you as a person making choices, any more than it means it has to think about dead lumps of matter like rocks or whatever having agency just because there's some quantum indeterminism there.
I'm sorry but I don't really understand what you're arguing here for.
I gave an argument for why Laplace's demon is impossible even theoretically given out current understanding of physics. Are you saying it's theoretically possible?
>Moreover I think the more quantum indeterminism affects our choices, the less choice-like it actually makes them.
I don't think it makes sense to talk about indeterminism affecting our choices. Indeterminism is just the inability to predict the future. What is the exact relationship between physics' failure to accurately predict the future and the choices we make? I don't see one.
>Choice is all about control and you want your values, desires and ability to conceive what would happen if you did what to *determine* what you do. Not some quantum coinflip.
"quantum coinflips" probably do influence our decisions to some extent but there's no reason to believe they determine our decisions. Free will is not the belief that our decisions are not influenced by anything else. That's absurd. Obviously our decisions are influenced by the things we observe around us, our past experiences etc. Free will is the belief that an agent is able to make a choice. It does not require that the agent isn't influenced by anything else, just not determined. Determinism poses a defeater for free will, but the lack of determinism in physics not a challenge to free will, rather it's consistent with the belief in free will.

>>12159487
then laws aren't free will either, so why complain about getting sentenced?

>>12163338
By Laplace's demon I mean someone who has the knowledge of laws of physics and the current state of the universe. According to QM he couldn't predict universe's next state completely, there's some probabilities involved. But this does not force him to consider you as anything else than a collection of atoms following laws of physics and probabilities of QM when he's trying to predict what you do. Now whether Laplace's demon is literally possible I think is a bit beside the point, but at least there's no reason to think that some kind of entity or artificial intelligence or whatever couldn't have enough information about a person (rather than the state of the whole universe) that he could just treat you as a collection of atoms and predict what you are going to do accordingly, with some QM probabilities maybe there. Insofar predicting what this person do will be different from predicting what dead matter will do, it comes from the complexity of a person, not from the QM probabilities.

>Free will is the belief that an agent is able to make a choice.
>Determinism poses a defeater for free will

Why does determinism take an agent's ability to make a choice while indeterminism doesn't? In order for a choice to be yours, YOU have to *determine* it. What are you? You are your thoughts, feelings, memories, desires, personality traits, mental abilities etc. So if those determine what you do, you are making the choice. What is indeterminism? That something happening isn't determined by anything, just happens by brute fact. For no reason. Randomly. There could be some of that in our universe, but it could NOT in anyway give you the power to choose.

>>12163403
You are confused about free will in very similar ways as I was before I thought about it carefully and came to conclude that we have free willl.
>By Laplace's demon I mean someone who has the knowledge of laws of physics and the current state of the universe. According to QM he couldn't predict universe's next state completely, there's some probabilities involved.
But the probabilities and outcomes are such that in effect the demon can predict nothing at all about where I am going to do, as I demonstrated in the thought experiment with quantum observations.
To give an example, imagine my claim that I can predict your message. You ask me to predict it and I return all possible character combinations that fit into a 4chan post with equal probabilities. You would probably say that my prediction is completely useless and doesn't even deserve to be called a prediction.
Now my argument about the Laplace's demon is that it has to function in an analogous way as to render its predictions completely useless and not predictions at all.
>Now whether Laplace's demon is literally possible I think is a bit beside the point, but at least there's no reason to think that some kind of entity or artificial intelligence or whatever couldn't have enough information about a person (rather than the state of the whole universe) that he could just treat you as a collection of atoms and predict what you are going to do accordingly, with some QM probabilities maybe there.
But I just gave you an argument that there is no reason to believe such an entity could exist, and even if it did the probabilities involved in its results would contain so little actual information as to be completely useless.
>Why does determinism take an agent's ability to make a choice while indeterminism doesn't?
Because indeterminism is not an agent. Indeterminism is just the notion that the knowledge of the universe at a point in time is NOT enough to determine the state at all further times. <cont>

>>12163429
<cont>
If laws of physics or the state of the universe at some past point in time is not enough to completely determine the future, that does not mean that there is nothing that can determine the future or that the only thing that can determine the future is randomness. It simply states that the thing that can determine the future will not be laws of physics.
It's completely consistent, as far as I am aware of, with the ability of an agent like you and me to determine some part of the future.
>What are you? You are your thoughts, feelings, memories, desires, personality traits, mental abilities etc.
All of these belong to me but I see no reason to believe that this completely describes who I am.
Indeed, if someone managed to record all my thoughts, feelings, desires, personality traits, and mental abilities (after spending enormous amounts of time thinking how to encode these things) the record will not contain me. All it would have are precisely those things: my feelings, my thoughts etc. I am more than these things, although they are obviously part of who I am.
>What is indeterminism? That something happening isn't determined by anything, just happens by brute fact.
Well that's not how I view indeterminism. Indeed, nothing about physics or philosophy seems to indicate that there are things not determined by anything.
It simply means that laws of physics are not enough to give us a complete description of reality. That doesn't mean that there is no description of reality or that nothing can account for the description of reality.
>There could be some of that in our universe, but it could NOT in anyway give you the power to choose.
I do not base my belief in my free will from laws of physics. All that current laws of physics seem to give to me is descriptions of very specific situations, and seem to indicate that a mathematical description of a future physical state only knowing the state at one point in time is not possible.
Again, I'm not <...>

>>12163442
<...> using the indeterminism of laws of physics to provide a mechanism for free will. That would be stupid.
I'm talking about indeterminism of physics as a reason for why determinism is not a good defeater for free will.
My belief in free will comes from a completely different source: namely my immediate perception of my own free will. Unless there is a good reason to doubt this perception, it's reasonable to believe the perception is accurate and that I do indeed have free will.

>>12162939
I don't believe in free will and QM must be non-deterministic

>>12163446
Why don't you believe in free will?

>>12163429
>>12163252
>Now you may argue that the fact that I'm performing a quantum experiment changes everything and is not what usually happens. But you have no reason to believe that similar quantum effects don't happen every day that accurately predicting my location ahead of time impossible without me needing to perform quantum experiments.

It's definitely not what usually happens and I have reasons to believe the thought experiment is not relevant to us making choices in general, namely that people don't behave in insanely random and unpredictable way. Anyone that did I would consider insane and lacking basic human self-control and agency. We can predict what other people do to a non-trivial degree just with our intuition alone. So I fail to see the point of this thought experiment. Would the predictors ability to predict be improved if he considered you a person making choices, rather than just a collection of atoms under this thought experiment?

>>12163484
>It's definitely not what usually happens and I have reasons to believe the thought experiment is not relevant to us making choices in general, namely that people don't behave in insanely random and unpredictable way.
First of all, by random here we mean simply unpredictable. Random behavior does not have to be insane or lacking basic human self-control or agency. A human's behavior might look completely orderly to another human but when it comes to describing the behavior in terms of smaller particles by laws of physics it will be impossible, i.e. in terms of physics it could be random. That's my whole point.
Indeed, if I described my quantum experiment to someone else the would not view me as insane or lacking basic self-control and agency. Nothing of the sort. This experiment would be a completely rational and interesting action to perform. I do not need to be insane to perform such an experiment. It's simply that my actions cannot be accounted for by laws of physics. It's random when viewed through the lens of physics.
This goes to show that randomness in physics is disconnected from what in large-scale life we describe as random, insane, disordered. My action might be completely rational and go according to all my beliefs, but when it comes to describing it in terms of my particles through physics, it could be impossible to do, i.e. seemingly random.
>So I fail to see the point of this thought experiment.
The point is to prove that a general Laplace's demon or anything of the sort is impossible, even theoretically, given our current understanding of laws of physics. To show that quantum effects are not restricted to small scale, and can indeed have massive influence on our regular-scale life.
>Would the predictors ability to predict be improved if he considered you a person making choices, rather than just a collection of atoms under this thought experiment?
Perhaps, I see no obstruction to this.
<...>

>>12163014
>Quantum mechanics has huge effects on large bodies, as I already explained in my previous post. Let me give you another example:
>I take an atom that easily splits and decide to perform an experiment. If I observe that the atom is split, I go on a killing spree. If the atom stays put, I stay as I were before. Now the splitting of the atom is a strictly quantum mechanical phenomenon which cannot be deterministically predicted.
First of all, a single atom can never create an action potential. Second random action potentials in neurons have already been recorded, but your argument falls apart rather quickly.
Even if we assume such a non deterministic atom existed all your actions are directly derived from this atom's action. So how is it exactly that you can force YOUR will on it instead of the opposite? It its the single atom that choses what do to and not you. Your example already shows no signs of free will since its being decided by a cointoss.

>>12163505
<...>
However, I see no reason to believe it's possible either.
The whole point is that people used to think that laws of physics are going to prove determinism true and hence the belief in free will would have a defeater.
My point is that right now as it stands, our current understanding of physics does not provide a defeater for our belief in free will. It does not prove determinism in any way. Indeed it makes it seem very unlikely that the reality could be completely described and predicted by reducing it into merely physical particles and applying mathematical laws of physics.
That's why, in absence of any other potential defeaters of free will, none of which I'm aware of, it's completely rational to believe in free will.

>>12163506
>So how is it exactly that you can force YOUR will on it instead of the opposite? It its the single atom that choses what do to and not you.
I've answered this objection multiple times already in this thread. Let me answer it again.
I do NOT use physics to provide a mechanism for free will. I believe such a project is stupid and doomed to fail.
I merely point to indeterminism in physics to refute the only known potential defeater for my belief in free will, namely determinism. The belief in free will itself stems from a completely different source than physics, namely my own immediate perception of free will.
>Your example already shows no signs of free will since its being decided by a cointoss.
My example is not about showing any signs of free will. It's merely to refute the theoretical possibility of a laplace's demon and to demonstrate that quantum mechanical effects are not restricted to the small-scale but have life-size massive consequences.

>>12163453
Anime girls are cute. CUTE!
>Why don't you believe in free will?
because the evidence does not seem to support such a notion.

>>12159513
Literally Jews.

>>12163530
>because the evidence does not seem to support such a notion
And what evidence is that? All the evidence I've seen seems to support free will.

>>12159487
Determinism is true, and we also have free will.

>>12163536
>Determinism is true
Except there's literally 0 evidence for this.

>>12163521
You have no definition of freewill is what you're saying. Yeah it is based around your perception but when you remove your frontal lobe your risk processing will disapear and now your perception of what is or isn't dangerous is completely different than before. Other example would be panthom pain, take the diaphragm and its innervating nerve the phrenic. Your brain will interpret any pain on the diaphragm as pain in the upperchest. Clearest example of one's self perception being flawed from its core.
Your example about quantum mechanics is just blatantly false because such an event can never happen and not only that would have no effect on a neuron.

>>12163535
It seems that the universe evolves through time non deterministically and we're all along for the ride.

>>12163557
>You have no definition of freewill is what you're saying
I can give you plenty of definitions for free will. Ability to choose. Ability to influence the future. The ability to consciously decide what one is going to do. All of these are possible definitions. However, I don't think they are necessary as it's intuitively clear to most people what is meant by free will.
>Yeah it is based around your perception but when you remove your frontal lobe your risk processing will disapear and now your perception of what is or isn't dangerous is completely different than before.
How is that at all relevant to the existence of free will? I don't see the connection.
>Other example would be panthom pain, take the diaphragm and its innervating nerve the phrenic. Your brain will interpret any pain on the diaphragm as pain in the upperchest. Clearest example of one's self perception being flawed from its core.
I've already admitted multiple times that our perception can be flawed. That's why I said it's reasonable to trust ones perception only when there are no good reasons to the contrary. In the case of such a pain, there is a good reason to doubt one's perception. Therefore when one is aware of these reasons, it would not be rational to trust one's perception.
>Your example about quantum mechanics is just blatantly false because such an event can never happen
Why not? The experiment seems completely feasible and similar to the experiments performed many times before by professional physicists.
>>12163565
>It seems that the universe evolves through time non deterministically
The universe does not seem to be deterministic, yes.
>we're all along for the ride
In a way, yes. But there's no reason to believe that we don't have control over a large part of that ride. Actually, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. And as far as I can see that is consistent with physics not being able to give a deterministic complete description of reality.

>>12163538
Determinism is the necessary prerequisite for free will in the same way an armed state is the necessary prerequisite for private property rights, the same way oxygen is a necessary pre-requisite for a fire.
Take any individual, rather, any decision-maker, be it a chicken or a man. For any individial to meaningfully make decisions, it must have desire, goals. A decision maker is inherently rational in that it is seeking a particular outcome. This outcome need not appear sensible to some aggregate consensus of onlookers; it simply must be desired by the decision-maker. This is how we distinguish the chicken and cow from the stream of water or bingo machine. Water has no desire, it does not seek to impact the world or change its standings or even to not impact the world or to not change its standings. It is just a collection of molecules flowing according to the physics of the universe. Similarly, a bingo machine cares not if the number it produces is 1 or 71, nor does it care if the number is not 1 and 71, nor is it concerned if it ever produces a number at all, nor if the rolling of the bingo balls wears down its interior over years of use.
In the indeterministic universe, every individual which we once thought to assign desire to, that is, will, has become the bingo machine. The chicken does not make its decision based on which side of the coop has seen more corn thrown into it, or which rooster is more attractive; it has acted aimlessly according to the outputs of infinitesimal bingo machines named quantum particles. The chicken, nor the man, can ever again claim to have acted according to its own desire, to have surveyed the world and calculated its own actions. For now it is ruled by contraptions of nature, of random number generators spewing non-information. The actions of everyone are arbitrary, divorced from will.

>>12163576
>>12163576
>The experiment seems completely feasible and similar to the experiments performed many times before by professional physicists.
Not at all these only take place on quantum scale and have no greater consequence, something you are claiming with your example.
Please say they decide what they want but Someone in this thread has already spoken of the mri experiment showing otherwise. Another example would be to not think of a purple bunny when reading this.
Your argument in favour of ones perception is a tautology this you’ll need another one

>>12163582
You equate randomness with disorder and chaos. Randomness is simply that which cannot be predicted.
Something that cannot be predicted must not necessarily be chaotic or disordered.
Imagine I run an algorithm that looks for an even number that cannot be expressed as a sum of two primes, in order to disprove Goldbach's conjecture. I cannot predict in advance whether the program will stop or not. However, that doesn't mean the program is chaotic or disordered.
In a similar way, I see no connection between the inability to predict from the state of the universe at one point the state of the universe at all further points and the inability to have free will, chaos and disordered.
Such a connection seems to be completely unwarranted.
>Similarly, a bingo machine cares not if the number it produces is 1 or 71, nor does it care if the number is not 1 and 71, nor is it concerned if it ever produces a number at all, nor if the rolling of the bingo balls wears down its interior over years of use.
We know how a bingo machine works, and it can't be practically predicted. However, that does not mean that everything else that cannot be practically predicted operates in the same way as a bingo machine. Indeed, there is no rational reason to believe so. There is rational reason however, to believe in the contrary.
Indeed, as far as physics is concerned, all evidence points to the universe being indeterministic. And yet our human lives do not appear chaotic, disordered, or like bingo machines. To the contrary, they appear very ordered (some more than others).

>>12163592
>Not at all these only take place on quantum scale and have no greater consequence, something you are claiming with your example.
But I already explained how they have great consequences.
1. There are experiments in quantum mechanics that one can perform such that the outcome cannot be predicted using known laws of physics with two outcomes, A and B, each having probability about 1/2. Example: imagine measuring the spin of a particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy#Example
2. One can decide before performing the experiment what one is going to do in case one observes A and in case one observes B as the outcome, such that the action has large scale consequences.
Indeed my proposed examples include going on a killing spree or travelling to the other side of the world.
3. Therefore quantum phenomena can have large scale consequences, and so large scale behavior cannot be predicted using our known laws of physics.
Indeed, if it could be predicted whether I go on a killing spree it could also be predicted what the outcome of the quantum measurement would be. But that's impossible.
>Someone in this thread has already spoken of the mri experiment showing otherwise
I and other people have already thoroughly refuted it.
>Another example would be to not think of a purple bunny when reading this.
How is that an objection to free will? I don't see the connection.
>Your argument in favour of ones perception is a tautology this you’ll need another one
A tautology is something that must be true based on its logical structure. My statement about trusting perception is not a tautology, it's rather a statement about belief that I expect most people to take as true because it seems obviously true.
Do you think it's false? Can you provide a situation where your immediately perceive something to be true, have no reasons to believe that the perception is lying to you and yet that it would be irrational for you to trust your perception?

>>12163620
Once again you decide, without any evidence, that quantum events on sub atomic scale somehow affect things on a macro scale. Show any hard evidence for this, or learn some basic quantum mechanics.
>Can you provide a situation where your immediately perceive something to be true, have no reasons to believe that the perception is lying to you and yet that it would be irrational for you to trust your perception?
Uh yeah if I had no knowledge about the phrenic nerve I couldn’t in anyway assume that the paint in my left shoulder could be in anyway associated with a pain evoking event somewhere on the left side of my diagram. Another example would be being colourblind. You stated earlier that from birth you had the clear perception of your own free will but colourblind 2 year olds, who just started to recognise themselves in the mirror, would have no way of knowing that the colours they perceive are in-fact different bands of light.
Now your definition has to be a tautology, because else it is already refuted. How can you perceive your own free will if your own perception is faulty?

>>12163620
Uuuh the max planck contestant forbids quantum mechanics from having any effect on a large scale

>>12163643
>Once again you decide, without any evidence, that quantum events on sub atomic scale somehow affect things on a macro scale
By deciding beforehand what I'm going to do according to the outcome I get I force quantum phenomena to affect things on a macro scale.
>Show any hard evidence for this
Hard evidence of what? Possibility of performing quantum experiments with indeterminate, probabilistic outcomes? Just pick up a basic textbook on quantum mechanics or open up wikipedia and you'll find plenty of evidence.
Hard evidence of being able to decide beforehand what one is going to do after observing the outcome of an experiment? What sort of evidence do you want for this? We take actions based on outcomes we observe all the time in our lives. Is that not enough? Why do you believe that it's possible to choose a course of action based on an observation in all areas of life but not when you are performing a quantum experiment? That's evidently absurd.
>Uh yeah if I had no knowledge about the phrenic nerve I couldn’t in anyway assume that the paint in my left shoulder could be in anyway associated with a pain evoking event somewhere on the left side of my diagram.
In such a case it seems to be completely rational to believe that the pain stems from the left shoulder. It only becomes irrational once you learn about the phrenic nerve, no?
>Another example would be being colourblind.
Not a valid example. It's completely rational for a colorblind person to trust his perceptions until someone explains to him that his perceptions are flawed and that some colors which appear the same to him are distinct.
>Now your definition has to be a tautology, because else it is already refuted
I already explained that you don't understand what a tautology means. Google it and you will find "a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.". The statement I made is not a tautology because it's not true by necessity of its logical form. <...>

>>12163671
<...> It's supposed to be obviously true without justification (axiomatic).
>How can you perceive your own free will if your own perception is faulty?
Just as the colorblind person is able to perceive two different colors to be the same even though his perception is faulty. I don't see a problem here.
>>12163663
How so?

>>12163671
Right so you can rationally believe in your perceptions even though they’re false. Somehow you still assume that your, obvious, perception of free will isn’t and thus it must exist. Your argument has a giant hole that isn’t filled.
Also you’re making a logic mistake. You being the observer of a wave/particle event is you influencing something on quantum scale not the other way around and it would be disingenuous to say otherwise. Now I would advise you to read a intro course on quantum mechanics because a single atom is too small(energy wise) to do anything note worthy on macro scale

>>12163686
>Right so you can rationally believe in your perceptions even though they’re false
Exactly! Glad you finally understood my point!
>Somehow you still assume that your, obvious, perception of free will isn’t and thus it must exist
NO! You saying such a thing demonstrates that you completely misunderstood the argument. I never assumed such a thing in my argument and I would not even dare assume such a thing. How could I ever be sure that my perception of anything isn't flawed? I am completely open to the possibility that it's flawed.
The point is that whether or not it's flawed, that in absence of all evidence to the contrary it's rational to believe I have free will. The rationality of the belief is not dependent on my ability to prove that the perception is flawed or not, just that it exists and that there's nothing to suggest my perception is flawed. That's all there is to it.

>>12163677
A colourblind person falsely attributes something to a specific part of radiation, yet something you aren’t falsely attributing free will to emerging factors?

>>12163686
>You being the observer of a wave/particle event is you influencing something on quantum scale not the other way around and it would be disingenuous to say otherwise.
That could be true. My argument does not depend on the fact that it's the atom influencing me and not me influencing the atom. It only depends on the fact that the result of the experiment is nondeterministic, i.e. the current laws of physics do not allow to determine the outcome of such an experiment. The best it can do is give a probabilistic answer..
>Now I would advise you to read a intro course on quantum mechanics because a single atom is too small(energy wise) to do anything note worthy on macro scale
I suggest you do the same. It's clear you are very confused about the whole thing.

>>12163695
The autonomic nervous systems has a constant effect on your wills and wants yet you somehow you still say there is an absence of evidence of something you have no control over influencing your actions.
Breathing is a clear example, you can control it actively, or when you require more oxygen your autonomic nervous system will take over control and start to breath more

>>12163698
Try to reread your posts before you press post because it can be hard to understand what you mean.
I suppose "something" is supposed to be "somehow" there.
Yes, it is absolutely possible that my perception of free will is false. My argument allows this possibility and still works in the exact same way if we assume this possibility.

>>12163707
Free will does not mean total control over every aspect of one self. Merely some control. If you have some control over some things, then you have free will. Obviously we can't freely decide to stop breathing just like we can't freely decide to jump to the moon. There are limitations to everything.

>>12163718
Your definition of free will is an all encompassing hollow idea that isn’t falsifiable. Worthless discussion

>>12163733
I take that as an admit of defeat. Nice talking to you LOL

>>12163741
Yes quantum wizard sama. Please lecture other stupid materialists with your convincing argument asap

>>12163752
Did you actually find my argument convincing or are you making fun of me? If the former, I'm very glad about it. That was the whole point of this discussion, to convince someone.

Determinism and denial of free will literally has nothing to do with the question whether we should or should not discourage certain behaviours, if we deem them detrimental to the society, or violating basic human rights (which we, as a legal system, accept as axioms).

The problem with justice should not be stated whether we should or should not act on such events, but rather that if we accept that there's no free will, we have to rebuild our justice system as not to punish these acts, or, paradoxically, bring justice (which is just catering to the craving for revenge on the victim's side), but rather preventing the act from occuring again. This might include trying to get to the bottom of why a criminal did what he did, and make sure he doesn't do that again, isolating him if we think that we cannot prevent reoccurence of such behaviour (for life without parole obviously, sentencing to a particular time in jail has no sense in this line of thiking).

So the only thing current legal system does correctly is by inflicting suffering upon perpetrator it deters others who might do the same, not do it, in fear of consequences. But even then, we can see that there is not real correlation between the severity of punishment in a given legal system, and crime rates in the society that this system works with.

In short: you are a retard that reiterates stupid talking points without giving any thought to the subject you are trying to have an opinion on. Either think harded or kys.

>if there is no justice system in the country, it would be a additional reason for you to kill. assuming hard determinism is correct

>>12159487
Because we had no control over making it illegal. Nothing breaks causality.

If there's no free will, no one can choose whether or not murder should be illegal.

>>12159487
1) Free will and justice is >>>/his
2) Because murder not being legal reduces murder. I don't see why this is a tricky question.

>>12159487
1) Free will and justice is >>>/his/
2) Because murder not being legal reduces murder. I don't see why this is a tricky question.

>>12159487
We also have no choice but to have laws against murder.

>>12159487
It's only illegal if you get caught.

>>12159487
the people who made it illegal and keep it illegal have no free will either. and their deterministic trajectories in life are in such that they will make sure it stays that way

>>12159487
It's not about free will, the purpose of the judiciary system is to remove threats from society

>>12165474
Why would it be impossible for us to be part of the causal chain?
>>12165884
Determinism has been long debunked,, broski.

>>12166519
>Determinism has been long debunked,, broski.
determinism implies absence of freewill, although it is not the only way that free will does not exist

>>12159487
Because the legal system assumes that you do have free will.

>>12166629
>determinism implies absence of freewill
Yeah. Good thing there is no reason to believe determinism is true then.
>although it is not the only way that free will does not exist
What other ways are there? Never seen anyone argue against free will without assuming determinism.

>>12166692
the world is physically undeterministic due to quantum mechanics. but any macroscopic mechanism that we observe is deterministic.

human mind could be a macroscopicly deterministic system without having to claim determinism in the microscopic level. if you believe that free will exists only as a consequence of quantum randomness, then you will see this as an if and only if statement.

>>12166692
>What other ways are there? Never seen anyone argue against free will without assuming determinism.
Well you haven't read much about the subject then. Why would something happening for no cause, or something being in principle unpredictable imply free will when that kind of indeterminism can happen with completely inanimate stuff as well?

>>12166733
>if you believe that free will exists only as a consequence of quantum randomness
I don't. That seems like a completely retarded reason for believing in free will.
Rather, I believe in free will because I have immediate perception of my free will. And since I have no reason to believe this perception is faulty or an illusion, I trust it.
If I didn't have the perception of free will I don't think anything else would convince me I actually have free will.
Quantum indeterminism just demonstrates that the only reason I know why I could doubt my perception of free will, namely determinism, is false, and hence there are no good reasons to doubt my perception of free will.
>human mind could be a macroscopicly deterministic system without having to claim determinism in the microscopic level
Except I already explained multiple times that this is not correct. The mind is absolutely macroscopically indeterministic system, just like our human bodies.

>>12166739
>Why would something happening for no cause
I don't know. But when we're talking about our decisions coming from free will, we're not talking about something happening for no cause. We're merely talking about the cause being us, i.e. our choice.
Perhaps at the quantum level there are things that happen for no cause (which I doubt) but that has no relevance towards the existence of free will, as far as I'm aware.
>or something being in principle unpredictable imply free will when that kind of indeterminism can happen with completely inanimate stuff as well
I've already repeatedly answered this retarded objection. I am not using indeterminism as evidence for free will. That would be retarded. I'm merely using indeterminism to refute the main objection to free will, namely determinism.
The evidence of free will is of completely different nature: namely my immediate perception that I have free will.

>>12166743
>Rather, I believe in free will because I have immediate perception of my free will.
not a valid argument. untestable hypothesis.
>I have no reason to believe this perception is faulty or an illusion, I trust it.
I have no reason to believe this perception is authentic, I doubt it.

>>12166755
Your objection is completely retarded. If you were consistent with it, you would withhold judgement about every single thing about your life which is a position that only works in imagination but not in real life. Everything you believe comes to you through perception. According to you, you have no reason to believe these perceptions are authentic. Whether your perceptions are correct is an untestable hypothesis, because the only evidence your perception could have would come through perception.
I remember I drank coffee 1 year ago and in my diary I've registered having drank coffee then. Is it unreasonable to believe it?
It's an untestable hypothesis. There's no way to scientifically figure out whether my perception of what has happened a year ago is true.
Do I really need to doubt my perception? Of course not. Since there are no reasons to doubt my memory, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that I indeed drank coffee 1 year ago.
You're clearly retarded and grasping at straws here. Free will exists. Get over it.

>>12166783
>Free will exists. Get over it.
seethe and dilate brainlet. you write paragraphs on a fuckin imageboard trying to convince people of a viewpoint you cant even comprehend

>>12166786
>you write paragraphs on a fuckin imageboard
Not a valid argument. Untestable hypothesis.
>b...but I clearly see your post
You have no reason to believe this perception is authentic, you should doubt it.

>>12159487
how dont we have free will?

>>12166787
>>12166786
Forgot the pic.

>>12166788
We do. Only brainlets incapable of basic thinking believe there's no free will.

>>12166799
how do we have free will?

Im gonna blow your minds here

We are incapable of figuring out whether we truly have free will

Therefore we have to assume we do otherwise some people would relinquish responsibility

>>12166805
literally best post in the thread

>>12166754
>I've already repeatedly answered this retarded objection. I am not using indeterminism as evidence for free will. That would be retarded. I'm merely using indeterminism to refute the main objection to free will, namely determinism.
The evidence of free will is of completely different nature: namely my immediate perception that I have free will.
you asked "What other ways are there?" (than determinism, for free will to not exist), I answered for all the indeterministic stuff just being random is a way for free will to not exist in an indeterministic universe. Don't blame me for thinking that you think indeterminism = free will when you phrase the question like that. And you claimed that you have "never seen anyone argue against free will without assuming determinism", when it has been many people's objection like Sam Harris or several in this thread that indeterminism is just randomness which is not free will. A common argument whether you agree or disagree with it.

>>12163707
Breathing is not free will you retard, it's an unconscious reflex that you have no control over. You can't decide today that I can't breathe. Seriously 90% of the idiots in this thread talking about quantum shit have no idea what free will is or how it's defined. You are all talking out of your asses. Understand the biological definition first and then this thread will get interesting.

>>12159487
Why is "legal" even a thing if we don't have free will?

>>12163707
Breathing is not free will you retard, it's an unconscious reflex that you have no control over. You can't decide today that you don't want to breathe anymore. Seriously 90% of the idiots in this thread talking about quantum shit have no idea what free will is or how it's defined. You are all talking out of your asses. Understand the biological definition first and then this thread will get interesting.

>>12166803
If you have to ask, you don't have it.
>>12166818
> when it has been many people's objection like Sam Harris or several in this thread that indeterminism is just randomness which is not free will. A common argument whether you agree or disagree with it.
Yes. My whole argument is aimed at refuting this objection. I've answered it many, many times already in this thread.
The answer is that there are no good reasons to believe physics' inability to predict the future (which is called randomness) is in any way incompatible with free will. "Randomness just gives you randomness" is a good objection to the claim that free will cannot be described by use of laws of physics, but there is no reason to expect it should be.
Also, you seem to think that everything that is indeterministic must be analogous to a roll of die, while I don't see any reason to believe it. There could be deeper reasons for the reality to appear the way it does, we just don't know them, which is why it appears random. Indeed there are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics where the reality is not random at all, just the deeper explanations are not accessible to us empirically.
So if you can explain how physics' inability to predict the future (indeterminism) is inconsistent with existence of free will then you will have an argument, but as of now my argument works perfectly.
Let me give you an example:
<...>

>>12166956
<...>
Imagine I am playing a one button computer game but you don't see me pressing the button. You believe that I do not control the game because you observe that before every time the character in the video game jumps, a bird outside chirps. Now you say that it is not me, but the bird that's controlling the game. But later on you notice that the chirp goes out of sync with my jumps. And now you say well you can't predict my jumps anymore, they seem random to me. So you argue that you can't control the game from randomness, you can only get randomness from randomness, which is different from an ability to control the character.
This is exactly how you sound.

>>12159487
>Why are potatoes brown if rats can’t live on Jupiter

>>12166805
Im gonna blow your minds here

We are incapable of figuring out whether we truly have eyes

Therefore we have to assume we do otherwise some people would relinquish responsibility

>>12166965
responsibility part doesn't really apply but the rest is true, even though i know you are doing a gotcha which it actually isn't

>>12166976
Im gonna blow your minds here

We are incapable of figuring out whether we truly have thoughts

Therefore we have to assume we do otherwise some people would relinquish responsibility

>>12166976
But it is a gotcha. We clearly do have free will, just like we clearly have thoughts and eyes.

>>12166913
>You can't decide today that you don't want to breathe anymore

>>12166982
>We clearly do have free will

Prove it.

>>12166913
You’re literally so retarded that you can’t control your breath. Holy shit that’s insane you’re literally stupider than ants

>>12166982
you are relying on experience of something to be the determining factor for weather its "real" you are correct that our entire reality is formed this way in our minds but that is only because we take it to be true without a precursor of proof, its an axiom that reality is true and is a basis for proof. the issue is here is that freewill is a claim outside of experience, it is unfalsifiable and unprovable at the same time because its in the same realm as determinism. any claim you make can be broken by saying "it was just planned that way in the beginning though" for example. the reason the other anon talked about responsibility is the same reason you are arguing for objective reality. we experience morality the same way we experience reality ie from base axioms we cant prove but experience them to be real hence the responsibility claim.

>>12167002
If you need a proof to believe this then you're a genuine NPC.

>>12167012
>the issue is here is that freewill is a claim outside of experience, it is unfalsifiable and unprovable at the same time because its in the same realm as determinism
Free will could be disproved if determinism was proved. That is, if we actually found evidence that universe operates in a deterministic way. This has been a real possibility since Newtonian physics and still could be a possibility, there's just no evidence for it.
And free will is a not a claim outside of experience, the whole issue arises because we EXPERIENCE free will. We just want to understand whether this experience is to be trusted or not. As of now, there's 0 reason to doubt it.

>>12159487
It's not even a question of free will.

In the case of free will, laws prevent murder because otherwise murderous people decide they don't want to get in trouble with the law.

In the case of no free will, laws are one of the deterministic variables of whether or not people will commit murder.

>>12167021
determinism is unfalsifiable, hence why i said it cant be proved or disproved. its the same as god its a position that is structured in such a way that it is outside our domain of experience and using reality around us we will never be able to come to a conclusion. saying Free will could be disproved if determinism was proved means nothing because it assumes first that freewill has been proved which it hasn't and never will be or disproved. it also means nothing because once again determinism is unfalsifiable. once again you are falling back on experience and reality to say that somthign is true failing to realise these are axioms and reality being "true" is also an axiom you have taken. say "we experience free will" is just adding to my point and you are failing to address the main issue which is why is your experience of reality true when i can make up unfalsifiables to counteract it e.g: determinism. this is why im saying that experience is fundamentally the deciding factor, we cant prove experience of anything is real but we experience it anyway so its what is most important, this is also a argument for morality being valid as morality cant be proven to be "true" but like reality it stems from natural axioms we take up and experience so why does it matter?

>>12166995
You don't decide to suffocate yourself. Even when you are suffocating your body still fights to breath, you can't turn that need off, consciously. You can't assume that you are making a conscious choice. Most people kill themselves because they are afraid of living in a certain way. So, in as much as self-suffocation is a choice, it's not a conscious one that you make. You are just giving in to another unconscious reflex which is fear. Seriously why is this so hard for you guys to understand between reacting to a reflex or instinct vs making a choice to do something (misleading definition notwithstanding). The latter isn't possible because it would assume no precedence or priority of choice. There's always something of higher priority behind your choice, that's just the way our biology works. Therefore our choices are not our own. They're already pre-programmed for us by years of evolution. Free will presumes the freedom to choose between different options, we don't have that freedom because any choice we make has a higher priority behind it, all we have is post choice. It's not free. You could say we have will but it's not free, seriously guys this is supposed to be a high IQ forum, understand the definition first before you make hundreds of useless posts.

>>12159487
To prevent murders.

>>12167014
Not an argument.
Prove we have free will, now, or you lose. No ifs, ands, or buts.

>>12167048
>Error: argument not identified.

>>12159487
because nobody has free will to change the law to make it legal

>>12167043
Clarification on 'our choices are not our own'. They're not personal choices in as much as possession is relevant. You could argue the pre-programmed choices belong to a previous species that survived to pass along their genes. You were already born with them. It can not be said that you own them as much as the previous species owned them first. What I'm saying is that you can't do what you want with them, so you can't claim ownership over them.

>>12167054
>"ha! your just an NPC because you ask me to actually back up the claims i make!"
>"what?... no I'm not just changing the topic to annoy you so you wont keep pressing me on the fact i have no evidence at all"

>>12159487
>why is murder not legal if we don't have free will?

Easy, its a societal self-correction mechanism. Those with incorrect "programming" i.e. those who have genes which don't follow the unconciousally aggreed social norms are prevented from reproducing in order to make the next generation "better".

>>12159504
based

>>12159511
red pilled

>>12159524
>How can you argue against punishment for murder if the act of punishing is a result of determinism?

You can't.

>>12159530
based and red pilled

>>12159548
>It is reasonable to believe in free will.

It is indeed reasonable to believe in whatever makes you happy. The only problem is it dosn't make it true. Take for example the current SARS-CoV-2 deniers, its a coping mechanism to belive it does not exist. It gives them a false sense of control, I can't blame them but it does not make them objectively correct.

>>12167063
Prove that you exist.
>>12167068
>It is indeed reasonable to believe in whatever makes you happy
Wrong. Believing I am all-powerful would make me happy but it's not reasonable to believe I'm all-powerful because there is good evidence to the contrary.

>>12167070
i never claimed that i did, your burden of proof btw

>>12159599
>I've literally never heard anyone give 1 good reason why they deny free will.

>Experimental evidence of impulses denoting a decision showing up before the individual becomes aware of the "decision"
>The fact that thoughts come into your mind without your choosing. Try meditating.
>The fact that your genes interacting with your environment will dictate the behaviours you will enact
>If we had the knowledge and a computer powerful enough we could predict your next action

Free will is an illusion, grow up and accept you are a puppet in a suffering machine. Free will is COPE

>>12167076
None of those are good reasons to believe in free will. I already refuted them multiples times ITT.
Denying free will is COPE to deny the responsibility for one's failures in life and justify not doing anything to fix them. I know, it feels nice to believe there's no free will, that we're not responsible for anything we do, unfortunately some of us care more about the TRUTH than COPEs.

>>12167054
>y-you’re an NPC because you want me to back up my assertions!!

>>12167123
Prove free will exists.

>>12163009
The lack of awareness of the process that leads to a choice does not imply the lack of free will on said choice. Did you read about that on some pop science magazine ot were the researchers already mentally impaired?

>>12167186
Share a study proving free will.

>>12167193
Share a study proving thoughts exist.

>>12167035
>determinism is unfalsifiable, hence why i said it cant be proved or disproved
Some strict versions of determinism are falsifiable.
I can falsify the hypothesis that there could be a machine that predicts the future.
If there were such a machine, I would use it to tell me where I will be in 1 hours. Using that information I will go somewhere else to falsify that prediction, which means the prediction was wrong.
Thus no such a machine can exist.
>saying Free will could be disproved if determinism was proved means nothing because it assumes first that freewill has been proved which it hasn't and never will be or disproved
No it doesn't. Are you retarded?
Free will does not need to be proved in order for it to be possible for determinism to disprove free will.
Also I see no theoretical obstruction to (some form of) determinism being proved to be true. Do you?

>>12167193
I can share a study "proving" global warming is a hoax, another one about how vaccines cause autism and a final one claiming earth is flat and 6000 years old. Those studies would still be flawed but I suppose with enough circle jerking you would believe them. Do yourself a favor and believe me instead. You'd still be dumb, but at least you would be right.

>>12159490
But god made me do it. Is going to jail and getting stabbed and aids in prison also part of my plan?

>>12167123
Nice COPE frog. I hope it lets you sleep well at night.

>>12167193
How about that one study where people recognize a set of pictures BEFORE said pictures show up? It's pretty recent and I'm not sure it's been published yet, but the results speak by themselves. If that study turns out to be true, then your main argument stops working completely, although it was already flawed, when you claimed that free will is only the awareness of the conscious mind. Reductionism in science is lying by ommision.

Because everyone knows that not having free will is pseudoscience bs

>>12167043
>You don't decide to suffocate yourself
Tell that to all the people who suffocate themselves

>There's always something of higher priority behind your choice, that's just the way our biology works. Therefore our choices are not our own. They're already pre-programmed for us by years of evolution. Free will presumes the freedom to choose between different options, we don't have that freedom because any choice we make has a higher priority behind it, all we have is post choice. It's not free. You could say we have will but it's not free
Okay I think I get what you're saying, and I've been thinking about this myself recently. I'm only doing things because my animal instincts tell me to do them - e.g. eat, sleep, or even typing this post is fulfilling some animal instinct to understand my environment or something like that. So yeah, maybe we don't have free will. I dunno. It's a tough question.

>>12167303
Exactly. People keep confusing will and free will, it's tough to see the difference the first time you think about it.

>why is murder not legal if we don't have free will?

Because we do not have free will to make it legal. Obviously.

>>12167316
>will and free will
What's the difference?

>>12167300
prove

>>12166519
We are part of the chain.

>>12167316
>>12167385
This guy - >>12167303 - again

Everything we do is just a result of animal instincts that you can't get rid of

>>12167498
>What? An assumption is some proposition you take to be true without explaining why for an argument.
Yeah, exactly what you've done throughout this thread.

>I know that I definitely perceive that the choice I make is mine.
Nope, you assume it and you think your assumption is a perception. You already admitted that what you call perception of free will is just perception of choice.

>Then in what sense is it our choice?
It's not. Only you are arguing that.

>How is it possible to have no control over a choice you make?
It's impossible to have control, there is no room in the laws of physics for it.

>Surely then it can't be called a choice.
Surely it can. A choice is something that happens and can be seen to happen, having control over it has not ever been observed and violates physics.

>Perception of something being evidence that it's true
Yes, but perceiving something is not the same as having control over it.

>Simple. There's more to me than my conscious awareness.
Yes, and there's more to your choices than you. Drawing a border around yourself is just as useless for this discussion as drawing a border around your conscious awareness.

>>12167468
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwTPvcPYaOo

Free willtards can't even define "free will" in any meaningful sense

>>12167547
>Nope, you assume it and you think your assumption is a perception
No, I perceive it and you assume my perception is an assumption.
>It's impossible to have control, there is no room in the laws of physics for it.
How do you know?
>A choice is something that happens and can be seen to happen
That makes 0 sense. Earth spinning is something that happens and can be seen to happen. Does that mean that earth spinning is a choice?
You keep insisting upon the distinction between a choice and a free choice when obviously there is one. A choice is not a choice if it's not free.
>Yes, but perceiving something is not the same as having control over it.
What the fuck are you even talking about, retard? Of course it's not the same. Me perceiving having control over my choices is obviously not the same as having control over having control over my choices. That doesn't even make any sense.
>Drawing a border around yourself is just as useless for this discussion as drawing a border around your conscious awareness
It's not useless since YOUR whole argument depends on drawing a border around yourself that most people don't accept. Most people understand that there is more to them than their conscious awareness. You clearly don't.

>>12167385
Free will would mean that we had the ability to choose between feeling angry or feeling happy, which are functions of the environment. They're instincts activated by our environment. We can't choose how or when they activate, we can only react. Reacting is what most people understand as the will to do something. Imagine if we had free will, there would be no struggle, you could just choose to be happy. Someone wrote that it would violate cause and effect. Instead of the environment deciding your behavior, you are deciding your behavior which is a contradiction since it means that you don't exist in any environment as a living thing that interacts with its surroundings.

>>12167562
>Ability to have control over one's actions
>Ability to have done otherwise
>Ability to choose
>Ability to influence the future
How are none of these meaningful?
Also, even if we couldn't define free will in any meaningful sense, that wouldn't mean that free will itself isn't meaningful or that it doesn't exist.
Mathematicians have been arguing (largely correctly) about the real numbers for a long time before they were actually given a meaningful definition. This clearly demonstrates that having a definition is not necessary for a thing to exist or be meaningful.

>>12167576
>Free will would mean that we had the ability to choose between feeling angry or feeling happy
No. Free will does not mean that we are able to choose everything we want. There's obviously limitations. I can't choose to jump to the moon. Free will merely means that there are SOME things we have control over.

>Replies: 185
>Valid reasons given to doubt the immediate perception of free will: 0

>>12167580
You can't jump to the moon in the first place because it's not possible yet, I'm trying to argue biologically, you are trying too hard to bring in physics where it's not relevant or where a simpler argument will suffice.

>that schizo animefag that wont stop posting bullshit

>>12167590
Just like there are gravitational limitations like not being able to jump to the moon, there are biological limitations like not being able to keep my eyes open when someone claps right in front of them.
That doesn't have any implications towards the possibility of free will.

>>12167584
Your perception isn't evidence. One pervieces there to be no atoms but that doesn't make atoms something made up.

>>12167617
>One pervieces there to be no atoms
Huh? How is it possible to perceive there ISN'T something?
I understand not perceiving atoms, but how is it possible to perceive that there aren't atoms?
BTW atoms can be perceived through microscopes.

>>12167603
I'm not arguing for the possibility of free will. Jumping to the moon has never been observed so thinking about it is irrelevant to the discussion. Why are you trying so hard to bring in physics where a simple biological argument makes sense? You don't even understand what is being discussed. Let's just agree that you are confusing imagining something and actually doing it. It's not free imagination we are talking about it's will, actually understand the definition of will then come back and debate.

>>12167622
>Huh? How is it possible to perceive there ISN'T something?
Look into the void of space, do you see, say, a cat? I percieve there to be no cat there.

>>12167633
Ok, whatever. Even then, your perceiving there to be no atoms does not mean that there are no atoms since you know your perception to be faulty (you can only perceive large scale things through your bare eyes. To see small scale things you would need a special device, e.g. a microscope). However, if you didn't know about this and expected atoms to be visible through your bare eyes then it would indeed be rational for you to believe there are no atoms (at least at the place where you're perceiving there to be none).

>>12167656
Indeed, human perception is faulty and therefore isn't good evidence on it's own. Belief and perception have no use as evidence unless backed up something else. I can't believe this has to be said on a science board lol

Why do good threads get ruined by Japanese cartoons of underage girls?

>>12167667
You're retarded LOL.
Give 1 example of evidence for anything that does not derive from perception.

>>12167676
So because we use our senses to prove things everything we sense and percieve is correct proof? So what if I percieve there to be no free will? And you have the gall to call others retarded lol

>>12159487
it is, just not as a civilian

>>12167676
Perceiving things isn't free will, you are the retard who writes paragraph upon paragraph without even understanding what 'will' actually means. What makes you perceive, curiosity, why are you curious and not something else, because evolution selected for that and so on...

IF WE HAD FREE WILL, MURDERERS WOULD NOT MURDER B/C OBVIOUS PRISON TIME

>>12167693
>So because we use our senses to prove things everything we sense and percieve is correct proof
I never claimed such retardation.
All I said is that if I perceive something and have no reason to believe my perception is flawed, it's rational to trust my perception.
If you don't realize how that's different from asserting that everything we sense and perceive is correct proof, then you're indeed retarded.
>So what if I percieve there to be no free will
Then, assuming you have no reason to doubt your perception, it's rational for you to believe you don't have free will.

>>12167706
>Perceiving things isn't free will
What? I never claimed it was. Free will is the ability to make a choice, to influence the future.
> 'will' actually means
Oh? What do you think it means?

>>12167711
Many murderers get away with it.

>>12167712
>All I said is that if I perceive something and have no reason to believe my perception is flawed, it's rational to trust my perception.
This isn't evidence for or even reasoning for why free will would exist. Why did you think it was relevant to post such a thing in a thread about free will? This isn't a thread for spouting inane opinions, you absolute brainlet

Maybe "free will" just means will that is free from coercion etc.

Maybe that's the only sense in which we have "free will"

Maybe we are just biological automatons, but we can have will that is free of coercion.

>>12159487
Because do you want to be murdered? Your stupid question literally answers itself.

>>12159487
if you cant answer this yourself, then youre a fucking moron who ought to get murdered
we lock up criminals because we want to protect ourselves, due to instinct
but it would be better if we just brought back the death penalty, for both economic and genetic reasons

>>12159487
ce𝐚se your f𝐚ggotry

>>12159487

perhaps we do not have free will to make it legal, huh? I was literally compelled to write that pls do not hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbEKIW3pUUk

>>12159487
I argue that it doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or not, But whether it is predictable. One could imagine a non-deterministic universe A which could, theoretically, be 99% predictable, if we know the probabilities of things (assuming all the probabilistic things are not 50/50 most of the time). One could also imagine a deterministic universe in which chaotic systems reign, and measurement is physically impossible within the universe to be fine enough or enough measurements made to make that universe anywhere close to 99% predictable.
These two universes would present such that universe A would be considered more "deterministic" while universe B would be considered less "deterministic", based off of ability to predict outcomes.
If a universe is deterministic but we are unable to predict the actual outcomes, it doesn't matter that it is deterministic.

>>12159487
It certainly feels like we have free will, and that's good enough really.

Even if all your actions were determined, what would it matter? You still have to go through the process of making decisions. And you're not aware of all the things that are causing you to make a certain decision. You just have to make the best decisions you can.

So maybe it's completely irrelevant if determinism is true. We should act as if free will exists because it leads us to make better decisions.

>>12167728
he's saying that if you have a limited view of the world, you have to make due with what you have.

>>12167231
Prove free will exists.

>>12167254
>How about that one study where people recognize a set of pictures BEFORE said pictures show up? It's pretty recent and I'm not sure it's been published yet, but the results speak by themselves.

Share please.

>>12168994
Prove that it doesn't.

>>12167254
>>12168998
All these studies showing that something happened before it happened miss that the final conscious decision happens in the cerebellum, which us basically never measured.

>>12159487
Because that would lead to anarchy

>>12170344
I thought decision-making happened in the frontal lobe

The cerebellum of course is the shaded part in pic related, below all four lobes

>>12167566
>No, I perceive it and you assume my perception is an assumption.
No, you assume it and you assume your assumption is a perception. If you perceived it you would easily be able to describe what it even is. But all you've described is perceiving choice.

>How do you know?
By elimination. Everything that you are made of is either controlled by causal factors outside of yourself or by random molecular action. Something outside of you controlling you is not in your control and random action is not in your control.

>That makes 0 sense. Earth spinning is something that happens and can be seen to happen. Does that mean that earth spinning is a choice?
You are confusing a description for a definition. A dog is an animal, but not all animals are dogs.

>You keep insisting upon the distinction between a choice and a free choice when obviously there is one.
I already told you what the distinction is, control. A computer chooses which bits to flip but it doesn't control that choice, it has to make choices according to its program, which is controlled by something else. Does a computer have free will?

>A choice is not a choice if it's not free.
If that's the case then there are no choices and what you perceive isn't a choice, it's just a program running. But this is purely seems semantics. A choice is simply a selection from multiple possibilities. Every time a computer program runs it makes a choice between two possible states of each bit.

>What the fuck are you even talking about, retard?
I am talking about your conflation of perceiving a choice and perceiving control over that choice. Read the conversation again.

>It's not useless since YOUR whole argument depends on drawing a border around yourself that most people don't accept.
What is the border then that most people accept? Does it contain events that occurred before you even existed? Does it contain everything?

>>12167566
>Most people understand that there is more to them than their conscious awareness. You clearly don't.
But I just agreed with you that there is. Nice reading comprehension.

>>12159487

Because you have to punish deterministic evil. Its built into itself.