/sci/ - Science & Math

I wish it was.

yeah

>>15038306
nah

>>15038306
>>15038308
>>15038311
>>15038355
Genes and the environment influence all your decisions

>>15038306
Scientists put people in a machine to see their brains, and realized that the brain is already doing the thing before the part that decides is triggered. Basically, your brain has a mechanism that creates an illusion of decision in order to make you more efficient. If there is such a thing as free will, it's not something that happens in the moment, but rather something that works through your habits; for example, you wake up early every day and go for a jog, and then when a decision involving exercise appears, your brain picks yes instead of no. How did you pick up that jogging habit if there's no free will? Your parents or other people or some shit. In other words, you can make a system that is non-deterministic with a bunch of machines that are deterministic.

>>15038389
What about something like choosing to listen to one song over another. Our choosing coke over mountain dew?

>>15038409
So we might have free will but not in the way we think we do?

>>15038306
If reality is relative to the observer and if the observer is blasphemously exponentially away from observing anywhere close to the level of specificity to comprehend all of the set outcomes then in that observer's reality they essentially have free will.

Aside from all of that, if the universe is infinitely large and things can be observed at infinitely small scales, then that means there's infinite outcomes, thus free will.

Say you have a Turing machine that can predict exactly how far you step after hearing certain exact words in a certain exact tone, say it can predict your step to the millionth of a centimeter, how specific can it get? After predicting your position to the two millionth then 3 millionth of a centimeter, is there a limit to how specific it can get? If there isn't then essentially there is free will since the exact outcome goes on forever.

>>15038533
I feel like the question comes down to weather or not the thing that makes you, you is locked up in your brain, or if your brain is just a receiver that picking up something nonphysical. But even that just pushes the problem further on.

>>15038533
What if there are infinently many machies all predicting infinently many orders of magnitude?

>>15038355
If you are correct, then you would not be able to choose from multiple possible options for the best answer. This is a self defeating opinion.
>>15038409
These are the libit tests and they did no such thing. Even libit himself never said that. See pic

>>15038574
Wait, did he just prove that immaterial shit is going on in the brain?

>>15038409
>Basically, your brain has a mechanism that creates an illusion of decision in order to make you more efficient.
This is absolute nonsense. For one, if you have no freewill, why would the brain need 'a mechanism that creates an illusion of decision in order to make you more efficient'. You wouldn't be able to do anything about it anyway if you don't have free will. In fact, why would there even be conscious experience anyway? it would be totally useless. If we are just robots carrying out programs, then we could have done this without consciousness.

>>15038574
>These are the libit tests
Nope. This is from like 2014, you're talking about a dude who died in 2007. I didn't even know that dude existed.
>>15038584
>claiming to know how stuff would be if X were different
Stop being so arrogant. The top scientist in the world still don't understand a lot about the brain. How can you say what the brain needs or not or would in an alternate scenario without feeling like a gigantic retard? It is how it is even if it doesn't fit your expectations or worldview. You have the option to deny it or to try to figure out why it is that way; one of those is science and the other is what you picked. The funny thing is that if you think about your behavior you're gonna notice that choosing like this is one of your habits, so you weren't acting with free will when you typed that comment lol.

>>15038579
They found something called a readiness potential
>a slow buildup of electrical potential recorded at the scalp using electroencephalography
and this, they assert, happened before the flexing of the finger. They inferred that this was a neural correlate to the decision to move the finger which preceded the actual decision. But then libet himself, the guy who designed the experiment, pointed out that this was not the case. And now this readiness potential is not even suggested to be what it was thought that it was anymore.

>>15038306
yes but free will takes alot of blood,sweat,tears, and blasphemy.
free will exists, but it isnt garunteed.
it isnt a given.
its a skill to be trained.

>>15038617
That's what I've heard, but it was a wizard that said it. I was wondering id science could back up free will or if it at least had room for it. I'm going through a bit of a crisis of faith right now.

>>15038609
>Nope. This is from like 2014, you're talking about a dude who died in 2007. I didn't even know that dude existed.
It's based on the same idea of neural CORRELATES to consciousness and the WRONG inference of the significance of that INFERENCE. Never any more than inference and certainly not any 'proof' or even evidence against freewill. There are many interpretations of what it means as well. see pic

>>15038311
Checked

OP: Yep

>>15038355
Dubz

Op: YYYYEZZIR

>>15038306
>>15038389
>>15038452
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLd5zKV5Brw

>>15038409
So who made the first decision?
Like, who thunk the first thought?
Who split the first hair?
Who smashed the first thotANDIMDONE

AND IM DONE SIR

So let me get this straight, the options are we're either flesh robots that hallucinate and create some sort of observer that thinks it's real, or we're a bunch of ghosts piloting monkey shaped meat puppets?

WIll is real, but it isn't free, it's the most precious resource in the known universe

Every iota of willpower you exert will be earned.

>>15038621
many people are skeptic of junkies and the chronically homeless.
but there are success stories.
the best practical application to free will in science would be addiction sciences.
and coming off of addiction is hard work.
free will debates and science tests are a symptom of first world entitlement.
we all talk about setting goals and new years resolutions but with two or three months we are back to older habits.
goal setting is really important to free will and people will be jelous of other sucess easily attributing it to family connections or some such.

>>15038533
Dubz

St. Augustine and St. Aquinas made better arguments for free will.

At any time, you can choose to...do [something]. Yes, in THIS context, thinking a thought is an action (if in the very least it is the manifestation of a triggered sin potential and synapse flood cascade along a cleft).

Ur face is a synaptic cleft.
So.

>>15038609
>Stop being so arrogant
I am not. You are the one trying to assert that there is no freewill with 0 evidence. By the way, if you didn't have freewill, you would not be able to even pick between the different possible answers to this question. You would have been pre-programmed to have the opinion you have. All of us would. There wouldn't even be a scientific method because this involves CHOOSING between competing hypothesises. Arguing against freewill is something only a moron would do because inherent in your own argument is the fact that you can't have weighed the options of the possible answers and CHOSEN the right one. There would be no choice.
>The top scientist in the world still don't understand a lot about the brain
agreed
>How can you say what the brain needs or not or would in an alternate scenario without feeling like a gigantic retard?
this doesn't even make sense. I didn't say anything about 'what the brain needs or not '
> It is how it is even if it doesn't fit your expectations or worldview
That's true. Luckily, you haven't presented any evidence against my world view.
>You have the option to deny it or to try to figure out why it is that way; one of those is science and the other is what you picked
Correct. This is because I have freewill, something that you yourself are arguing against. So now you are contradicting yourself.
> one of those is science and the other is what you picked
Again, you nare ascribing freewill to me, something you previously argued against. So which is it? Do I lack freewill? If so, how could I have picked the wrong CHOICE between 'science' and what I picked. You are contradicting yourself all over the place. NO FREEWILL MEANS NO DECISION. I couldn't have chosen the wrong thing because I have not the ability to choose between two options.

>>15038389
you know someone is a midwit when they think genetic/environmental free will is actually what this argument is about (hint, it's not)

>>15038656
Oooh basssed affffff

Droppin' bombs

>>15038609
>The funny thing is that if you think about your behavior you're gonna notice that choosing like this is one of your habits, so you weren't acting with free will when you typed that comment lol.
Again, you are appealing to freewill. If you are saying that and CHOOSING to do something, then we have no disagreement. This implies you are acknowledging freewill. You originally argued AGAINST freewill here
>>15038409
This is why I first responding. Now you are accusing me of having made the wrong CHOICE in terms of interpretation of the available data. So which is it? Do I lack freewill or am I CHOOSING the wrong conclusion.

>>15038609
here
>>15038683
>If you are saying that and CHOOSING to do something, then we have no disagreement.
Should be
>If you are saying that I am CHOOSING to do something, then we have no disagreement.

>>15038669
What is it about?

>>15038666
Your coming was fivetold.

False reasoners are often best confuted by giving them the full swing of their own absurdities.
- Charles Caleb Colton

I feel like this is divulging into philosophy, my question was about neuroscience.

>>15038707
Maybe try actually arguing against something I said.

>>15038711
I...why?

Like, with premises and truth tables n' shit?

Bro I'm on your side bro
I'm shooting downrange in the same direction as you.
Put your goggles back, put your mouthpiece bank in, and tighten your grip.

And watch those shells, clean up around here a little.

>>15038710
Neuroscience can't answer the question. This is a question in the category of the philosophy of mind. It would normally be called the problem of freewill. You can use neuroscientific things like asserted neural correlates of consciousness to inform your opinion/inferences though.

>>15038720
I don't know what you are even trying to say. Is this post
>>15038409
yours?
If it is, you started out arguing AGAINST freewill.

>>15038723
>>15038710
learn about the science of addiction.
the opium/heroin/painkiller epidemic has been going on for nearly 300 years.

https://youtu.be/wp1U2VlJrsY

>>15038710
The interesting thing is that to argue against freewill in a debate is self refuting. If you don't believe you have freewill, then you wouldn't be able to weigh the evidence between possible answers to the question and make the correct choice of conclusion because you would have no ability to choose. You would have be predetermined to make the choice.

>>15038727
I know about the science of addiction. I have researched the reward system more than any other aspect of the brain. You can use your freewill to become addicted to things. I don't deny that. And during these addictions, freewill becomes constrained. Drug addicts still choose to quit drugs all of the time. And yes, these free will choices will show up in certain quantifiable morphometric changes and other measurable changes to the brain. So what is your point? do you want to make some kind of coherent argument against something specific I have said in a post?

>>15038409
>the brain is already doing the thing before the part that decides is triggered
That just tells us basic motor functions are activated before they become conscious. That tells us nothing about free will, which is the most immediately obvious epistemological impression that we have. It doesn't even tell us whether or not free will is compatible with a deterministic universe, which most philosophers believe it is. But beyond that, if we don't have free will then what's the point in trying to convince us we don't have it? I'm not going to be convinced by your arguments because I was predetermined not to be convinced, right? Of course you can say you were predetermined to try to convince me, but then this whole conversation is self-defeating. Everyone intuitively believes free will exists because you act it out, since you're implicitly assuming we can choose whether or not to change our minds by your arguments, otherwise why present them?

>>15038741
>It doesn't even tell us whether or not free will is compatible with a deterministic universe, which most philosophers believe it is.
Wait, how?

>>15038747
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

According to a popular survey, almost 60% of philosophers believe free will is compatible with determined, versus 12% who don't believe free will exists. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

>>15038738
when you quit addiction you increase awareness of the nature of addiction, and you actively work against your reward system.
if free will didnt exist people wouldnt quit their addictions.

>>15038753
Right. I have been arguing FOR freewill in this thread here
>>15038574
>>15038584
>>15038613
>>15038629
>>15038666
>>15038683
>>15038728
>>15038738
So if you are not arguing against freewill, then we have no argument

>>15038757
cool

>>15038747
I am not that anon, but I will chime in. The problem is that nobody is even sure what consciousnesses and exactly how it relates to physicality. By definition, subjective first person consciousness is not even objectively observable like physical things are. So to apply these constraints on consciousness in terms of what matter and energy may or may not be doing in terms of determinism or indeterminism can not be the whole story. Physicalism can not account for consciousness and so to try and doom free will or explain consciousness in terms of physical goings on is never going to be the full story. See pic rel. This is called the explanatory gap

>>15038747
this
>>15038766
>The problem is that nobody is even sure what consciousnesses and exactly how it relates to physicality
should be
>The problem is that nobody is even sure what consciousnesses IS and exactly how it relates to physicality

>>15038747
Pic related gives another example in terms of physicalist explanations for mind. The neural binding problem. So not only can they not figure out where or how what we see on the screen of consciousness is or is made manifest, the whole thing is mapped and there is nowhere that it even COULD be encoded. It's INCONSISTENT with neural activity.

>>15038766
in the early days of psychology the scientists had to train their subjects on how to perform their tests.

the fact that consciousness involves alot of nuance that can only be elaborated on later. then we go over in our heads the memiry and perhaps reason our justifications another way.

the idea exists, and our awareness of the idea exists way before we can explain it and put it into detail.
sitting someone down and having them explain their conscious processes in perfect algorithmic form is very hard.
people that do a specific task perfectly well leave out a bunch of steps that they take for granted as "intuitive". you gotta go to a few masters and manuals in order to get a good grasp on technique.

and even if you tried to hook people up to machines you still have to interpret the data.
like in fmri what does presence of blood flow mean ? and why are pictures of fmri scans just static instead of a movie that captures motion of the flow.

>>15038747
Also, people like Schrödinger came to the conclusion of the non-physicality of consciousness for other reasons, namely consciousnesses resistance to superposition. Von neuman also realized this and came up with his own QM interpretation with consciousness being fundamental.

>>15038306
OP, everything that happens, happened; because of something that happened directly before it. Whatever choice you choose is already chose.

>>15038792
Well the main problem is that it is subjective (consciousness is) unlike physical things, which are objectively observable. Actually, even the physical world is only approximately objective, as experimental verification of wigner's friend experiments have shown and Frauchiger & Renner thought experiments imply.

>>15038306
you have free will over your actions, doesn't mean that you are separate from the environment. of course, everything else happens by the will of God.

>>15038805
>OP, everything that happens, happened; because of something that happened directly before it
Right, including agent causation (freewill) as input factored into the next state.
>Whatever choice you choose is already chose
Wrong. You make the mistake of pre-supposing a materialistic event causal physicality and also pre-suppose the fact of a physicalist theory of mind being true.

>>15038814
>doesn't mean that you are separate from the environment. of course
Right, of course. There are variables which constrain or limit (narrow) the decision space of the freewill awareness unit (consciousness/observer), this is granted. Consciousness must interface with physicality and because of the high level of immersiveness of the reality, this interface includes constraints on the decision space. For instance, it has a physiology constraint, such as hunger. The hungry person can NOT avoid getting hunger if he fasts, but he CAN decide when he wants to break fast, assuming he has available food. If the observer gets bonked on the head, there is a ruleset that says that his experiential data stream and physiological data stream and function can be altered and constrained and now the the observers gameplay will be different. Maybe the observer now will be more forgetful. The observer also CAN however change the physiologic function, for instance, because of agent causation being an input to the calculation of state and of of possible future outcomes, ie the agent can bias the probability distribution of possible future outcomes and of physiology, as seen for instance in the placebo effect, where agents can out perform medication in terms of healing when they have taken a fake pill. In other words, they can heal physiologically through attitude and intent. Mind over matter. And neuroplasticity, where the observer/consciousness can make quantifiably verifiable changes to the brain through behavioural changes such as deciding to quit drugs and effecting the resultant dissipation of ΔFosB renforcement in neural pathways.

>>15038807
the biggest philosophcal problem i see with consciousness is that in the philosophy of language.
any reasoning for the existence if consciousness will be circular or begging the question becuase we consciousness creates language and language is used to label quantify and qualify all variables and correlates.
science requires consciousness ala the observer.

>>15038807
it seems like privacy is baked into our being.
there are somethings about everything that will be unknown to us.
private knowledge seems to exist by way of secrets that we keep.
what secrets can i uncover seems to be a moral question at that point.

>>15038306
>Is free will real?
no. next question?

>>15038752
i've seen this and I still don't get it. Here's the related wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
and another page with an argument against
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequence_argument
which is
>The argument [against compatibilism] claims that if agents have no control over the facts of the past then the agent has no control of the consequences of those facts

i still don't get how determinism is compatible with free will. Like the wiki page says, maybe they have a different definition of free will. When I think free will i think something that affects reality. Something that affects the position and speed of the particles around you, which has the knock on affect of affecting every particle they touch too.

And I thought (super)determinism meant that if you at the very start of the universe, then start things in motion, then at some point everything comes to an end a trillion years later or whatever. Then if you rewound everything right back to the beginning, then start things in motion again, the universe would end in the exact same state as it did the first time. Meaning that the path that every single particle and it's interaction with every other particle is predetermined.

But if the path of every particle in the universe is predetermined, and it can't be affected, then any thought you had would also have to be predetermined, because the path of every particle inside your brain is predetermined.

So if you can think and make decisions without affecting the path of any particle, then that means that dualism is true, i don't see how it could be any other way. Like if I try to remember something or solve a problem there is activity in my brain, neurons are talking to eachother and creating new connections. if you can think without adjusting the path of any particle in your brain, then your consciousness must be outside the universe

>>15038939
If you have no freewill, how did you come to this conclusion?

no

this is perhaps one of the greatest brainlet filters

>>15038306
>Is free will real?
This is not a science-related question and it doesn't even have any real intellectual substance. More of a litmus test of humanity. Anyone who feels compelled to convince himself or others that determinitard dogma is somehow relevant or real is a non-sentient bugman.

>>15039183
It didn't come to this conclusion. It was programmed with this conclusion. If it says it has no free will, you should take its word for it. Most modern "humans" are automatons.

>>15039135
>When I think free will i think something that affects reality
When you think of determinitard dogma, do you think of something that affects reality? Explain how to empirically verify your determinism fantasies, objectively, to the exclusion of non-determinism. Protip: you can't.

>>15039216
>It didn't come to this conclusion. It was programmed with this conclusion.
Looks like you are still appealing to freewill though. You could have been programmed to come to the wrong conclusion though. You would have no way of choosing between best possible explanations if you have no freewill.

>>15039208
How did you come to this conclusion if you don't have the freewill to choose between the best explanation? All of your conclusions are pre-determined, or?

>>15039264
Why are you arguing with me? You are dumb as fuck. As far as determinist golems are concerned, they were simply predestined to be le smarter than you and to be right.

>>15039272
You're first question doesn't really make sense. Why would a pattern recognition machine need free will to recognize patterns? Would a boulder need free will to roll down a hill? Basically yes, a "conclusion" is just a physical phenomenon like anything else, simply the result of its prior states.

>>15039291
He's not particularly bright, but the intuition behind his question makes sense to those of us who are sentient (i.e. not you). There's an obvious absurdity in your "intellectual" pride and your obsession with these faux "intellectual" debates when you believe that your opinions are pure happenstance, just like his, and neither one of you has the agency or capacity for genuine deliberation.

>>15039309
lol

>>15039291
>You're first question doesn't really make sense. Why would a pattern recognition machine need free will to recognize patterns?
This has nothing to do with what the issue is. For one, we are not talking about 'pattern recognizing machines, we are talking about conscious human agents with subjective internal experiences and whether or not they have the ability to chose be tween multiple competing hypothesises and whether they can KNOW that they have come to the correct conclusion. Pointing to some machine that does something accurately is just kicking the can down the road also because you would again have to have freewill to declare that the machine had the right answer or not. How do you know the pattern recognizer recognizes the pattern? You could have been pre-programmed to declare that the machine had the right answer when it didn't.
>He's not particularly bright
Point out something in my post that was 'not' particularly bright then. I debate this issue often and I am curious to see if you see an actual flaw in my reasoning.

>>15039344
>Point out something in my post that was 'not' particularly bright then
Every single thing you wrote in your last post, for instance. There is no logical contradiction in thinking you're correct while denying free will.

>>15038306
>Is free will real?
No. Because an actual consciousness doesn't exit in this universe ...yet.
One day it will and on that day free will will too.

>>15039349
>There is no logical contradiction in thinking you're correct while denying free will
There is a logical contradiction in declaring that you have CHOSEN the correct conclusion when you have no ability to choose freely between different options, obviously.

>>15039350
>No. Because an actual consciousness doesn't exit in this universe
You aren't conscious? You have no internal subjective experience? NPC?

>>15039370
>There is a logical contradiction in declaring that you have CHOSEN the correct conclusion
They don't claim they're choosing to be right. They simply think they're right because they happen to be made up from the right configuration of atoms.

>>15039373
>They don't claim they're choosing to be right
Yes, they do. see here, for instance
>>15039208
This person obviously thinks that he has made the right choice and those who didn't believe as he does have made the wrong choice.
>They simply think they're right because they happen to be made up from the right configuration of atoms
What does this even mean. Do you have any evidence of consciousness being made of atoms? what atoms is it made of? Do you have any evidence that a particular arrangement of atoms causes a person think they are right?

>>15039380
>This person obviously thinks that he has made the right choice
He didn't say anything about making any choices. Not reading the rest of your post.

>>15038306
No. You literally posted a picture of a man making a "Paper or Plastic" choice.

>>15039382
>No
How did you come to this conclusion without freewill?
>You literally posted a picture of a man making a "Paper or Plastic" choice
This would be freewill in action.

Too much inference exists in life to conside complete loss of control but half-loss seems ordinate. You seep in and out of a state of control. Half on and half off. Like awake and rest. Ideally we spend half a day sleeping. Did I write this? Yes. Was I fully in control? No. Am I to blame? Yes/No.

>>15039381
The issue is whether he believes he was right or not. My post was a response to you saying
>They don't claim they're choosing to be right here
>>15039373
>Not reading the rest of your post
Of course not. You have picked the wrong side of the argument so now you are wisely CHOOSING to bail on the debate. You shouldn't have even entered the debate in the first place if you refuse to acknowledge the points.

>>15039394
>The issue is whether he believes he was right or not.
He believes he's right. Why is that the issue and why are you moving the goalpost? You're so profoundly stupid I am starting to get the impression you're a false-flagging determinitard.

>>15039395
>He believes he's right
Yes, obviously
>Why is that the issue and why are you moving the goalpost?
I am not. Obviously if he believes he is right he believes he made the right CHOICE betwen yes freewill or no freewill. So yes, there is a logical contradiction as I stated here
>>15039370
>You're so profoundly stupid I am starting to get the impression you're a false-flagging determinitard.
Then point out something I said that was stupid. So far you are just giving an expose on your lack of grasp on the topic.

>>15039411
>>15039395
>>15039394
Tards pls.

>>15039413
>no argument

>>15039416
>consider honor killing yourself because your a dunce

>>15039418
>still no argument

>>15039413
You will never be human.

>>15039411
>if he believes he is right he believes he made the right CHOICE
He didn't say anything about making any choice. I thought you were simply a moron, but I think I see what's going on now. Genuinely just take your meds. You are unwell.

Consciousness is NOT
>the experiencing part of being
Consciousness is
>the online or offline part of being

Experiencing is the 'living' parts, which is primarily the heart and brain, but fully our organism.

Pushing is actually some other will action, as will is for living and not for action.

>>15039423
He, and you, here
>>15039373
>They simply think they're right because they happen to be made up from the right configuration of atoms
Are both appealing to inference to the best explanation. It's appealing to abductive reasoning. This means 'seeking the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations'. You are not doing this if you lack freewill. So yes, there is absolutely a logical contradiction in, as you put it here
>>15039349
>thinking you're correct while denying free will
So you are wrong. And you don't understand what you are even arguing about.

>>15039460
Meds ASAP.

>>15039423
Do you see what I am saying? If someone says, as you suggest here
>>15039373
'I am right because happen to be made up from the right configuration of atoms' this means that they must have made inference to the best explanation by seeking the simplest and most likely conclusion from the weighing of the possible explanations. This implies freewill to chose from multiple possibilities. So yes, contrary to what you INCORRECTLY said here
>>15039349
>There is no logical contradiction in thinking you're correct while denying free will.
In point of fact there IS a logical contradiction. You are WRONG. I won't say you are profoundly stupid, as you called me. I will only say you should research the topic more before jumping into a debate. There is a saying:
Know your song well before you start singing

>>15039480
>no argument
Yeah, I thought so. You lack understanding of the issue.

>>15039485
>>15039494
See >>15039480
No one said anything about "choosing" to be right. An automaton can be right about something, and correctly assess its conclusions as being correct, without agency.

>>15039500
>An automaton can be right
How is it known that the automaton is right? If no one has freewill, how is the conclusion came to that the answer is correct? Everyone could be pre-programmed to think the right answer is wrong or that the wrong answer is right. This is assuming automatons even have internal subjective thought, which is not even possible to ever prove.
>and correctly assess its conclusions as being correct
And they can also be programmed to come to the wrong conclusion. And at what point during any of this does the automaton think it has the right explanation, as you said here
>>15039349
>There is no logical contradiction in thinking you're correct while denying free will
Do you have any evidence that automata have subjective first person internal experience?

>>15039530
>How is it known that the automaton is right?
You check to see if the stuff it says corresponds to observable reality.

>And they can also be programmed to come to the wrong conclusion
Yeah. Anyway, you're a mouth-breathing mongoloid.

>Do you have any evidence that automata have subjective first person internal experience?
Nope and you're clearly undermedicated, because that's yet another thing that no one said or implied.

>>15038306
We either have free will, or a deterministic system which is so complex and nonlinear as to be functionally indistinguishable from free will.

>>15039535
>functionally indistinguishable from free will.
>functionally
It's empirically indistinguishable. Determinitard dogma is unscientific.

>>15039536
Will is not free is in-between freedom and imprisonment.

>>15039534
>You check to see if the stuff it says corresponds to observable reality
Who is 'you'? Another automaton? This is just a regress of automata that could be programmed to think the wrong thing is right
>Yeah. Anyway, you're a mouth-breathing mongoloid.
Yea, you have no argument. You are not as smart as you think you are and you haven't considered the subject enough to be trying to debate
>Nope
You could have just stopped there. You have no argument.
>because that's yet another thing that no one said or implied
You said
here
>>15039349
>There is no logical contradiction in thinking you're correct while denying free will
And then you tried to appeal to the idea of automata as evidence. Humans have internal subjective experience, at least I do. So the automata example FAILS. Just as every argument you have presented FAILS.

>>15039550
>Who is 'you'?
Totally irrelevant. Even if there were no one to verify it, the automaton's judgments either would or would not correspond to reality.

>>15039536
>It's empirically indistinguishable.
Whatever the right word is, my point is that at a certain level of complexity the differences between "free will" and "deterministic-but-nonlinear-to-a-nigh-unquantifiable-degree" becomes moot.

Determinism is not contradictory to free will, unless you are a brainlet.

>>15039578
Whether the difference is "moot" or not is down to subjective opinion. What's objective is the fact that determinitard dogma is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

>>15039552
>Totally irrelevant
no, it is not
>Even if there were no one to verify it, the automaton's judgments either would or would not correspond to reality
What do you mean judgement? Do you mean inference to the best explanation? And why are you appealing to to automata without internal subjective experience? Humans DO have internal subjective experience.

>>15039592
Whether or not the automaton is right doesn't depend on anyone acknowledging it. This is not up for discussion.

>why are you appealing to to automata without internal subjective experience?
To demonstrate your profound mental retardation, because it's obvious that something with no agency can still make a correct assessment about the world and a correct assessment about the veracity of its conclusion.

Free Will
Is a concept
But it's not this OP
Nor has humanity spake it...

(It's the concept of being trapped in a form and thus free will is the assocation with this and selfage/will).

>>15039600
>Whether or not the automaton is right doesn't depend on anyone acknowledging it
I din't say otherwise
>because it's obvious that something with no agency can still make a correct assessment about the world and a correct assessment about the veracity of its conclusion.
No, it is not. And we are talking about humans anyways, who have agency. You might argue (wrongly) that human agency is determined, but not that we don't have agency. A good idea would be for you to know the definition of the words that you use If you want to not be taken for an idiot.

>>15038306
It actually depends on what you mean by free will and real. You can easily and convincingly argue either way using reasonable definitions.

>>15038306
yes and no
unironically

>>15039624
>I din't say otherwise
Then you concede that an automaton can state something and be right about it, and also state that it's right and also be right about that. Case closed.

>>15039614
Silence, retard

>>15039630
Don't troll here retard it's a global rule.

>>15039614
I like your posts

>>15039637

Silence!

namefagging as "knight of aether" is the only way to show king aether respect

>>15039643
I'll consider it if you post more shotas

>>15039629
>Then you concede that an automaton can state something and be right about it
No. The case is not closed. Yes, automata with no internal subjective experience can be programmed by humans to output something that can be confirmed by a freewill awareness unit (humans) to be right. I can, because of my freewill abductively come to this conclusion. The question was about if it's logical for a human agent to infer from the available evidence, such as considerations about the determinacy or indeterminacy of matter, that the agent has no free will. To even do this the agent must have the freedom to abductively infer to the best explanation. If you even enter into the debate this implies that you have weighed the different possibility and chosen the right conclusion freely. You could assert that you just happen to be right, but in a world where everyone is programmed to come to the conclusion, this is a meaningless statement that can never be verified. Appealing to the idea that the agent is either right or wrong is a pointless statement in a debate.

>saw an /x/ thread that was full of harsh deterministic mindsets
>/sci/ thread today now about the same topic
>full of free will minded individuals
wtf

>>15039264
>You could have been programmed to come to the wrong conclusion though. You would have no way of choosing between best possible explanations if you have no freewill.
first of all, 'freewill' is not a word. its written in two words, free will.
second: that's barmy. first, a computer has no free will and yet will come to right conclusions, just ask it to multiply two numbers. second, no, nobody can be sure he came to the right conclusion, is this some revelation for you, what are you, 12? we make do with what we can.
third, nobody ever 'came to the conclusion' that we have free will. it's all emotional outbursts, "I just know I have it, okay?" and the like. no believer in free will can explain what would they expect lack of free will would feel like, for instance. arguments for free will usually boil down to 'you cannot predict what I am going to do', or to 'I can imagine myself doing something different from what I actually did' or some other non-argument.
in conclusion, shut the fuck up.

we don't choose our conclusions. they happen to us.

>>15038666
>you would not be able to even pick between the different possible answers to this question
Oof. So this is the introspection level of people who believe this shit? They actually believe they "pick" and the whole point went above their heads.

>>15038306
Define free will.

>>15039534
Niggas be like "muh free will" but can't stop their heart or lungs.

>>15038306
Yes. Now go outside and lift.

>>15038409
typical midwit total misinterpretation of what those experiments actually show