/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15151948
Yes.

>>15151948
No

>>15151948
No, free will is nonsense

>>15151969
How did you determine this?
>>15151948
Freewill is a metaphysical concept so the scientific method has nothing to say about the matter.

>>15151948
>I know some people cope with compatibilist free will,
Explain what you think they need to "cope" with without exposing the emotional trauma nature of your own belief system. :^)

>>15151948
>I know some people cope with compatibilist free will
No need to cope. Physicalism can't account for consciousness (as rightly stated in pic related) and so any asserted conflicts with asserted types of physical causation are irrelevant. Your line of argument generally pre-supposes a (false) physicalist metaphysical position of theory of mind and then it takes this unproven and unprovable metaphysical position as a fact and tries to further constrain freewill by two more unproven metaphysical presuppositions, namely that there are only two possibilities with regard to causality in the physical world, namely mechanistic and reductionist/microcausal materialist event causation, and indeterministic materialist event causation. All of these assertions are unfounded metaphysical assertions and they prove no constraint on free will.

>>15152026
Dumb bot.

>>15152027
>calls me a bot
>while arguing he has no freewill.
You are the one declaring that you are an NPC, retard. I don't thing you thought this through.

>>15152038
Show me where I argued anything, bot.

>>15152004
>>15152038
>fuck with neurochemistry
>it results in massive changes in personality and subsequently decisionmaking
>somehow this doesn't prove that the physical structure of the brain determines what an organism chooses

>>15152041
>fuck with neurochemistry
>it results in massive changes in personality
So? Notice how that's as far as your reasoning goes and everything afterwards is a logical nonsequitur that you try to sell as common sense, despite it being common sense only to drones who agree with you in the first place.

>>15152026
Why do you do the things that you do?

>>15152054
Because he chooses to. This made your blood pressure spike deterministically. :^)

>>15152057
Does he choose to do these things for a reason or does he choose to do these things randomly?

>>15151948
Penrose touches on the subject a bit. It's a bit of a stretch and not really formalized, but the idea is derived from his theory that "consciousness is not a computation" (I'm tired of hearing that line, although I'm inclined to agree with it) which proposes that consciousness is the result of quantum processes.
Extending this to free will (i.e. free will as a result of a conscious rational agent) the collapse of the wave function could be determined by an agent's "free will", such that your conscious decision affects the reduction of superposition to a single eigenstate, i.e. that not collapse of the wave function is not deterministic.
Penrose doesn't argue this explicitly (I'm not very well-read on his work so I can't say for sure) but this idea CAN be derived from the quantum consciousness theory.
>pic unrelated

>>15152071
>Does he choose to do these things for a reason
I don't know why he chooses to do what he does, but I choose to do things for reasons. What of it? Prediction: your preprogrammed dialogue tree will run into a loop in about 3 replies.

>>15152075
So you're choices are based on your reasoning?

>>15152096
Yeah. What of it? Did I make you run into the preprogrammed loop early?

>>15152096
>>15152098
You're both fucking faggots go suck each other off and shut the fuck up

>>15152057
>I do what I le want, like le jesus, even though he deterministically died on the cross (according to my belief)

>>15152098
Is your reasoning based on what you know?

>>15152104
Yep. Just get to your loop already. Everything you say is so predictable it's boring to watch you slowly make your way to the same dead end all of your clones reach.

>>15152106
Where does your knowledge come from?

>>15152108
It doesn't matter. You already failed at literally step 1 because there is no determinable causal relationship between what I know and what I do with that knowledge.

>>15152110
You already confirmed that your choices is caused by your reasoning. I rest my case.

>>15152096
1
>>15152104
2
>>15152108
3
>>15152114
Loop.

>>15152075
>Prediction: your preprogrammed dialogue tree will run into a loop in about 3 replies.

>>15152115
So anyway, why do you think you have free will when your choices are caused by your reasoning?

>>15152117
Demonstration over. It took three replies for your dialogue tree to loop, exactly as predicted. Auto-hiding your posts now. Prediction: you will reply again, even though no one will read your post.

>>15152121
I accept your concession.

>>15152115
fucking kek. they're so predictable it's nuts

>>15152106
Free will posits that an individual could've made a different choice. If your choices, however, are determined by your reasoning, and your reasoning is determined by the sum total of your knowledge, then you will always make the same choice given that you know the same things. He btfoed you. Hard.

>>15152041
>fuck with neurochemistry
ok
>it results in massive changes in personality and subsequently decisionmaking
These are called neural CORRELATES of consciousness. By the way, there is a reason why they are called neural CORRELATES of consciousness and not neural causators of consciousness
>somehow this doesn't prove that the physical structure of the brain determines what an organism chooses
Correct. There is a saying, 'correlation does not imply causation'. There IS, at times correlation between the goings on in the brain, including the morphometrically (and other-metrically) verifiable changes brought about by freewill decisions (neural plasticity) to both to engage in an ongoing addiction and to cessate the addiction. Example: The transcription factor DeltaFosB can be seen to accumulate in particular neural pathways in particular regions (nucleus accumbens and dorsal striatum) when a freewill awareness unit (consciousness) DECIDES to engage in an on going drug addiction. At the decision to cessate the addiction, there is a quantifiable dissipation of this protein. So the FREE WILL DECISION of the consciousness can be seen to alter the structure and function of the brain. So what's causing what? All of this is consistent with a worldview which states that the correlation of the brain and mind is a feature of immersion in a consciousness based virtual reality by the way, where freewill is an input device and consciousness is fundamental and the physical world is virtual, see pic. Brains are virtual (informational) objects which are only ever observed as mental objects in mind. The correlation between the (virtual) brain and (fundamental) mind are CORRELATIVE and only simulated correlation, except the changes brought by consciousnesses to (virtual( brains. Those are causative. Source for DeltaFosB claims

ΔFosB: A sustained molecular switch for addiction
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.191352698

>>15152140
>If your choices, however, are determined by your reasoning
The word "determined" doesn't mean anything in this context.

> your reasoning is determined by the sum total of your knowledge
It isn't.

>you will always make the same choice
Schizophrenic metaphysical fantasy, not a falsifiable hypothesis.

>>15152149
Embarrassing. You know we can still see your posts, right? Why are you backtracking?

>>15152041
By the way, the neural CAUSATIVE theory with regard to theory of consciousness has been falsified. See pic, particularlly this part
>These facts will be important when we consider the version of the Visual Feature-Binding NBP in next section. There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al. 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information.
The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
So not only has this circuitry not been found, IT NEVER WILL BE FOUND. There are not the means existent to even encode such a scene. And this is just one nail in the coffin to your world view.

>>15152153
1. Not an argument.
2. You left your "we" back on reddit. There is no "we" on 4chan.

>>15151948
god damn I want to get choked out by Saiki Reika

>>15152157
No need to argue. We've already won. We're just laughing at you now.

>>15152157
We are anonymous. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

>>15152163
Not an argument. "Based on" is a much weaker statement than "determined by". Ask your imaginary friends to wipe your tears for you.

What you say:
>there is no free will
What real people hear:
>I am less than human

>We just happen to be a group of people on the Internet who need—just kind of an outlet to do as we wish, that we wouldn't be able to do in regular society. ...That's more or less the point of it. Do as you wish. ... There's a common phrase: 'we are doing it for the lulz.'
—2008

>>15152166
You could've stopped posting and people would forget about you. Instead, you continue to bring your seethe to the forefront of the discussion. What compels you to make an embarrassment out of yourself?

>>15152182
See >>15152166
Also way to go exposing your vulnerable, socially-dependent psychology and your delusion of having some identity on an anonymous board.

>we think you're dumm!
>we're all laughing at you right now!
>r-right guys
>we're all thinking bad things about you!
>aren't you embarrassed??
>we will never forget how much you made us seethe!
holy cringe. good job riling him up

>>15152183
So anyways, why does reddit live rent-free in your mind?

>>15152187
We are legion.

>>15152187
>IP count doesn't go up

>>15152187
I can't really take the credit. These "people" are perpetually asshurt.

>>15152054
My actions are a function of me being a freewill awareness unit (human consciousness) and the interface with physicality, ie constraints to my physiology and and constraints imposed by factors in the the non-me physical world are also variables.
Example:
Question:
Do I have the ability to avoid getting hungry after prolonged fast?
Answer: NO, I do not. As a feature of immersion in a consciousness based VR, where physicality, particularly in this case physiology, are a constraint on freewill, I do not have the freewill to decide if I get hungry or not after prolonged fast. I DO however, provided there is an option of multiple foods available, have the choice of WHAT to eat, or if I want to eat at all or continue the fast. And so, to get to the point I think you are driving at, of course, there is not absolute freewill in that I can't choose to flap my arms and fly. There is a ruleset in this VR (so called laws of physics ect). I do have freewill, though, in that my decisions are not just a function of some bottoms up (reductionist) deterministic material event causal chain stretching back to the foundation of the universe. Reality is a top down, intelligent, statistical and probabilistic VR where freewill is an imput and, in order to minimize computational complexity, values of spacetime objects are only even defined on an as needed basis, and only to the specs of the consciousnesses/players immersed in the reality or to the specs of there measuring devices, ie telescopes, microscopes, geiger counters etc. This includes brains. Brains can't cause consciousness because they are in spacetime and spacetime is not fundamental as has been show in the fact that no local theory of hidden variables can ever reproduce the predictions of QM. Causation is non-local. Brains are in spacetime. Brains therefore are locally defined and are no causative of anything.

>>15152206
Why are you talking to yourself?

@15152208
Paranoid schizophrenia.

@15152208
>paranoid schizophrenia
Are his buddies going to show up any time soon to updoot him?

>>15152208
He's coping because he lost 30 posts ago. Just let the pseud be.

>>15152213

>>15152208
>>15152216
>>15152218
>the absolute desperation

define "free will"
why do people even care about this retarded concept

>>15152073
>
Yes. Penrose has the has the Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) theory. This is still a physicalist theory of mind though, and is false, but at least he has enough depth of thought to figure out that the usual explanation of the causation of mind coming from within spacetime can't be right. He must also be credited for rightly championing the impossibility and incoherence of the computational theories if mind. He studied well Gödel's incompleteness theorems and was tipped off early on about non-computational mind by reading Minds, Machines and Gödel by J.R. Lucas. He also realizes the implications of QM and with regard to brain and minds, such as stated in the pic related.

>>15152222
>Beep boop, I'm a robot.

>>15152222
>define "free will"
The structured chaos of self-reflecting minds.

>>15152073
whoops, forgot pic related here
>>15152224
see pic

>>15152225
Holy kek. he's doing it again!

>>15152225
Seethe incoming in 3...2...1

>>15152225
>>15152229
>>15152231
Anon...just take the L....

>>15152227
this. all golems can do about it is seethe and screech that this definition is bad b-b-because it just is

Please keep your retardation in the containment thread >>15138508

>>15152224
>>15152228
Precisely, it's a step in the right direction at least, and it's also the best example I could think of to answer OPs question.
I think in regards to the question of free will that it has to also include theory of mind in order to not deteriorate into circular reasoning and baseless assumptions.
So maybe an extension of my reply to OP would be to look at other scientists that reject computational theories of mind.

>>15151948
>>15152317

Going about it the wrong way
Not understanding field theory etc
Conditioning etc

>>15151948
M O M M Y
O
M
M
Y

>>15151948
I want her to crush me with those thighs while she mashes my nuts