/sci/ - Science & Math

not science.

>>15299279

>>15299279
Free will is not a spectrum. Free will is a different mode of causation. And it's binary like gender. Either you have it or you don't. Most humans are NPC and have no free will. Only a minority of chosen people can decide freely.

>>15299279
>"You"
Notice how OP put this in quotation marks. YOU are not YOU, you are just a combination of a multitude of different processes that are all completely out of your control.

>>15299281
this

>>15299287
cancer

tranny thread

>>15299279
free will doesn't exist.

>>15302568
yep

>>15302589
For you

>>15304406
for me and for everyone else. :)

>>15304688
>>15302589
if you didn't choose to say that, then why should I take your claims seriously?

the irony of materialism-determinism is that it necessarily concludes that human choices control the physical laws of the universe.
For ex, if the planck's constant was 10e-20 smaller, then that would be causally consistent with a deterministic universe where I chose a coke. If it was 10e20 larger then that would be consistent with me ghoosing a pepsi. I chose a coke, therefore the planck's constant is forced to be 10e-20 smaller to remain causally consistent in determinism.

>>15301576
if your comment was made out of your control, then why should it be taken seriously?

>>15304848
truth is not dependent on choice. if anything, choice is the enemy of truth.

>>15304864
where is the irony? i'm not seeing it.

>>15304864
>>15304913
i realised what you're trying to say, but you're getting the causal ordering mixed up. the constants come first, and then your behave based on their values. you don't force them to change, they force you to.

>>15304922
you are the one getting the causal order mixed up
the decisions comes first, then the physical constants

>>15304909
if you didn't choose to say that, why should what you say be taken seriously?

>>15299279
>"You" have control over your actions and body.
That is called freedom, not free will.

>>15299279
How can an uncaused being exist? Don't tell me you're God or the universe. You put on a winter coat because it's cold outside. You run to the toilet because diarrhea and potty training. Even if you imagine a probability that you don't, that probability is so low that it practically doesn't exist. Even the overwhelming suffering, drug use and so on necessary to override your will to survive and end yourself debunks your assertion.

You can do what you want but not want what you want.

Super-determinism is correct, but since there are so many chaotic moving parts involved it might as well be free will.

>>15305807
no, we should be very clear that it rules out free will.

>>15305828
Why would we speculate? It's not even real.

>>15299279
>Free will exists.
It isn't free though. TANSTAAFL

>>15305794
>You can do what you want but not want what you want.

uhm, really?

>>15305828
Sure but it doesn't matter in the end. If I give you a set of numbers (a, b, and c) that you will use as information to act upon, does it matter if I gave you those numbers at "random" or if they were determined by me in advance?

The whole process of a human brain doing something as a response to chaotic atomic movements is so incredibly complex it might as well be "random" or "free will".

>>15305873
i strongly oppose a suggestion of freedom. we are totally locked in, to a single trajectory, by determinism.

>>15299279
>"You" have control over your actions and body.
Yes, but deterministically. Any freedom you think you have to make choices is an illusion. Don't worry. There's no way to act any other way, so just get used to the idea and carry on.

>>15299279
There is no 'free' will. There is only Will. It is not free. You must earn it.

>>15305897
Do you fear that you may be in control of your trajectory in life, and that responsibility for your outcome is yours alone?

>>15305926
i don't fear it, i know it is impossible. i wish it could be possible, for then i would determine myself to be a powerful king, or someone similarly privileged.

>>15304848
It looks and feels like you're making free and conscious choices, but you aren't really. But there's no way to act or think as if your choices are determined, so you may as well just go with it and live as though you really are freely choosing.

>>15305936
>there's no way to act or think as if your choices are determined
I'm not sure what you mean by that. you don't act differently either way. it's just a cognitive acknowledgement. of course, some are determined to reject it

>>15305864
Really. You don't choose your fears and desires. You choose how you act upon your fears and desires, at least you think you do.

>>15305942
I meant to say that there's no way to act or think as if your choices are not determined. I mean there's no way to step outside the experience and see what it would look like if you had true free will.

>>15305956
agree. in other, perhaps more pretentious words, these counterfactual versions of ourselves are just totally inaccessible.

>>15305931
not him, but you seem to be confusing free will with bending the world around a spoon matrix shit. how would you act on the environment to become a powerful king and what's stopping you?

>>15305959
i agree this discussion is a little off the mark, since whether or not i will become a king is different from the question of free will, aka could we have done otherwise for any given decision.

since science mandates deference to observations, and we only ever observe what we do, it is reasonable to conclude that what we imagine we could have done differently is only a fantasy. a vage sense that we could have done differently doesn't constitute evidence.

>>15305966
true, but in that sense i'd say that what you did and didn't do are equally fantastic as neither can be observed once it's been done.

>>15305966
Dfferent Anon here, not convinced of the agency side of the spectrum either, but I just thought of an approach that may sway you a little bit: given that an organism is a system that can differentiate itself to a degree from its environment and maintain integrity, like a particular temperature, doesn't it follow that an organism must have at least some agency? This same principle occurs between systems within the body does it not?

>>15305998
In addition: if you assume we are identical to neurochemistry than I don't see any question, problem or conflict at all. If, however, you assume we are a product, not the process of the brain, you just created a ghost like a religious person.

>>15305998
> can differentiate itself to a degree from its environment and maintain integrity
not him, but how would you describe the connection you're making? for example, if we put a leaf on the surface of a lake, part of its surface will maintain dryness. but if we put a rock on the surface of a lake, its surface will be absorbed by wetness. does it mean a leaf has more free will than a rock?

>>15305998
it would depend precisely how 'agency' is defined. however, if determinism holds (as i believe it must), then interesingly and perhaps rather ominously, we are in fact never independent of our environment.

>>15305988
i maintain that they aren't equally fantastical. once observed, a decision is no longer fantasy (for that particular moment in time), and it need not remain observable for all time.

>>15306043
> once observed, a decision is no longer fantasy
i think i'd disagree with this (in the context of free will) unless i'm misunderstanding. even if we record the decision so that it is observable later, the recording doesn't speak to the free will of the decision but to the free will of the recording. and certainly no one argues that a recording has free will.

>>15305794
>How can an uncaused being exist?
By having no beginning, derp

>>15306056
yes, there is no free will involved. but it's still a fact that it happened. if we deny this then we deny a reality to the past altogether, which seems absurd.

>>15306030
It's counterintuitive for me to use non-living things as a metaphor for a debate that applies only to living things, but I'll play along.

An NBA player has more agency than me if the game is basketball, because his nature is more adapted to thrive in that environment than me. Now he jumped over me to dunk instead of shoot. Was that his decision or the result of a biochemical process? Both, because he is the algorithm. He's not a little man pushing buttons inside a room with camera's.

>>15306070
this is true, but we mortal beings clearly had a beginning, so we don't fall in that category.

>>15306070
Then /x/ is for you. Sayonara Brahman-san!

>>15306072
certainly, but we're exploring whether free will can or can't be defined in terms of observing free will. i submit that we both agree it can't. so to return from the exploration, how should we act on the environment to ensure that [x] happens, and what's stopping us?

>>15306087
not him, but i think that we must accept past-eternalism. this isn't especially woo-ey, it just means there is some structure that is timeless. we have to accept it, if we assume that nothing comes from nothing, and there clearly is something, therefore that something must always have been, in some form.

>>15306095
>whether free will can or can't be defined in terms of observing free wil
i'm unsure what this means.

>how should we act on the environment to ensure that [x] happens, and what's stopping us?
depending on what x is, we may or may not have an agreed upon strategy to actualise it. but we know in most or perhaps even all cases, we cannot truly ensure that x will happen, hence the rampancy of 'failure' in the world.

>>15299279
Free will is an abstract concept, just like consciousness. At the end of the day, everything is just quantum fields or strings or something.

Humans don't have free will. What you do is decided by the chemicals running through your body. You can use drugs or eat things that will alter your biochemistry and make you act a different way.

>>15306115
neither are abstract.

free will = the ability to have done otherwise

consciousness = a system having its own inner experience

there's only confusion when people disagree on definitions. which they are free to do, but even if they do then there is no real problem, since we can just check all the different definitions one at a time in order to satisfy everyone.

>>15299279
Listen to me friend, Free Will and Determinism live on two sides of the same coin. The locus of our consciousness can perceive one or the other, and usually perceive it flipping between each state. You can manually do this yourself, flipping your ego as subject and object as you focus on it and your own agency. My intution tells me that I do not have a choice on which side of the coin I see at a given time, or as Nietzsche says we will but cannot will what we will. I attribute the state of our ability to perceive our actions as freely chosen or predetermined as ordained by some kind of God, or whatever entity determined the laws of the universe. A god is not required however, we can just as easily say that the choice in perception was determined arbitrarily. Regardless, it appears that Free Will sits unstably on an ocean of determinism, with elements of chaotic systems (be them human, AI, physical, or environmental) participating in the illusion of willed action. I have to stress that either perspective is valid (viewing causal/affective hierarchical relationships from a top-down or bottom-up perspective) because both give a satisfactory explanation of occurred events, however as only Free Will requires Ego to explain its events, it can be assumed that it was Ego that invented Free Will to imply itself.

I agree with the other anon tho, this is >>15299281

>>15306130
>as Nietzsche says we will but cannot will what we will
wasn't that schopenhauer?

>>15306109
>>free will can or can't be defined in terms of observing free will
> i'm unsure what this means.
it refers to the definition in >>15305966
> depending on what x is, we may or may not have an agreed upon strategy to actualise it.
true
> but we know in most or perhaps even all cases, we cannot truly ensure that x will happen,
also true, but this is spoon bending matrix shit, not free will.

>>15306101
I propose a compromise before getting lost off topic: at least since the beginning of the universe there is a seemingly continuous transforming development leading to conception. So ''I'' didn't start at an arbitrary point. I guess we can agree on that.

However, that pattern that we are is changing not independently but in relationship to everything else. So that weakens the assertion of ''uncaused''. To further move away from /x/ bot thinking I offer a more surprising viewpoint: why is the president the president? Because every moment billions of people are recreating that mental model and behave accordingly. That's the illusion of continuity. Light can be switched on and off, coming from and going to nowhere even so rapidly, that it appears to be continuely on.

>>15306077
> but I'll play along
the first part of your sentence spoke for itself. the appendix doesn't make sense. stop writing for an imaginary audience. just say what you want to say

>>15306179
Thanks for the feedback. This environment is like a training ground for debate, after all.

>>15306212
but say what you want to say. I'd like to get it

We live in a super deterministic universe. Deal with it.

>>15306228
based and true. just enjoyed t'hooft's recent talk about his superdeterministic model, which can be viewed on youtube. eagerly anticipating sabine's next paper on her approach to it.

>>15306228
But, we don't know where we are in it

>>15305936
if you didn't choose to say that, then why should I take your claims seriously?

I find certain female phenotypes more attractive than others, but it’s not my choice, is it? So lay off me, will you!

https://youtu.be/7YU_2WRC07Q

>>15306395
Yeah like nigger girls

>>15306395
Jewish people have been fucking that up for a long time now.

https://youtu.be/zK8IR2K-m1Q?t=23

>>15305794
I just ran to the bathroom to diarrhea, it was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega

>>15308166
hey bodhi could yuou give me a link to your discord server please?

>>15306395
are you a pedo?

>>15308214
cN7JwTJ

>>15308253
invite invalid :(

>>15308221
No. Watch the movie.

https://youtu.be/vXf3gVYXlHg

>>15299279
Mechanisms for how free will could exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE