/sci/ - Science & Math

Possible mechanisms for how free will could scientifically exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

But are you fully up-to-date with your vaccinations?

free will doesn't exist and at the same time you cannot fully predict human behavior with 100% accuracy because it's a complex system constantly interacting with the environment and very small interactions may have large scale consequences.
the closest logical thing to free will is schizophrenia I think.
you also cannot gain or lose free will. the only way you'd lose it, if you had it, was if someone incapacitated your brain. makes you a vegetable or something, affects your decision making hardware.

>>15764534
>free will doesn't exist and at the same time you cannot fully predict human behavior with 100% accuracy
Biggest pile of cope, walk the walk if you materialists are going to talk the talk.
Either you have no free will and all your behaviors are predicated on physical laws, which means they can all be theorically modelled and it's just a matter of technology.
Or all this "free will is just an illusion" nonsense is you autists talking out of ass yet again.

>>15764526
Computers have free will and consciousness then. Just plug a thingy into the USB and you're gold. I'm sure there's even better usb-souls out there than this one too.

>>15764534
>>15764547
these are bot posts btw

>>15764549
So are you meatbag.

Free will was proved by Roger Sperry through donward causation
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/sperry/

>>15764548
Computers won't be conscious until people solve the binding problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z-XYc93mzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9tnzucnPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/

>>15763722
There was no debate. Podiums are gay.
We duel
And believe in the heart of the cards

And not credit cards
Or even poker cards

>>15764585
Humans aren't conscious until we solve the binding problem.

>>15764605
Your theories aren't proven until you build a predictive model.

>>15764547
>Either you have no free will and all your behaviors are predicated on physical laws, which means they can all be theorically modelled and it's just a matter of technology.
I shit and fart on your dichotomy and I refuse it.

>>15764605
that's been solved by nature anon.

>>15764656
How do you know it was solved?
Do you know what a solution would be like?
How about you check nature's math to see that it didn't just aproximate or something?

>>15764680
>How do you know it was solved?
because we're human, made by nature, and we're conscious. seems to tick all the boxes.

>>15764705
So you have a complete model of how consciousness works? That would be big news! And perhaps worth fame and awards!

>>15764721
>And perhaps worth fame and awards!
such a thing would get you suicided faster than light lol.

>>15764647
>Either your theory is right and you prove it experimentally
>Or it's bullshit
That dichotomy is called the scientific method you clown.

>>15764741
accepting your bullshit dichotomy implies I accept the concept of free will, which is a religious-political term, invented so it can be speculated. it is not something real, hence your dichotomy is false.

>>15764750
>cares about politics
Scientism have rotted your brain.
If I can somehow instantaneously teleport myself with my mind in lab conditions, then magic is real and now part of science.
If you can't experimentally prove your "scientific theory" experimentally then it's just scientism bullshit and not actully part of science.
Simple as.

>>15764765
>If I can somehow instantaneously teleport myself with my mind in lab conditions
not far off in the grand scheme of things.

>"we already understand consciousness!"
>"it's easily explained!"
>"there is no free will!"
>"your fate is pre-determined since Big Bang!"
>alright, build a model to predict my behavior then
>"err we actually don't know much about consciousness.."
>"err we probably can never make any predications.."
>"but my theory is right! trust me bro!"
Holy shit the amount of cope and shaking at even the idea of a model.
It's fucking over lol.

Scott Aaronson talks about something similar.

Bump

>>15763722
I made this one called gnome

If you are about to do something stupid just posts a gnome

Ask james rolfe what it did with his free will

>>15763722
no.

it will never be possible to test for free will. because that requires testing for whether you COULD HAVE ever done differently, and no experiment will EVER be able to test that.

predictability has nothing to do with it, by the way. so sick of people making this mistake.

materialism vs idealism is completely unrelated to the free will question as well.

>>15768241
Ok you position three individuals of any kind, show them the same alternatives, abuse power or don't

Do you think the three individuals will do the same?

Will you blame anything but their free will?

>>15768241
>it will never be possible to test for free will
>because that requires testing for whether you COULD HAVE ever done differently
No you don't.
All you have to do is construct a model to be able to generate picrel.
Successful pre-crime minority reports would conslusively prove there is no free-will and an individual's actions are completely predicated based on measurable physical factors.
(But obviously don't cheat like in the movie by snatching a psychic off /x/ and jacking that into your machine; need to be cold hard tech through and through)

>>15768241
>it will never be possible to test for free will
>because that requires testing for whether you COULD HAVE ever done differently
No you don't.
All you have to do is construct a model to be able to generate picrel.
Successful pre-crime minority reports would conslusively prove there is no free-will and an individual's actions are completely predicated based on measurable physical factors.
(But obviously don't cheat like in the movie by snatching a psychic off /x/ and jacking that into your machine; need to be cold hard tech through and through)

>>15763722
Free will is an illusion. The brain is an organ that calls all the shots. "You" are the awareness of the processes of the brain. But you aren't the brain. You aren't a homunculus sitting inside your brain case controlling actions and directing thoughts. You do not have free will.

>>15768974
>Free will is an illusion
The meaningless mantra of cattle.

>>15763722
>The obvious irony here is of course if such an AI is possible then you never had "free-will" to begin with.
It's not hard to predict dehumanized cattle conditioned into reactivity/passivity and stuck in a carefully controlled sandbox. Even if this AI fantasy comes true it won't prove anything except for the fact that technocattle isn't human.

>>15768974
>Free will is an illusion
Prove it.
>>15768985
>Even if this AI fantasy comes true it won't prove anything except for the fact that technocattle isn't human
Except if it works on you then it proves you are a technocattle without free will after all.

>>15769072
>if it works on you then it proves you are a technocattle
Sure, but that's all it would prove. It would not resolve the broader question of whether "free will" is possible.

>>15769072
>Prove it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

>>15769089
>prove "it"
>proves he's a bot

>>15769075
You have an to have an example of "free will" to argue the case.
If hypothetically every human being on this planet do not fall outside the predictive capacity of this AI, then how do you argue there is such a thing as "free will"?
>>15769089
Yes that's a brain.
Yes you might not have one if you think that picture somehow proves your case.

>>15769099
>You have an to have an example of "free will" to argue the case.
The only case I'm arguing is that your "proof" is flawed, and my objection is valid independently from my ability to produce an example. When you have a system in place designed to nerf sentience and produce a predictable populace, testing it for predictability proves nothing.

>>15764534
>free will doesn't exist and at the same time you cannot fully predict human behavior with 100% accuracy
This is a misconception of what free will is. If you "predict" my free choice to e.g. beat you in chess you're not controlling me or making that decision any less "free".

>>15769111
>nerfs sentience
>predictability proves nothing
How does it nerf anything if it's purely a reading apparatus?
And on the contrary, predictability proves everything. If a machine is able to predict based on physical laws what you are going to do before you even know yourself what you are going to do, then you obviously have no free will and all your behaviours are merely products of your physical constituents.

>>15769142
I'm not talking about your hypothetical AI. I'm talking about the entire system surrounding it, which already exists and produces automatons.

>And on the contrary, predictability proves everything. If a machine is able to predict based on physical laws what you are going to do before you even know yourself what you are going to do, then you obviously have no free will
If you say so. This doesn't logically follow. I'm just letting you have it out of charity (and because you won't get far enough that it could become relevant).

>>15769148
So if I predict that you will sleep eat piss or defecate you won't have free will because I can make basic assumptions about your biology?

>>15769148
>entire system surrounding it, which already exists and produces automatons
How? How does a purely physical system nerf something that you claim is immaterial?
>This doesn't logically follow
Of course it does; when ALL your actions are proven to be a complete extrapolation of physical laws, then there is nothing free about your will.
Now I'm not saying such a thing is possible or not possible. What I am saying is that if it is done, then that conclusively proves the materialist case. If free will exist, then this cannot be done.

>>15769158
No but if you predict exactly when I am going to do it to second days ahead, along with every single other actions I am going to do.

>>15769097
>>15769099
>Yes that's a brain.
Looks like I really have to hold your hand on this one. Yes, now what does the brain do?

>>15769160
You have to prove that all such actions of all free will agents are predictable. You have limited your scope to some AI, which already doesn't exist. You have to reformulate your statement thusly. His particular rebuttal is of the case where you have selected a group that is trained to be predictable and thus your AI failed the test. Given the complexity of the problem, how do you know you haven't randomly selected a plebbit space?

>>15769160
>How? How does a purely physical system nerf something that you claim is immaterial?
I never made any claims about anything being "material" or "immaterial". Don't expect me to dignify your metaphysics like that. Regardless, you can obviously condition people to behave predictably. Exercising "free will" requires reflection.

>Of course it does
Nope.

>>15769164
>what does the brain do?
No one really knows.

>>15769158
Your reply is so utterly disconnected from anything I actually wrote that it sounds like you're having a psychotic episode.

https://www.tiktok.com/@shaninblake999/video/7280724949138984222

/thread

>>15769166
>>15769168
You obviously would do it in a lab room.
Stick a subject in there, have the AI model take a snapshot of the room with subject, and start generating predictions.
If the subject does exactly what the model predicts he's going to do for the next 24 hours (movements, thoughts..etc.), then there you have it.

>>15769174
Another botlike reply that doesn't connect to anything I actually wrote. Automatonism in action.

>>15769176
>that doesn't connect to anything I actually wrote
Really, which part have I missed.

>>15769174
That isn't sufficient. How do you know you didn't select a plebbitor? And if you somehow inspected every freewill entity in a region, how do you know it is not located in a plebbit space?
Rather, change the AI: it can predict all actions of everything ever. We shall refer to this omniscient AI as God. If God determined you don't have freewill, by whatever means, then you don't have free will. Equally irrefutable, if God determined you do have free will, by whatever means, then you do. The conversation is without any observable merit.
Is the omniscient AI in the room with us now?

>>15769179
I've already pointed out multiple times that your experiment's conclusions are only valid for that individual subject, and probably not even that, since a regular person's regular day is 99.9% routine.

>>15769169
The human brain controls every single aspect of said human. Ergo, free will is incompatible with a physical human brain. As the brain, not an untethered extradimensional intelligence, is in control. Your brain is controlling what you're thinking right now. It is regulating your blood pressure and hormonal levels which dictate how you think. Free will is a lie. You're holding on to some idealistic cope to protect your ego. If you truly had free will you would free will yourself out of your physical body. But you can't do that can you buster.

>>15769181
>How do you know you didn't select a plebbitor
You do more subjects.
Either you find out the NPC memes are true and only some people can be predicted while the rest have free will. Or you find out everybody can be predicted and there is no free will.
A hypothetical God would have infinite processing power and be able to make this in any condition for however long. This resonable model can only do it in a controlled lab on a single subject for a limited duration.

>>15769193
>The human brain controls every single aspect of said human.
Let's suppose.

>Ergo, free will is incompatible with a physical human brain.
Doesn't follow.

>>15769183
Then you obviously haven't connected to anything I actually wrote.

>>15769202
Frankly, everything you've been writing is so retarded it's not even worth discussing. Even if humans are in fact automatons, it's obvious that no AI would ever be able to predict every detail of a subject's behavior for any non-negligible timespan.

>>15769209
If humans are really automatons, then they can be modelled and predicted, just a matter of technology.
If this cannot be done, then materialists cannot conclusively claim there is no free will.
If however this is done, and hypothetically tested on the entire population, then it's conclusive proof that at least human beings have no free will.
There is nothing retarded about this simple logic.

>>15769229
>If humans are really automatons, then they can be modelled and predicted, just a matter of technology.
Obviously wrong. They would still be incomprehensibly complex chaotic systems.

>>15768974
If there is no homunculus sitting inside the mind or whatever, then you are the brain.

If you don't believe in free will or qualia, you are a certified AI niggerkike

>>15768974
Ah yes, one of the most retarded arguments that I regularly see from automata here on the worldwide web. I have free will. You do not. You are pre-determined to take a probabilistic approach that best suits your needs for survival. I, on the other hand, can do whatever I want; I can be as rational or irrational as I please.

>>15769240
Racism outside of /b/ is against the rules.

>>15769244
Racism is mandatory on every board, reddit.

>>15769238
>incomprehensibly complex chaotic systems
A lot of fancy words there to spell "cope".
Either a system is deterministic based on known laws and thus theoretically predictable.
Or you actually don't know what the fuck is going on and isn't in a place to make any claims.

>>15769248
Ok, I see now that you're actually a 80 IQ cretin.

>>15769249
Just calling it out like it is.
But seeth more.

>>15769246
No, sorry, it's actually outlined in the rules. Try reading them: https://4chan.org/rules.. Maybe you wouldn't get banned so often. I haven't been banned from 4chan in the 15 years I've been posting. Not once. Just follow the rules.

>>15769255
>I haven't been banned from 4chan in the 15 years
Probably because you've been here for about a week. Nigger.

>>15769259
See you in three days! :)

>>15769261
Reddit is truly delusional.