/sci/ - Science & Math

>be scientist
>say something completely fucking retarded
>get a hundred clickbait news articles written about me
>become famous
>write book
>profit

>>15817987
I think it is rather time to stop classifying science journalism as journalism. Sapolsky has introductory lectures on youtube if you think this took him so long (even though the introductory lecture of him about evolutionary psychology was not enourmously detailed nonetheless).

>>15817987
>>15817989
>>15818033
refer to this thread >>15813877

>normal person
>"Of course my decisions are based on various things like logic and my experiences, why wouldn't they be?"
>insane person
>"IF YOUR DECISIONS ARE BASED ON ANYTHING, YOU AREN'T MAKING DECISIONS AT ALL!"

>>15818058
You're not making conscious decisions. It seems and feels like you are, but you aren't.

What religion is this called? determinism? predestination?

>"Atheist" from Calvinist country believes in predetermination
Woah, imagine my shock

>>15818083
gaslighting is a favorite thing scientists running psychological tests on you like to do

yes
APA is an improperly organized and undeclared political pressure group
They take money intended for science and use it for political pressure
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/09/detain-child-migrants
"""WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of American Psychological Association President Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, in response to the Trump administration’s proposal to detain migrant children beyond the 20 days allowed by current law:
“We are dismayed that the administration continues to place the mental and physical health of migrant children and their families in jeopardy. Holding children — even with their parents — in these federal facilities for longer than the 20 days allowed by current law is unacceptable. Research has shown that immigrant detainees are particularly vulnerable to psychological stress. Furthermore, the longer the detention period, the greater the risk of depression and other mental health symptoms for immigrants who were previously exposed to interpersonal trauma.
“The United States has historically served as a safe haven for the world’s refugees and a destination for those interested in the opportunities that our nation offers. We must strive to develop ways to secure our borders from those very few who should not be admitted while continuing to welcome those who come seeking asylum.”
Daniel was responding to a notice of proposed rulemaking (PDF, 982KB) published in the Federal Register seeking to amend regulations related to the apprehension, processing, care, custody and release of migrant children. Under a 1997 decision called the Flores Settlement Agreement, the U.S. government may detain minors in immigration centers no longer than 20 days. Recent attempts by the administration to extend that amount of time have been rejected by a federal court."""

>>15818058
Libertarian free will really is a retarded concept. That definition of free will is probably very different from what most people see as free will and had led to many confused debates.

PSYCHOLOGIST: YOU DON'T HAVE FREE WILL
ANON: WHAT THE FUCK IS FREE WILL
PSYCHOLOGIST: PSYCH

>>15817987
soft sciences are all under humanities.

psychology
medicine
biology
anthropology
etc

>>15818181
Language is a soft science. It is creating conversation.

>>15817987
All those posts and yet not a single one refuting his arguments.
Face it, we don't have free will. Not like it matters, but that's the truth.

>>15818157
free will is free will
as in, your will is free from anything other than itself
that means your will decides the physical state, not vice versa.
for example, present moment P is consistent with physical History A and physical History B. At the moment of your decision, Future A or Future B, one of those Histories (a or b) gets eliminated and the other is instantiated.
This process of consistent histories being eliminated and instantiated keeps happening ever time you decide and is felt by you viscerally.

your confusion about free will lies in you thinking there is only one history that is consistent with the present moment. in reality, it's more like history set {A....n} is consistent with present moment P, and then your decision shrinks that set to history set {A....n/2} in some unique configuration.

>>15818196
>it doesn't matter....
>now listen to me talk about it with so much care
free will is real
you're just coping because you feel God's Final Judgement approaching where God will judge you, me, everyone for every decision made.
if free will didn't exist, and if you truly believed it didn't, then you wouldn't feel so angry that not everyone believes as you do. you'd be like, "okay they believe in free will, now imma play videyya" and leave it at that.

>>15818157
You are retarded for thinking this. Libertarian free will is a simple concept and happens to be true.

>>15818205
Proof of no free will: you can't help but cope, and you will keep coping until the void takes you.

If there's no free will, how come it's impossible to predict the outcome of elections?

We live in a universe where all practical human experience tells us that we have agency over our decisions, even if “scientists” (psychologists) don’t understand the mechanism behind this. It’s maddening and insulting to Very Smart People when they don’t know/understand something, so the temptation is to conclude:

>if I don’t know/understand something, then it doesn’t exist/isn’t real

Some people just can’t accept mystery.

>>15818055
why did the other thread get deleted?

>>15818083
Moronic coping from reductionists. We obviously make decisions. There is no "illusion".

>>15817987
Scientists are human too and have their own ideological bias

>>15818058
The question is always, 'could you have made a different decision'.
Between chosing chocolate or vanilla ice cream, if you pick chocolate, was it ever possible that you could have picked vanilla?
Or was your decision already premade because of the consequences of 1000 years of actions that led up to you stopping for ice cream? And that your imagined decision making process was really just a farce in the larger scope.

>>15818272
Why is it a farce? Why is libertarian free will the only valid concept of free will? You can also be some sort of compatibilist. It was still me that made the choice, even if that choice was determined by the state of my brain/mind in that moment. What would it even mean for my decision to be independent of what I am in that moment?

>>15817987
>oh no im FORCED to drink water every 24 hrs
>nothing makes sense anymore im gona kms

>>15817987

Dian Fossey lives rent free in his head since 50 years

from A Primate's Memoir (2001)

>“Fossey, Fossey, you cranky difficult strong-arming self-destructive misanthrope, mediocre scientist, deceiver of earnest college students, probable cause of more deaths of the gorillas than if you had never set foot in Rwanda, Fossey, you pain-in-the-ass saint, I do not believe in prayers or souls, but I will pray for your soul, I will remember you for all of my days, in gratitude for that moment by the graves when all I felt was the pure, cleansing sadness of returning home and finding nothing but ghosts.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/651225-fossey-fossey-you-cranky-difficult-strong-arming-self-destructive-misanthrope-mediocre-scientist

from a interview this month

>I’ve recently been reading a series of books about Dian Fossey, such as Farley Mowat’s “Woman in the Mists.” Fossey was the only person on earth who could have lived alone up in the rain forest with gorillas that long, but she was a very disturbed person. When I needed a break from Fossey, I started reading about Hitler and Stalin.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/13/arts/neuroscientist-robert-sapolskys-pleasure-reading-isnt-like-yours/

>>15818272
>The question is always, 'could you have made a different decision'.
It's a distinction without a difference, and one which assumes you would have done something retarded.
>"okay, you can either eat something you like more or something you like less."
>"I'll do thing I like more please."
>"NO FREE WILL! HE ALWAYS CHOOSES THING HE LIKES MORE EVERY TIME!"
It's like implying you don't exist because you do.

Anyone who believes in free will must have an incomplete worldview. Determinism is accepted with an understanding of everything.

>>15818373
And if you are determined to never have a complete worldview?

>>15818375
Then you are determined to never have a complete worldview. I don't understand what kind of answer you're seeking.

>>15818375
Then you aren't ruling out having a consistent worldview.

>>15818277
Because an aesthetic choice is not the same as a real choice.
A computer program that follows a set path is just a program, regardless of if it had some kind of self-awareness while doing so.
The ability to have actually done something differently is important.

>>15818351
Then you're no different from an ant or a rodent, just with more self-delusion over what you're doing.
If you couldn't have chosen the other one, ever, then there wasn't a choice made in the first place.

>>15818430
>>15818438
People are not computers. People are not ants. Stop.

>>15818468
The only real difference is the perception of choice in actions made and the alleged considerations they are capable of.
If humans are not capable of any more choice than an insect is, then they're fundamentally not significantly different other than having a more complex chain of influences before making their pre-set decision on any given subject.

>>15818255
Do you make decisions while dreaming?

>>15818485
*pseudo-philosophical nonsense*
Delete psychology

>>15818241
Behold the science, made by retards for retards. That is why I trust more online bet sites. The real geniuses are not in academia, they are enjoying life fucking little bitches in the ass.

>>15818255
The evidence is pretty conclusive that we actually don't. We just rationalize the involuntary choices afterwards.

>>15817987
>jewish shills shilling jewish shills

>>15818507
Most fields of research have a similar replication crisis.
Even ones as 'hard' as chemistry.
Psychology is just trendy to shit on, for justifiable reasons.

Doesn't change the reasoning that if humans are deterministic like that, then they're no different than animals.

>>15818501
Yeah?
I basically have total control over what happens within my dreams. HBU?

>>15818501
I do. You don't?

>>15818524
Chemistry is probably worse than psychology just because of how swamped it is by junk papers from China. I'd give you a good 80% chance that if you picked a chemistry paper written in the last 5 years at random they lied about at least 1 step.

>>15818528
Interesting. Only rarely, during I guess what some might call a 'lucid' dream. The whole subjective experience is otherwise like watching a movie.

>>15818515
>The evidence is pretty conclusive that we actually don't.

lol such as? I will be monitoring this thread for your response. you can't just make a claim like that without backing it up.

>>15818588
>lol such as?
that you are not going to sin again. yet you do. and then you rationalize it somehow. does that sound more familiar?

>>15818091
Yep. Determinism. Look at the name of his new book they mention.

>>15817987
>factors beyond our control influence our choices
wow, who could have predicted that, I'm shook

>>15818181
Biology is quite hard these days.

>>15817987
>free will negligible
free will is a conceptual impossibility, an oxymoron. while this guy - or maybe the journalist - is a plain moron.

>>15819260
>Mfw the soience infiltrated academia so hard biology is considered a hard science.
Harder than your dick is a very low bar.

Define "free will" before you start crowing about how it doesn't exist. What, exactly, are you claiming doesn't exist?

>>15818241
Because the sample size required for perfectly predicting an election would have to be the size of the election in question and involving every single participant.

>>15819260
They cant even define what a woman is, how is that a hard science?

Is it time to stop classifying OP as straight?

Yes.

>>15818501
Unironically yes.

>>15819249
Synopsis: Blacks didn't get bedtime stories read to them as children and are therefore blameless for their crimes

>>15817987
What kind of "free will" is this guy talking about that can't be refuted on purely conceptual grounds? He's clearly acting like he's making an empirical/scientific claim.

>>15819260
>>15819316
>>15819436
The 3 hard sciences have always been physics, chemistry, and biology. This is not a new thing

>>15819642
Physics and chemistry are the only hard science now. Biology is soft science since nothing can be defined

>>15819534
It's basically nonsense that amounts to this:
>do you make decisions based on food tasting good or fun things being fun? Then you don't make decisions, you're a slave to dopamine. :^)

>jewish shills shilling jewish shills

>>15818196
There's nothing to argue about. This guy defines free will as something that doesn't exist. So by his logic, of course free will doesn't exist. If you define free will as something that does exist, it can exist, but that'd be moving the goalposts. The only question is whether anyone should care about his definition of free will. The answer is no, but there's no scientific way to prove "this is pointless bullshit," so he and his ilk can skate along their pseudointellectual ways.

It's always embarrassing to see a scientist failing so hard at doing philosophy.

>>15820240
the concept is retarded you need it to justify your aproach to life and events and to the shit you do to others.
>nobody forced him, it was his choice. the choice: die or do as they say
>he had a choice bro, free will, he chose.

>>15820256
I feel like those ideas are a lot easier to justify if those decisions are because of environmental and biological factors (AKA "who they are") rather than, like, cosmic dice rolls

>>15817987
bakker is king

>>15820282
yeah but that's not my problem.
>but I don't like the implications of reality
no shit

>>15820286
so you're implying everything IS cosmic dice rolls?

>>15820287
>so what you are saying is *exaggerated shit*????
well you do have dice rolls at certain scales with certain events in an otherwise deterministic universe. don't know why this trips you up so much.

>>15818272
It is quite literally just a side effect of being mortal creatures and being able to project an idea of ourselves forward and backward in time. Even though in reality it is just wish fulfillment fantasizing wanting a better outcome and feeling regret over a memory. Whatever happens doesn't matter or have any real significance beyond its personal significance to you as an organism with physical needs for survival.

Once you take the idea of "CAUSE AND EFFECT" to its logical conclusion and stop thinking things just happen for no reason. You eventually reach the conclusion that you are only a consequence of some cause and effect.

Yes, Big Sad. You are just a robot playing a role. You aren't the main character being piloted by a Godlike detached player outside the game driving your actions. No you are just so much gears assembled in a particular way temporarily in Gods clockwork universe.

>>15820316
what trips me up is how much everyone else is being tripped up. I'm pretty sure that I'm missing some fundamental "sense" of free will that everyone else has. Whatever it is I'm missing out on, it makes you all sound fucking nuts.

>No, dude, like, yeah, I chose to do that, but did I really choose to do that, y'know? Like, yeah, I CHOSE, y'know, but did I CHOOSE? Or did the universe choose for me?

>>15820328
it is a sign of midwit to not be able to understand nuances and have a real need to put thinks in black or white boxes. anything more and your brain releases the angry chemicals. uga-uga amirite

>>15820240
how does he define it?

>>15819249
The problem is, is that the implications of philosophical views if they are taken seriously and become a majority opinion will in theory influence the way people act. Indeed if evolution and by extension the evolution of ideas and thinking is any indication.

It seems that a belief in free will itself (even if that belief is actually false) serves to better ensure the survival and reproduction of humans and thus the continuation of the species. Determinism as a mode of thinking seems to be selected against in the natural arena of ideas and thinking modes.

And since in the Determinist perspective what will be will be, if determinism is selected against it doesn't really matter if it actually is fundamentally correct, if it does not serve the survival needs of humanity.

>>15820332
I doubt you would be any more tolerant about the shit I spew when I get high.

>>15820338
Determinism has nothing to do with it. The problems don't go away if you allow some probability distribution. People seem uncomfortable with the idea that they are subject to any kind of causality at all.

>>15820351
Nobody is uncomfortable with that idea. Everyone instinctually understands that some elements of their life are genetic and environmentally influenced. Their sex, their facial attractiveness, their intelligence, etc. The only people who ever seem to get really uncomfortable in these arguments are the determinitards who seem offended by the idea that they might be somewhat responsible for their own actions.

>>15820338
that's an argument for why you should bullshit people and use it for controlling humans, even tho it's not necessary of doing it that way. if they really need purpose and all that they can be science based (reality instead of fantasy) and quite more powerful even.
I never understood how people just ate up this argument, each and every time, without even trying. they just give away power because you ask it. strange in a way, but the trick you are pulling is in making everyone take for granted that there's no better way than your bullshit story, which is a quite retarded idea. of-course it's possible.
your bullshit story is blocking paths that are helpful, does not allow exploring certain particular ideas (which conveniently suits your power control needs). this is a clear conflict of interest, to even consider anything you would have to say. of-course it's mostly about power with a thin veil of interest in plebs experience and needs. you're after production, work, economy, you don't give two fucks about humans. you'd send them all to the guillotine in a second if that suited you.

>>15820354
Can you say that again but after taking your risperdal?

>>15820358
you lie to keep power, you no give shit about anything else. you hate science as it threatens your power.

>>15820353
Not that anon but the philosophical implications if you take the determinist view seriously is precisely that nobody really can be blamed for what they do or what they accomplish. If criminality happens it's because the person in question essentially wasn't trained right, or given the proper environment, or their genetics predisposed them to it, etc. But all acheivements also become meaningless and thus not worthy of praise because you likewise were always going to do great things. Why should you be rewarded or praised for something that was essentially going to be done "automatically" it would be like rewarding someone for successfully sneezing.

And my whole point was that it doesn't matter if the idea is right or wrong what matters is it's darwinistic survival value to humanity and currently humanity still needs rewards and punishments, praise and shame, and the threat of personal responsibility to hold back people from doing even more stupid shit.

>>15820353
Determinism just "forces the issue." People like to imagine that dice have will, but it's easy to see that the clock has no freedom. So they get all heated about "Determinism means there's no free will!" because they can't imagine themselves being clockwork, despite the fact that their idea of free will would be just as nonsensical in a nondeterministic universe if they actually took the time to think about what that would mean.

>>15820371
>if you take the determinist view seriously is precisely that nobody really can be blamed for what they do or what they accomplish. If criminality happens it's because the person in question essentially wasn't trained right, or given the proper environment, or their genetics predisposed them to it, etc.
This is the underlying reason for the promotion of determinism in postmodern society btw. It's about undermining the rule of law and the meting out of punishments under that law. You see it with DAs openly letting criminals go free because "they were a product of their circumstances."

>>15820369
>>15820354
Science isn't a thing. Science is the self organizing system of trial and error given shape in the form of methodology.

What is science? Recording outcomes, trying to get different outcomes, recording what actions cause what outcomes at what likelihoods? You know instead of thinking things just magically happen.

Cause and Effect. Trial and Error. Those are the only real brainless gods of this world.

>>15820371
>Why should you be rewarded or praised for something that was essentially going to be done "automatically" it would be like rewarding someone for successfully sneezing.

Why should you reward or punish someone for something that happens spontaneously, that can't be attributed to any real factors?

>>15820383
What are you babbling about?

>>15820338
>It seems that a belief in free will itself (even if that belief is actually false) serves to better ensure the survival and reproduction of humans and thus the continuation of the species.
no evidence for this.

>Determinism as a mode of thinking seems to be selected against in the natural arena of ideas and thinking modes.
no evidence of this either. sam harris, sabine hossenfelder, robert sapolsky all have children of their own.

>>15820377
nah the whole thing makes sense if you consider that people in power who enjoy the spoils on the work of plebs, should now consider in preparing a decent experience for anyone being born.
there is no way in hell any view which puts the least bit of responsibility on politicians is not going to be fought tooth and nail to the end of the universe and it's not happening it doesn't matter what science or anyone says it doesn't happen lol.
it's serious paradigm shift, and does not require to just let criminals go, but to address what is making them a criminal. which in turn is a conflict of interest with the whole judicial money making scheme. again, not happening lol. they need criminals, they don't really want to get rid of them.
but I am interested in countries doing it, I would like to see it somewhere, not necessarily burger land. they are too retarded for such concepts anyway.
you lower criminality by not building criminals. that costs extra.

>>15820387
What's the alternative for something being done automatically? Like, if someone commits a crime, and it's not due to the boundary conditions of the universe or whatever, why DID they do it? And why would that justify punishment more than the deterministic situation?

>>15820399
You legitimately need to see a psychiatrist. This is word salad.

>>15820405
it could benefit from punctuation but nah go to /x/ for some real word salad

>>15820403
What kind of mental illness is this? Do you seriously not understand what a choice is, or are you playing dumb on purpose?

>>15820403
Because if it happens non-determinalistically then it is essentially purely arising from them and not any other outside influences that they could blame.

Hence personal responsibility.

>>15820413
I'm having so much fun I'll even dumb this down one step more with a video game analogy.

In videogames if an NPC acts foolishly you blame the game and the NPC programming and scripts. But if a player character acts foolishly you blame the player. The "player" is this analogy being a stand in for free will, the "NPC" being the analogy for determinism.

>>15820371
If I believe in determinism resulting from the big bang and cosmological structure of the universe then it’s absolutely not a matter of, “the person in question essentially wasn't trained right, or given the proper environment, or their genetics predisposed them to it”. Nothing about it could have been changed. It was determined by the starting conditions of the universe and could never have been any different, unless the universe itself were different.

>>15820413
not if it's randomness affecting their actions, in a deterministic framework. why the fuck is everyone running away from this? it's reality for fucks sake.
free will is a fucking political concept that is used to keep power and certain control over some humans. it's not fucking real, it's a fucking fictional story which doesn't even make sense.
and we are down to arguing
>yeah bro we know it's fake but it's for the better good.
are you all fucking insane?

>>15820410
I think I understand what a choice is, but I don't understand what everyone else thinks a choice is. I promise I am being 100000% genuine here. I am being obnoxious and confrontational and vaguely schizo but I really would like to get on the same page as everyone else here.

>>15820413
I don't see how that kind of responsibility is more meaningful though.

If someone's brain has a 50% chance of deciding to commit murder, why does the version of the brain that did end up rolling "murder" deserve more scorn than someone's brain that has a 100% chance to murder?

>>15820416
But if an NPC's programming is nondeterministic (say you hook the game up to a source of quantum information and you got a pinkie promise from Jesus that it was really nondeterministic), wouldn't you still blame it if it consistently acts foolishly? I don't see how determinism actually matters

>>15820418
then how the fuck does that argument work? the argument that acting as if free will is real in a deterministic framework makes for good results and if we didn't it would be mayhem?
this is like the mother of all whoring. if we are determined then we would take precautions that people grow up a certain way so they don't become criminals. that simple. if we don't do it, then we'll have same old shit results.

>>15820418
Well that's the point I was making in my other posts which is that ideas and holding them as a philosophical view point has implications for how people act. And in psychological studies they've done where the difference was priming people for either "free will thinking" or "deterministic thinking" the deterministic thinking primed ones would on average act more immoral because they didn't think it mattered.

So from a Meta-Perspective if we want to organize society in the most effective way we seem to have an incentive to tell people that they have free will (even if the fundamental reality is that we don't). So in a weird way determinism runs into this sort of trap where virtue of being right is not enough to save it as an idea worth having because of it's low Darwinian survival value.

In a human sense ideas don't really matter if there is no one left to have them, ya get me? Like what does it matter if you unlock the secrets of the universe if every last human winds up dead? The ideas that make it into the next generation and propagate themselves are the ideas that contribute to survival. Why do you think religion has followed us into the future all these thousands of years? It doesn't matter if it's really true or not, what matters is does it help us survive?

>>15820427 me
>>15820418
>. Nothing about it could have been changed.
let me be more clear.
free will believers say that even if we are in deterministic framework just acting as if we have free will makes for good results so we should do it.
as in it would work, to think something and do it, and have certain results. that happens in this reality.
so if we are in a deterministic universe and instead of "believing" in free will we consider we are determined by the environment, and start acting on this, as in prepare the environment for nice ride for everyone, we would get the result of having less criminals.
ergo, we can stop believing in fairy tales free will for certain result, because it's clear what this results in, since forever. and instead try something else for less criminals.

>>15820420
>wouldn't you still blame it if it consistently acts foolishly?
No because even in your metaphor you have outsorced his agency to a random number generator, in which case even if it is doing things truly randomly it is the machine determining the NPC's actions not a non-deterministic free will (random number generator) arising from the NPC itself.

>I don't see how that kind of responsibility is more meaningful though.
Meaning is just the survival value to us that we ascribe to things.

>If someone's brain has a 50% chance of deciding to commit murder, why does the version of the brain that did end up rolling "murder" deserve more scorn than someone's brain that has a 100% chance to murder?
They don't. Murder is only bad in relation to its survival value to the individual and the surrounding group. We kill murderers because they are team killers, we praise soldiers who kill the enemy for "protecting" us.

Read "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" by B F Skinner for a better idea.

>>15820427
My point is that whether or not we take such precautions may already be determined. There is no, “ if we do this that will happen, but if we do that this will happen”. It’s already determined what we will do and what the results will be.

>>15820429
That is a reasonable position from a utilitarian standpoint. Personally I would like to know the truth though.

>>15820429
>Well that's the point I was making in my other posts which is that ideas and holding them as a philosophical view point has implications for how people act. And in psychological studies they've done where the difference was priming people for either "free will thinking" or "deterministic thinking" the deterministic thinking primed ones would on average act more immoral because they didn't think it mattered.
>So from a Meta-Perspective if we want to organize society in the most effective way we seem to have an incentive to tell people that they have free will (even if the fundamental reality is that we don't). So in a weird way determinism runs into this sort of trap where virtue of being right is not enough to save it as an idea worth having because of it's low Darwinian survival value.
ah cmon, how was that test done, what exactly did them tell people determinism implies, in which way did they specifically frame it? what were the scientists running the experiment looking to get? who funded it? how complex was it?
this is utter shit, the stakes are so high that I'm not going to take your bullshit random ass "experts said" study as meaning anything objective lol

>>15820439
>It’s already determined what we will do and what the results will be.
no but you are wrong, objectively speaking we do seem to have random events, stop saying shit like it was proven.
just because you don't like something it doesn't mean you can just omit it or ignore it.

>>15820438
>in which case even if it is doing things truly randomly it is the machine determining the NPC's actions not a non-deterministic free will (random number generator) arising from the NPC itself.

Alright, define the "BNPC" to be the system that is the union of the random number generator and the NPC. Then the BNPC has free will under this definition, but you would still blame the algorithm as that is what is actually deciding its actions.

>They don't. Murder is only bad in relation to its survival value to the individual and the surrounding group.

OK, fine.

>If someone's brain has a 50% chance of deciding to commit <REDUCTION IN GROUP SURVIVAL VALUE>, why does the version of the brain that did end up rolling "<REDUCTION IN GROUP SURVIVAL VALUE>" deserve more <REDUCTION IN GROUP APPRAISAL> than someone's brain that has a 100% chance to murder?

>>15820434
I think it may be best that we act as though we have free will since we can’t really predict the future. I’m not sure if an environmental focus on dealing with problems like crime is better or not. Our society’s and individual actions and their results are already determined. So we can only do what we think is best even though we don’t actually have control over any of it.

>>15820443
Of course I don’t know for certain. But my current position is that the universe is deterministic and even superdeterminism may be correct, which means no true randomness either. Just being bad at predicting certain things because we’re lacking certain information at the moment doesn’t mean it isn’t determined or is random.

>>15820446
I keep telling you they aren't determined, nobody can know how it ends up. that is not something possible in this environment if the seemingly random events truly are random.
you cannot think everything is predetermined, it's retarded, stupid, does not make sense. that is not reality and you refusing it does not make it fully predetermined.

>>15820434
Indeed. B F Skinner whose works I am studying, had this same mindset that if we only realized the truth of determinism that we would stop acting so foolishly and start arraigning society more effectively in a way that minimizes human suffering and maximizes human potential, etc. star trek communism and so forth.

But the problem with determinism is that it runs into the same "PROBLEM OF EVIL" that the religionfags struggle with. And that is that if there are individuals born with an innate drive towards selfishness, destructiveness, and deceit. Then how could a deterministic outlook actually counter those people especially if they are the ones in power and especially if because of their psychopathic thinking they have no real desire to arrange society for the better especially if it will take away from them.

Rationality doesn't necessarily equal compassion. It seems to me that with the discovery of classical conditioning, behaviorism ,determinism, etc that people have only used those ideas to devise better ways of controlling people and bending them to the will of the psychopathic elites.

Break the control, go crazy, believe in yourself, act in an unpredictable manner. That belief itself is the only way to escape from the rat maze. Don't chase the cheese, walk away from it. Show the aristocrats that we don't need them. Believe in foolish miracles.

>>15820450
>Just being bad at predicting certain things because we’re lacking certain information at the moment doesn’t mean it isn’t determined or is random.
yeah but you don't know next week's lottery numbers

>>15820441
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113710/

Here you go, now don't respond for at least twenty minutes or else I'll know you didn't read it and only skimmed.

>>15820452
>you cannot think everything is predetermined
you can though.
>it's retarded, stupid, does not make sense.
because you feel that way?

>>15820420
>I think I understand what a choice is, but I don't understand what everyone else thinks a choice is. I promise I am being 100000% genuine here. I am being obnoxious and confrontational and vaguely schizo but I really would like to get on the same page as everyone else here.
You may literally be schizophrenic. I'm not joking. People joke about NPCs and P-Zombies and whatnot, but if you don't have the personal experience of what it feels like to make your own decisions then there's something seriously wrong with you.

>>15820457
That doesn’t mean the result isn’t predetermined.

>>15820455
>Rationality doesn't necessarily equal compassion. It seems to me that with the discovery of classical conditioning, behaviorism ,determinism, etc that people have only used those ideas to devise better ways of controlling people and bending them to the will of the psychopathic elites.
psycho zealots don't give a fuck about spirituality or philosophy, they found a comfy position that they can present themselves with. that's it, it's only about power and control. religion is based on determinism, all the tricks included are based on deterministic responses from humans. they are using determinism while saying bullshit free will.
we do have points at which we consider humans as flawed, genetically. there's all kinds of diseases. being able to detect "the gene" or brain-structure responsible for criminal behavior you'd have two choices:
1. fix it, via medical tools (which in future might very well be in digital space then re-assemble said individual)
2. manage it. create and environment where you don't modify the individual but offer some kind of experience on earth, in a way in which he cannot cause harm to others. if possible.
3. kill them.
there's not many options. I'm not saying they shouldn't be stopped from doing harm to others, I'm just saying that understanding the why changes our general approach to the issue.

>>15820444
You seem to be confusing randomness with non-determinism.

>If someone's brain has a 50% chance of deciding to commit <REDUCTION IN GROUP SURVIVAL VALUE>
>why does the version of the brain that did end up rolling "<REDUCTION IN GROUP SURVIVAL VALUE>" deserve more <REDUCTION IN GROUP APPRAISAL> than someone's brain that has a 100% chance to murder?

There is no why. It just happens. It's trial and error. A natural selection of what leads to what consequences. Natural selection in evolution simply happens. The animals that live and reproduce do and the ones that do not, don't move forward into the future. There is no more why behind it.

Humans figured out that internal reasoning and potential chances don't matter compared to the brute fact that team killers shouldn't be suffered because they decrease the groups survival chances. Does it matter if we live or die in the grand scheme of things? No. It only matters to us. and from the perspective of our genetics it only matters if whatever we did or thought lead to us reproducing or not.

Hell for all we know maybe some long lost death cult actually figured out the secrets of the universe. But if they didn't write it down or transmit it, it died with them when they committed mass suicide. And that's what determinism is, a disguised suicide cult.

Just kidding, I got a bit poetic there at the end but hopefully you understand my view.

>>15820463
no, because you don't know.
>>15820472
that doesn't mean the result is predetermined. yet you keep arriving at conclusions by considering everything is predetermined. you freely take the leap and I'm reminding you you don't know really.

>>15820483
there's no way to prove it either way, but that's where i'm putting my chips

>>15820420
There being an RNG seed doesn't give that NPC free will if its actions are still automatic in response to some external order.

>>15820483
>>15820489
Yeah I don’t know beyond all reasonable doubt, but so far it’s what seems more likely. Here’s a good video on the subject.
https://youtu.be/zpU_e3jh_FY?si=KDJg-bXCj4O8YI2n

>>15820419
People that believe in free will don't reject external influences.
They reject that those influences are terminal and that the individual effected by them isn't able to go contrary to them should they individually decide via internal rationalizations to do so.

>>15820493
Why would I listen to some old woman talk about nonsense?

>>15820452
Knowing ultimate truth is different from speculating on the existence of ultimate truth.

>>15820471
I am like 99% sure I'm somewhere on the schizophrenia spectrum. It probably affects me here, and I'm sure it hurts me in my day to day life, but I also still think I'm correct. Like, I'm crazier than most people in other ways but this is one aspect where I'm pretty sure I'm factually "saner" than everyone else (Schizophrenics, are, of course, always right when they think they're right /s), just in a way that makes me worse at being a functional human being.

I can experience making decisions, there's just no "significance" to it. Like, I have beliefs and values and preferences and all of that, and I make decisions based on those and, I'm sure, countless other harder-to-quantify factors. And maybe those decisions are absolutely deterministic and maybe they're not, but it doesn't feel like it matters? For instance, I'm typing this response because I want to. I think it's an interesting discussion and maybe not the best possible use of my time but a decent enough one. It doesn't really matter to me if I'm "destined" to type this, because either way it's consistent with who I am. As long as I have a cohesive identity and act in accordance with it, I don't really care why exactly I'm acting in accordance with it.

>>15820477
>You seem to be confusing randomness with non-determinism.
You're really gonna need to work to convince me these aren't the same, chief.
Either a system will always evolve in the same way, or it won't always evolve in the same way.
>>15820492
But they're not automatic in response to an external order, they're automatic in response to the combination of the inner or outer state. How would a human being with free will operate if not as "an automaton with an RNG element?"

>>15820496
She’s better spoken than myself.

>>15820501
Because the claim of free will is reliant on there being sentient intention to the action being made. Pure nondeterminism simply because of randomness in cause and effect doesn't change anything with regard to the ability to 'make another choice' for any persons within said system.
Free will is not random or irrational. It is explicitly rational and rooted in internal cognition and ability to resist reactivity.

>>15820459
>The studies following classic experimental philosophy paradigm looking at free will typically present participants with two types of hypothetical universes—a fully deterministic universe in which all life including human behavior is determined, and a universe in which human behavior is an exception and is not fully determined
are you fucking kidding me? a deterministic universe affected at some level by randomness IS NOT FUCKING DETERMINED, and that has the implications that the future is not fucking decided, doesn't matter it's not decided because of free will or randomness, it's not decided.
that study did not study the effect of the understanding of the nature of our universe (deterministic framework with random events), but to some fictional predetermined one, which is not reality, and the study is fucking meaningless, it basically made a straw man out of reality
>isn't this predetermined shit so fucking bleak? it is isn't it? so you are more happy with free will aren't you?
cmon dude, study is made for two fictional scenarios, it's retarded.
>so you like star wars or star trek?

>>15820512 me
in case I wasn't clear, the study is bunk because they framed the "deterministic" universe as being predetermined which induces a certain "vibe" that you don't like.
and that is not the case with our reality. the study is fiction, bunk. if people understood the future is not decided they might have chosen the "deterministic" version, but they weren't presented with the correct choice and the correct facts, it's fucking fiction, you have NO fucking standing

>>15820520
In a deterministic universe the future is pre-determined, whether we can predict it or not doesn't matter.
We can't predict the weather to 100% accuracy, but that doesn't make it non-deterministic.

>>15820501
>You're really gonna need to work to convince me these aren't the same, chief.

A quantum state is non-deterministic. Once it is measured it becomes determined. But there is no randomness. The outcome will fall along a classic probability distribution. We don't measure it and get two of the same outcome, or both outcomes at the same time, we don't see an outcome that falls drastically outside the probability distribution etc.

A truly random "thing" would be capable of producing outcomes not bounded by the laws of physics and it would only ever reference itself. Radio active decay occurs continuously and spontaneously regardless of what else is going on. We know the average rate at which it occurs but we cannot on a fundamental level predict when an individual particle will decay or not.

I'll let you in on a dark secret but determinism and non-determinism might both be getting it wrong. That if the many worlds interpretation is correct then the world is even more pointless than we know. Because it's not that different outcomes can occur, it's that we only experience the outcome that occurs to us but in a higher meta sense all possible outcomes have all occurred at the same time. Think about how God (or the universe if you prefer) rolls dice. God doesn't roll dice like a human, he rolls the dice in a super position and then creates 6 different worlds where each outcome occurs. It's the perfect solution to any paradox. If ever you come to a split in the road, you just take both.

So even if the dice themselves were random, would it matter if every possible outcome was always going to occur even if in separate worlds?

>>15820522
>We can't predict the weather to 100% accuracy, but that doesn't make it non-deterministic.
if the weather is subjected to random events then you can't predict it past some point.
even if our universe is deterministic, the fact that whatever was bound to happen can be changed by a random event that directly implies the future is not decided. it's pretty simple
the study is bullshit, they framed reality in a false way. it's a fucking waste of time and resources to be used as propaganda by power hungry psychos.

>>15820524
Or superdeterminism is correct and quantum outcomes only appear to be random because there’s still aspects if quantum mechanics we don’t understand yet.

>>15820526
If we go with the argument of scaling quantum randomness, that random quantum interactions and fluctuations scale up large enough that you can say the universe at the macro level has some RNG to events, then we do live in a non-deterministic universe.
But that is not much better than a deterministic one when it comes to personal decision-making capabilities. As in, there being randomness in events because of outside interference, doesn't mean that individuals within that universe have the ability to actually personally chose their actions.

You've beaten the dichotomy, but not changed the overall comparison too much.

>>15820506
Let's say God puts you in a box. He then copies the box and everything inside it, including you (soul and all, if you believe in such things), and pastes the whole thing into 99 other pocket dimensions. The contents of the box are completely the same at every level, physical and metaphysical, with the exception that God is mentally keeping track of which is which.

If He let ten hours pass for all of the boxes, would they look the same or not?

Maybe you'd do the exact same thing in each. That's what would happen if the world is deterministic. The boxes start the same, so they end the same. On the other hand, maybe they behave differently. Maybe, for whatever complicated set of reasons, the version of you in box #12 paces back and forth the whole time but the version in box #83 starts singing after a few minutes. Since boxes #12 and #83 started the same, there must be some point (perhaps immediately) at which they diverge. At that point, the system is in one state, but can take multiple (at least two) possible paths. It's nondetermistic at that point in time. What's the nature of that nondetermism? Who knows. Maybe it's a wavefunction collapsing in a nondetermistic way, maybe it's your soul doing some soul bullshit, maybe it's something no human has ever begun to imagine, but I'm sure God could, if He so wanted, describe what's going on and specify the probability distribution across the possible outcomes.

Those are the only two options. Either you always do the same thing, or you don't always do the same thing.

>>15820524
you're really not convincing me. "Classical probability theory does not describe random things" is pretty outlandish.

>>15820526
Just because they didn't frame the wording to your tastes doesn't mean they didn't measure the beliefs in question anon. You are always free to do your own study using a modified version of their experiment or dig up a related experiment that provides contrary evidence. But sitting here and complaining is hardly convincing without experimental data to back it up. As far as I'm concerned you are talking out of your depth.

>>15820535
If the initial conditions are identical, but the results are different, then there are two options.
1st - Nondeterminism minus Free Will
>because of some uncontrollable external stimuli like quantum randomness or random seeding to behaviors or whatever, events do not have the same outcome every time
2nd - Nondeterminism plus Free Will
>either in addition to the above uncontrollable external stimuli or without it, sentient beings are able to cognitively make actual choices about actions and potentially have the ability to make different decisions when encountering identical scenarios

Those are different things.

>>15820533
>If we go with the argument of scaling quantum randomness, that random quantum interactions and fluctuations scale up large enough that you can say the universe at the macro level has some RNG to events, then we do live in a non-deterministic universe.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00113
>But that is not much better than a deterministic one when it comes to personal decision-making capabilities
it was always deterministic. in free will religion they don't do bad shit because of determinism. bad shit = hell. they understand consequence for their actions. those are still valid.
coming back to the study, a random cancer is pretty shit and kinda rewrites your story. so would some random event interacting with some neurons, or neural weight affecting it just enough to make a different choice

>>15820537
>Just because they didn't frame the wording to your tastes doesn't mean they didn't measure the beliefs in question anon.
they specifically worded it in the most deplorable way possible, specifically framing it to be something bad and undesired, devoid of any possible surprise, grim future, already written in stone, unavoidable all the bad shit shoved together in a silly fictitious story to be used as justification for lying to billions of people
it's not that it's not worded to my tastes, it's that it's fucking fake and specifically framed as being something undesired. for fucks sake this is bullshit

>>15820542
What do you think the difference is?
I don't see any difference at all besides how easy it is to quantify the behavior of the system

>>15820535
Once you can bound something within the limits of rules it ceases to be "random". Something truly random could create outcomes that could absolutely not be predicted or bounded by any outside laws or conceptions.

Do you understand? That because we live in a deterministic world our conception of what constitutes "randomness" is really just our lack of knowledge. Something does not magically become random because we don't fully understand it. Deer probably think cars are random but they still learn over time that cars generally follow roads. The car isn't random because the deer doesn't understand how the engine works, or what chemical reactions make the car move, etc. But the deer even with it's tiny brain can still bound the car with observations about how it tends to behave.

Something that was fundamentally random and not just SEEMINGLY random, could create outcomes outside the bounded laws of the universe. A random thing would essentially be a universe unto itself, with it's own laws separate from whatever else contained it, or more accurate was around it since even contained itself carries certain implications of bounding.

Do you understand that non-determinism is the odd man out in all this? That's it's just disguised religious superstition?

>Let's say God puts you in a box
let's say god puts you in infinitely many boxes where every single possible combination of positions of particles, fields, interactions, etc all happen. Does the very notion of choice even matter at that point?

>>15820554
>Do you understand? That because we live in a deterministic world our conception of what constitutes "randomness" is really just our lack of knowledge
that's no proof that random isn't actually random. lol

>>15820550
The fundamental mechanism.

The argument of free will vs determinism is about an individual's ability to make a real choice and the amount of autonomy separate from the world around they have.
People championing free will aren't going to be satisfied by someone pointing out that "actually the universe is nondeterministic because quantum foam geysers spin the positron rays 3 sigma-yada-yada-yada so actually there is on average a .1% variability between any physical interaction and its ideal deterministic outcome".
That doesn't change anything when it comes to the individual decision making ability of a human. All you've done is muddy the waters because fundamentally in that system people still are either reactive or they are able freely choose their actions.

>>15820564
>"actually the universe is nondeterministic because quantum foam geysers spin the positron rays 3 sigma-yada-yada-yada so actually there is on average a .1% variability between any physical interaction and its ideal deterministic outcome".
sorry what? are you making judgement calls that such events can't possibly matter anyway? really?

>>15820554
>Once you can bound something within the limits of rules it ceases to be "random". Something truly random could create outcomes that could absolutely not be predicted or bounded by any outside laws or conceptions.

This is not how I have used or ever seen anyone use the word "random", but for the sake of discussion, sure.

>That because we live in a deterministic world our conception of what constitutes "randomness" is really just our lack of knowledge.

We have no way of knowing if our world is deterministic or not, but under the assumption that we are, yes, this is true. Or, it's true using the usual meaning of "random," I'm not sure if it's true using your weird definition.

>Something that was fundamentally random and not just SEEMINGLY random, could create outcomes outside the bounded laws of the universe. A random thing would essentially be a universe unto itself, with it's own laws separate from whatever else contained it, or more accurate was around it since even contained itself carries certain implications of bounding.

This sounds schizo even for me. Whether or not it's a valid point I cannot say, but I am unmoved by the rhetoric.

>>15820564
See, this is why I say that the issue for people isn't determinism, it's causality. You're grasping for some situation where people aren't bound by the laws of physics; "separate from the world around they have". The idea that a sapient being can be broken down into components at all, in this framework, makes it magically stop being sapient. "That's not a human, that's just a pile of particles." Even if a soul was discovered separate from normal particle physics, you'd probably wail in despair if someone ever managed to figure out that a soul's behavior followed some general pattern. For some reason you hate the idea that you are beholden to the order of a universe.

how does it feel that there's nothing you can do to guarantee anything? at any point in your existence something completely unpredictable over which you have no power, can happen to you and do anything to you, and there's no way to predict it? always a fucking surprise, out of the blue, unexpected, no matter how much power and resources you have, you will always be at the mercy of random, like any other random pleb.

>>15820569
My point is that it doesn't matter.
If there is randomness, it is minute on any scale relatable to us humans. Otherwise, we'd be able to track its effects directly, rather than having to infer its potential presence based on assumed scalings of quantum fluctuations and the like.
And in addition to that, the presence of randomness does not grant autonomy.

>>15820598
>My point is that it doesn't matter.
what do you mean it doesn't matter? if you know you can get quantum cancer you can't say it doesn't matter, that's not reasonable. at the very least. let alone the whole "let's see how far this goes and get the full picture" studies, you can't judge their outcome as being of no consequence. what the fuck dude

>>15817987
It never was

>>15820598
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/493/3/3932/5736044

>>15820616
It doesn't matter with regards to this conversation about the presence or lack-thereof of free will.

>>15818252
too much noticing and antisemitism so jidf sjw jannie deleted it to hide the noticing

>>15820628
I mean this is basically a reverse version of the old double pendulum problem.

>>15819656
Man I loved shitting on chem majors back in uni. They were always so smug towards their biology counterparts. I remember being in gen chem 1 and 2, and there was this chemistry clique (students in the class, lab assistants, tutors, almost all of them), and they never hesitated to flex on and even downright patronize the bio majors. I majored in math and biology, so it was very satisfying watching them drop like flies in calc 2 and 3. Niggers.

>>15817987
Free will was debunked once the brain was discovered and found to be the computer of the body. This free will theory rests on the assumption that the mind, or at least part of it cannot be explained by neurological process based on the physical brain and an external soul or spirit exists concurrently or independently.

>>15817987
It's quite a long time since it's not classified as science, you seem to be out of loop for solid 10 years atleast.

>>15819521
LMAO

>>15821186
This bait is underaged

>>15821186
>he thinks that the soul would be any better than the brain
ngmi

I haven't read the book yet but I read some article about it. The excerpts indicated his position is that free will doesn't exist because there isn't any possible situation where some external force outside of the subject's control isn't directly influencing the subject's decisions.

Once again, haven't read the book and this is just my interpretation from an article (assuming it represents the author truthfully). I'll entertain the argument since it's a breath of fresh air that's far removed from the nebular Marcus-Aurelias-sigma-male-grindr-set stoicism or hard-ass-atheist-Nietzsche circle jerk.

>>15818197
>your will is free from anything other than itself
So output is not determined by input? In other words, effect is not determined by cause?

>>15818255
>We obviously make decisions.
Decisions are made. In a way, it is "you" who make them, but they are made unconsciously. Your conscious "self" only reacts to the decisions and is fooled into thinking it made them.

>>15818560
>they lied about at least 1 step.
That's true of US papers too though. I ran into that shit all the time in grad school.

>>15820446
>I think it may be best that we act as though we have free will since we can’t really predict the future.
Well, there's also no other way to act.

>>15818241
>Chaotic complex systems make things hard to predict
More at 11
>>15818509
I have no retort for this I hate my life I should've been a dipshit with an MBA or an HR janny instead

>>15821809
I'm ~1/4th through it and this seems to sum up his thesis. He really likes Gleick's book on chaos theory and I think the next chapter is on that, so I presume the only thing to add to this video is that consciousness is chaotic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SthfBxQ0vZ0

>>15818241
Many statistical predictions are based on assumptions. They made very dubious, politically motivated assumptions to get those numbers.

>>15817987
Why does it matter if I have free will or not, why should I give a shit? How will knowing one or the other is true impact my life in any meaningful way? This is just intellectual masturbation

>>15818501
You don't? RFLMFAO

>>15822791
It has an impact on how society is run. People with political motivations use specious arguments about determinism to try to undermine the justice system, for example, because in a world without free will there can be no mens rea.

>>15818501
Yes.

>>15822820
only in a world without free will can there be mens rea.

Guilt only matters if the guilty are bound by it. If will is free, then there should be no punishment, since we should simply allow people to choose to be better.

>>15817987
>(((Stanford)))
of course commies don't want you to believe in free will

>>15821836
kek

>>15821836
LMAO

>>15818501
getting into lucid dreaming when I was 13 indirectly led me to 4chan in 2007, it's really cool

yes goyim, you have no free will, remember that

>>15823612
This is bad bait.

>>15823699
I'd hope it's bad bait since I mean it genuinely

This is on the same level as flat earth arguments.
Free Will is easily demonstrable by making choices, unless someone wants to make the claim that every action of every conscious agent is entirely pre-programmed x time into the future, which is an unfalsifiable claim and thus redundant. Next thread.

>>15824155
hey faggot, explain to everyone HOW you make a choice. tell us the algorithm for you choosing something over something else.
>it just happens bro
that just means that you have no idea what the fuck is happening anon. that just means something "decides" in you, presents you with what you need to do next, and you repeat that to us. that is not you "just choosing" that is you being presented with an inescapable command your brain gives you.

>>15824192
>No bro YOU don't decide a thing INSIDE you decides
>What? No it's not a part of you because... uhhh..... you can't verbally describe what it's doing
>It's physically inside your brain and only interacts with the world through your senses and motor functions and is the main that controls the thing I call "your behavior," but it's not YOU

>>15824199
>decide
yeah bro, it weighs all info and makes best choices towards its goals. whatever calls the shots only gives you a restricted preview of what's happening, and fills in a bunch of bullshit so it makes some sense to (You)

the only times (You) would call the shots in spite of what the brains signals you should do, is considered fucking mental illness

>>15824203
am I talking to a human or am I talking to an internal monologue? I'm a human. My internal monologue doesn't see all of me, that doesn't mean I'm not a single person.

>>15824192
>I could knock over this glass of water, or I could not
>proceed not to
>proceed to knock it over

I agree that perinatal environment, childhood stimuli, cultural influences et cetera affect an individual's behaviour, however the choice of action remains with the individual.

>psychology bread
>FREE WILL FREE WILL FREE WILL
So fags thinking psychology = philosophy explains quite much.

>>15824215
>the choice of action remains with the individual.
but it's not free choice, it's determined by a whole lot of things.
if for some reason you decide right now to do something retarded just to prove you have free will you are not doing it out of free will, you are determined by needing to prove you have free will.
doesn't make sense. at most when you lack info and have nothing to go by when making a choice you'll risk/make a guess. based on a bunch of other shit. left or right? you were always lucky with left. shit like that.

>>15817987
>Is it time to stop classifying psychology as "science"?
Yes, but Sapolsky is not a "psychologist". He's an actual scientist and a fairly respectable one at that, his unfortunate takes on free will notwithstanding.

>>15822791
>Why does it matter if I have free will or not, why should I give a shit?
If it didn't matter, the ruling class wouldn't be rallying against it so fucking hard, now would it, brainlet?

>>15821872
Moronic quibbling. This is basically saying "you make decisions, but you make them faster than your internal monologue can keep up, so therefore you do not make decisions".

Obviously, you make decisions. Who else does?
>your brain does
Oh? So you make decisions? Thanks, what a thrilling intellectual exercise.

>>15825084
ah fuck off, it's clear as day the elite are pushing for the free will/religious bullshit for the masses to keep them at bay while they're using determinism for everything in their life, business/friendships, everything.
the whole "jews want to..." bullshit is sustained by certain people, constantly on 4chan, saying the exact opposite of what's going on, thus if anyone says the otherwise they'll be seen as lunatics.
the elites are paying for the constant free will/soul propaganda everywhere in science, because it's their bullshit story they use to control the plebs.
I hate this retarded "accusation in a mirror" tactic these /pol/ shittards constantly use with everything. stop falling for this retarded shit

>>15821872
>Decisions are made. In a way, it is "you" who make them, but they are made unconsciously. Your conscious "self" only reacts to the decisions and is fooled into thinking it made them.
Toilet paper pseudoscience. This may apply to completely trivial decisions or to impulsive niggers but it's self-evidently false for serious decisions and self-aware people.

>>15825128
Ok, I didn't realize you were so severely mentally ill. I thought you were just stupid.

>>15825137
as usual with you faggots, not a fucking argument. you the lowest form of psychopath and you are retarded for thinking spergs wouldn't see it a mile away

>>15825145
What argument? What the fuck are you talking about? Nevermind that your claims are plainly counterfactual. Your take is completely incoherent even just in principle.

>>15825133
The funny thing is that there is a laundry list of mental phenomena where your conscious mind delegates work to the subconscious, but none of these pseudo-philosphical pseudo-scientists can be bothered to bring them up because they know that by recognizing how common such things are they invalidate their own claims.
Road hypnosis, for example, where your conscious mind thinks about another topic and doesn't even notice the road anymore - and yet all traffic laws are obeyed and one arrives safely to their destination. So who fucking drove the car? A goddamn alien? A ghost possessing the person? Some brain parasite? Obviously "you" drove the car, you just stopped paying attention and your learned behavior took over. Same reason you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Claiming any of this disproves the self or free will is utterly absurd.

>>15825199
I don't see your point. Things like road hypnosis don't prove anything about free will one way or another.

>>15825206
>doesn't see how subconcious mental activity relates to the original point of "you don't make decisions, you just react to noises the brain makes"
Conscious thought is a very small part of overall brain activity, but we've always known this.

>>15825376
Right, and you obviously don't think it refutes free will, so what's your point? It doesn't prove free will, either. It's irrelevant.

>>15820493
>female
Disregarded. Closed tab immediately upon seeing that. I shan't be listening to or watching this video.

>>15825148
You don't see how the elites benefit from the masses thinking they have more agency than they do?

>>15825422
Anyways, imo it boils down to a few things:
>concept of "self" is not exactly well defined under scrutiny
>to date, afaik it is unknown whether consciousness/self awarness is 100% result of material conditions
That is, can a person's internal state be fully described with enough information on their environment, genetics, current configuration of neurons, and history of these data. I tend to suspect that very possibly yes, for example there's evidence to be found with sufferers of TBI changing to have entirely different personality, or for example split brain experiments have some pretty terrifiying (imo) implications. You still have to consider things like qulia, subjective experience being a potentially separate entity from the description of the state.

As far as the Sabine video, I did watch it and while I have nothing to say on her conclusion, I do think she said several dogmatic and misleading things early in the video that I consider red flags.

For starters, she claimed that because the brain can be described using differential equations and initial conditions used to determine its state at a given time, this "proves" freewill isn't real. In the first place this seems intellectually dishonest. Just because we can model our world using equations does not mean that our world *is* those equations. She goes on to say that determinism is therefore a "proven scientific fact" which is outright disingenuous. No serious scientist should be saying such things, surely she is aware there's no such thing as a proven scientific fact. She then uses the name of SCIENCE to bludgeon the viewer over the head. Basically, "if you don't agree with the science, you are delusional/disagreeing with reality itself".

This leads me to treat anything else she says with skepticism. Either she is intentionally being dishonest or she does not have a grasp on the actual sco0e of scientific method herself.

(1/2)

>>15825446
If she really wants to go that route though, and insist scientific method is some ultimate and final arbiter of truth, then we still come to the hard problem of induction, so then all she can really claim is that science is making predictions. This may seem overly pedantic, but when someone starts releasing videos trying to peddle philosophical ideas as rigorously proven truth, and citing "science" as the end all be all proof that her interpretation is objectively correct, I feel the need to speak up. She's spreading dogma and acting as a zealot, and not being honest.

I still haven't seen anyone explain how something can exist without a cause.

>>15825133
>but it's self-evidently false for serious decisions
https://youtu.be/mJKloz2vwlc?t=962

>>15825514
>gas a nigger
whoa! calm down buddy!

>>15817987
>"The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over," Sapolsky said. "We've got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn't there."
If criminals can't choose not to break the law, why does he expect society to be able to choose not to enforce the law? Does he even think about the shit he says before saying it? Criminals aren't wrong but policemen and lawmakers are? If free will doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist, and hence fairness doesn't exist. Fuck this fucking nigger.

>>15826004
in determinism the idea is that your life with the experiences you had adjust your decision making weights in a certain way. that in itself is the thing that allows society to control for individuals upbringing such that it minimizes criminal behavior.
in each of the two understandings of our choices we will always top criminals from doing shit. this does not question the stopping part, which is what is actually important. after stopping it, the two understandings diverge in what should happen next.
1. in free will you apply punishment, and the idea is that it has to be as hard as needed to offset the "choice" of doing criminal shit again.
2. in determinism you understand there isn't much you can do since you built that shit wrong. it's like beating a broken car back into working state. sometimes this might work, just like hitting your old analog tv. most times it doesn't, and punishment just further refines the criminal tendencies.
what determinism sadly invites is the idea that if people are determined, then a false story which determines certain favorable outcomes could be used on the population.
in this way "free will" is a bullshit story which determines it's believers to act a certain way.
my issue with this is that if that is true, and fake stories do affect our decision making process, then we can very well use any other story. a story which implies some actions that help, with the understanding that humans are determined. even if not fully true, we can use other stories which make for less criminals to start with.
now we're getting into the politics of it. are less criminals desired? depends on country. in some of them criminals are politically and economically lucrative, so they are absolutely needed.

>>15826565
Yeah sure, but I'm determined to punish the person who was determined to do crime. Being aware of that is not going to make me suddenly decide to change my behavior.

>>15826571
>I'm determined to punish the person who was determined to do crime
yes you are based on a shit story with skewed understanding of who humans actually are.
on top of that, it also happens to be primitive, which tickles that primitive jelly in your brain. that doesn't mean it's the best course of action.
that's the general idea, discussing and understanding it makes for you adjusting you response for best outcome.

>>15818509
Only a complete retard will do anything for this horrible sick evil population of this planet. Now imagine literally sacrificing your entire life to do exactly that. Most likely after you were bullied, attacked and assaulted in school literally only for being smart and different (which comes from inner sickness of the population of course) by the same population you will now sacrifice yourself for.

>>15826581
>adjusting you response
Not gonna happen. If criminals want to try and use determinism as a shield to get away with malice, I will wield determinism as a spear to pierce it. The criminals can't help themselves, unfortunately neither could I. Society at large isn't going to buy the idea of "We should stop puntitive actions because no one has free will"

this also happens to be very undesired politically. current politics is based on smearing with shit in public. which becomes quite complicated with a deterministic view. THESE are the real issues we are facing. understanding is not the issue, applying it is. because it goes against political and economic interests so they are incentivized to push for the fake story which allows them to do all the shit they are doing.
you ask why reproducibility crisis in science, and "no new stuff" happening? it can't. you won't do shit with it if new science/understanding goes against your tribal bullshit and money and power and politics.
this is the real issue today, it's not about science. it's about humans not being able to integrate new science. humans do not have this freedom.

>>15826584
>The criminals can't help themselves, unfortunately neither could
you will always be able to defend your views by using already existing criminals. it's a vicious circle (quite brain dead and retarded) that you refuse to break.
you will always be able to argue "but muh criminals I want to make them suffer". ok, would you feel fine with not having criminals to make suffer? or are you specifically going for making someone suffer and you need your criminals for that, so it's justified?
changing our approach makes for less criminals in the future. you can't say
>yeah but we can't get less criminals in the future because that means I'd have to adjust my behavior today which I don't like because there's criminals I want to punish today, so you see, we're bound to never really solve this, we must have more criminals so I can punish them today, you don't get it

>>15817987
I find it weird intellectual and secular types don't believe in free will, yet religious people that believe in a divine master plan with an omnipotent being and yet paradoxically believe in free will.


Call me crazy, but I think it should be the other way around.

>>15826594
I get what you're saying. The thing is, you're relying on a strong claim to justify policy change when there is already a much weaker claim that would be sufficient reason for reforms. Instead of relying on determinism as the basis, you could use a less philisophical and more pragmatic argument, like "x approach to criminality tends to lead to reduction in crime rates". I don't see why we need to prove free will doesn't exist before we can make reforms to how society deals with criminals. Even if we assume determinism to be true, it doesn't necessarily change anything. Or I guess it does because acknowledging determinism can lead to a change in behavior, but I doubt that line of reasoning will be particularly popular with the majority.

Unless you have specific idea for how to deal with criminals, it does not make much difference wherher or not free will exists.

>>15826594
>or are you specifically going for making someone suffer and you need your criminals for that, so it's justified?
There is probably a lot of truth here btw.

>>15817987
>Physical variables of brain produces behavior
>Study that behavior based on physical variables
Neuropsychiatry is the only psychology worth a damn

>>15818181
Medicine isn't even a soft science. It is a practice that is informed by scientific disciplines like molecular biology and chemistry, but medicine itself isn't a science.

>>15826672
>informed by scientific discipline
Laughs in big pharma/military created virus and vaccines meant to cull people for WEF ideology and profit from it

>>15826614
Well, the problem is that intellectual and secular types believe in physical determinism and strict materialsm.

If you believe that all physical systems are strictly deterministic, and all consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of physical systems, you don't really have a choice but to believe in psychological/conscious determinism.

The problem is that the two pillars of that belief structure don't really hold up under scrutiny.

Physical determinism is an inferential modelling approach that works really well for theoretical physics, but isn't anymore "true" when applying it to material reality than mathematical proofs are. Whether "at the bottom of everything" all physical interactions are purely deterministic is an axiomatic matter of faith, not something scientifically validated.

Similarly, whether conscious phenomenon are strictly determined as an emergent phenomenon from physical/material interactions is also unproven and largely unengaged with. We know in a stochastic sense the way many parts of the brain function and the way certain chemical compounds interact with existing consciousness, but have come really no closer to proving in a meaningful sense that consciousness "emerges" from physical material rather than simply interacting with it.

Tl;Dr they have two faith-based structures by which they view the world that they consider scientific. Those faith-based structures would necessitate determinism if they were true, but are largely untested and untestable.

>>15826685
Science is an algorithm for discovering truths about testable hypotheses, not a system of morality or ideology.

Even if it were the case that the medical practice were using the state of the art physical chemistry to create weapons for nefarious purposes (which I'm sure some people are), that doesn't change the reality that it is informed by the scientific discipline of physical chemistry.

Science can't lead you to morality or philosophy.

>>15826697
>shady hands all over product
>NOOO ITS SCIENCE!!
goyslop

>>15825199
If anything that's a point against free will, your brain making decisions it's programmed to is not free will, it's like a computer running a program, is the computer exercising free will?

>>15826708
Are you completely retarded? Something being scientific doesn't mean something is good.

Shady hands do science all the damn time. There's been an absolute fuck ton of unethical scientific experiments done throughout history that have nonetheless produced scientific results.

There's also plenty of things that are called "science" that are not properly scientific. Science != Ethical/Moral etc. They are separate concepts.

>>15817987
Everyone on this is retarded and the answer is right in front of them.

People have free will, but they exercise it by building value models far before they are faced with a value choice. Scientists always measure people at the choice point, but by then the person is just carrying out a decision they made way earlier about what to do when they encounter the choice.

For most people, their value models can only change while they are dreaming. That's why hallucinogenic drugs help people make huge changes in their life, like people giving up addictions or getting over traumas. It activates the dream centers which allows somebody to walk you through active value changing while awake. You can do the same thing by just praying every night before bed, of course.

>>15826614
God's act of will is so rich that he can will that contingent things happen contingently and that necessary things happen necessarily.

I thought free will had to be within a certain structure. When you enlarge and redefine the structure the determination of free will changes. So it's infinite free will within infinitely expanding structures.

(Sorry about pic but it's related and free will and all)

>>15819688
>>do you make decisions based on food tasting good or fun things being fun? Then you don't make decisions, you're a slave to dopamine. :^)
that's not wrong though

>>15826726
Something being scientific means they follow the scientific method to deliver the results. When you have money, political ideology delivering conclusion, its not science.

I don't understand where the free will believers think free will "lives" in the brain.

what is making free choices; how does that happen

the only way i can think of there being a free will engine is you having a "soul" that is supernatural in existence. Something not created by atoms in your brain

>>15826981
>(Sorry about pic but it's related and free will and all)

>>15827234
You're not thinking far enough.
You understand the brain well enough to decide that there's nothing in there you would call free will, so you push the issue back and say that there would have to be a soul. But what would that look like? What could the nature of a soul be such that, if you understood it as well as we understand the brain, you would accept that it has free will?

Free will in many peoples' minds seem to be the hope that there is some part of them that will never be understood.

>>15820338
Book from this jewish scientific is pretty much humans are NPC then control every single aspects of life because greatness good.
Any outsides is a defective human must be eliminate.

>>15822791
It makes for good political optics.

>>15827278
>Free will in many peoples' minds seem to be the hope that there is some part of them that will never be understood.
Not a definition of freel will

>>15827278
this feeling of wanting to not be understand is weird to me. I just say everything honestly and leave nothing secret to me. But normies seem to like having some mystery to them for whatever reason. They will get uncomfortable or annoyed if you figure something out

>>15827474
I think most people like to feel special, and there's nothing more mundane than being known.
I freak out about people understanding me but mostly because of self-esteem issues and paranoia. Someone knowing something about me I don't deliberately tell them makes me feel like they just watched me shit myself.

>>15827477
Sounds like projection then.

>>15827531
Maybe. I'll be the first to admit I sometimes struggle to tell what is normal and what's just me.

>>15827184
I don't think you understand what the scientific method is.

The scientific method is simply a process for using an experimental approach to validate/invalidate a hypothesis. It doesn't tell you anything about what questions to ask, what hypotheses to propose, or what assumptions to make in the process of designing the experiment and collecting data.

All of these are informed by these outside factors like funding, ideological/political beliefs etc. The presence of these influences does not mean that by definition the science has been compromised, it just means there is more of a risk of this occurring.

Ideological motivations are at the center of some of the most important scientific developments that have ever occurred. And yet, the science ended up being sound in spite of these ideological motivations by having the same process replicated by people with different motivations and achieving the same (or similar) results.

>>15827719
>Ideological motivations are at the center of some of the most important scientific developments that have ever occurred. And yet, the science ended up being sound in spite of these ideological motivations by having the same process replicated by people with different motivations and achieving the same (or similar) results.
Name some.

>>15827720
The entirety of the development of the atomic bomb and the following atomic revolution was developed out of an ideological drive to get to the bomb before the Nazis (and later perfect it before the Soviets).

The ideological drive to beat the Soviets to space led to an unprecedented revolution in electronics, control theory, communications and sensing technologies.

>>15817987
There is literally no such thing as free will. Only a religious nutjob would believe in such a thing. How is this controversial?

Define free will.

>>15828344
People are able to make their own choices and choose between different options. They can do what they want

>Why do some people turn out to be good and other people turn out to be bad?
>It’s because they were raised poorly, had a bad childhood, we’re surrounded by bad influences or the wrong people growing up, or genetics
>But you don’t have any control over any of that. You don’t get to control who raises you or what your environmental circumstances were as a child. So you don’t have free will

>>15828349
But what if you have no control over what you want?

>>15828349
Define "options." There aren't "options" if there was ever only one timeline.

>>15817987
Psychology is not a science. It is the observation of the input and output from biological software running in biological hardware which is profoundly different in every individual.
(t. neuroscience, neurochemistry, machine-learning)

>>15828361
>wants
>needs
Are you sure you understand what you are saying?

>>15828360
>>Why do some people turn out to be good and other people turn out to be bad?
Luck, given what you are born with.
AND
Luck, given how it is treated.
>you are welcome

>>15828415
AND
Luck, given how it consequently learns to respond to stimuli.

>>15818058
>YOU
What is "you"? What is an ego?
>DECISIONS
Define, does computer makes decisions?

>>15828787
make*

the only free will you are allowed to possess without you needing to be contained on /x/ or something stems from the very randomness affecting matter at even large scales. that's it. and should be enough really. this way the future is not set in stone, and there's nothing you can do to fully control everything.
this is sane, in line with observations, and could allow for more constructive dialogue considering all the new shit we learnt along the way. but noo, you will keep talking about the retarded free will and souls and shit forever.

>>15828414
You have no control over either. It’s not like you can wake up one day, declare “I want to be attracted to thick people”, snap your fingers and have it be so

>>15822820
Free will and the justice system can be reconciled when you realize the goal of the justice system isn’t to punish people for being evil. It’s a pragmatic institution created by society to isolate people who can potentially harm society from everyone else, regardless of if they have free will or not

>>15829350
If determinism is true then there's really no point in any punishment except the death penalty, because criminals can't choose not to commit crimes. It's quite a thing for you to argue for.

>there is no scientific basis for free will so it doesn't exist
Yeah there's no scientific basis for qualia either. When you start looking into these deepest mysteries of the human soul and will and so on, you don't find propositional closure.

Fundamentally though, people like this just like the idea that they won't be held to account in any cosmic sense for their sins.

>>15829353
Again it gets into pragmatism. Criminals may not have free will but determinism still posits that people can change based off of environmental factors. The idea of a criminal rethinking his behavior after spending time in prison or after undergoing rehabilitation isn’t contradictory to determinism

>>15821876
I'm STILL pissed about the blatant LIES I ran into when ordering materials for my aerospace Master's thesis research. 3D printing materials that were 4x weaker in tension than reported, falsified adhesive properties, and false fatigue properties. I made sure my thesis had all the steps laid properly, directly referenced those papers, snubbed them with my real results, and finished my thesis a month earlier than normal. I could have finished a semester early if the damn materials were real.

>>15829364
>Fundamentally though, people like this just like the idea that they won't be held to account in any cosmic sense for their sins.
This. It all goes back to the determinitard not wanting to be held accountable for his behavior.

>>15817987
I choose to not believe that

>>15829371
prove that you could've done otherwise.

>>15829353
it means they can reconsider their actions based on understanding what makes them behave that way and try to mitigate it from happening in the first place + tools to make those kinds of poor souls not do that shit again. the tools can't be developed if the thinking isn't there.
the "without free will people will go crazy" is a badly constructed argument for midwits.

>>15829371
>held accountable
why did we do this? two fold:
1. the general idea is to deter them from doing it again
2. primitive chemical flow in humans, they enjoy "the sense of justice". as in they get a free pass into hating and murdering because hey, "it's the right thing to do". an eye for an eye.
the issue is not that "criminals don't get punished" anymore, the issue is that humans won't have an excuse to freely hate someone, to demonize them. which is insanely lucrative politically. that's the real crux of the issue, taking away the right to hate. that's what humans want, not really to punish so to guy doesn't do criminal shit.
we are dealing with a primitive dynamic that is very lucrative politically and thus financially. if we are to take these away from humans, it's going to be a difficult fight, even with science backing it.
not considering it means we don't explore this better understanding and we can't discover much needed tools to mitigate criminal behavior. there's a bunch of implications for NOT doing it, and the real issue is politics and religion, these are what block progress on this front. well..as usual to be honest, always has been this way
>>15829391
technically you could, just that it isn't up to you anyway.

>>15829453 me
and most likely the most scared of a future where criminals are efficiently converted are the criminals themselves. they are the ones advocating against it. it only makes sense. or criminals enjoyers

Social sciences are just science in name, no non-retard considers them to belong to the same category as, say, physics

>>15829449
>based on understanding
They can't "understand" anything under your philosophical system. They're automatons who act based on purely ingrained instincts. They can do no self-reflection which will change their nature.

>>15829453
prove that you could've done otherwise, AND that the doing otherwise would've been 'chosen' by you and not determined by something objective (this is actually an infinite regress)

>>15829492
I do otherwise all the time. Is there something wrong with you?

>>15818058
But you aren't, chud.

>>15829498
you may do otherwise at a later time, that obviously doesn't count

>>15829847
Can you not do otherwise? I think you're projecting your disability on other people.

>>15829850
stop joking around, and prove that the potential to have done otherwise is a real thing

>>15829852
I'm not joking. The proof is that I have that capacity.

>>15829853
show it

>>15829858
I show it every day of my life. My question is why don't you? Was there a circumstance of your birth that crippled you and made you unable to choose? Did an unavoidable cosmic urge force you to come to /r/science and disgorge your vomitous argument here day after day? Is a voice telling you to do it, perhaps?

>>15829864
post proof here

>why don't you?
because it's impossible lol

>>15829869
Nothing would satisfy you because your disability prevents you from changing your mind.

>>15829881
actually no, proof would satisfy me

>>15829887
So you're claiming you can do otherwise? I'm not sure I believe you.

>>15829893
>So you're claiming you can do otherwise?
no?

>>15829952
So no proof will satisfy you. Just like I thought.

>>15829954
still no proof has been presented :)

>>15829957
Ouch reflexes why are they so picky

>>15817987
I wonder what weird circumstances brought that stanford scientist to do such weird research.
Even more so what compelled OP to make a thread about it and even worse why I am replying to it.

>>15825440
Go ahead and elaborate on your schizoramble. Show me who tells it to the masses and explain how it benefits them.

>>15825514
What's your point? Were you trying to demonstrate how I'm right? Are you even sentient?

soicology

>>15825514
You seem to believe in some kind of extra-retarded, science-flavored form of dualism where self-awareness and self-reflection are some inconsequential parallel dimensions of cognition that have no bearing on decisions. This is plainly absurd but I can see how a nonsentient, psuedoscience-worshipping NPC would believe it.

>>15829492
>prove that you could've done otherwise
https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00113
proof. (real) random quantum cancer. could have happened, could have not. random. you could have done otherwise, it was not up to you. it was up to random.

>>15817989
Heh. Primed to respond emotionally, munke lashes out

>>15830638
sorry no, this is just showing a random pattern, it does not show that said pattern could have beeen any different.

>>15818058
and all the other stuff outside of logic and decisions and survival?

>>15830527
>extra-retarded, science-flavored form of dualism where self-awareness and self-reflection are some inconsequential parallel dimensions of cognition that have no bearing on decisions
I don't even know how to parse this into a semantic category other than word salad, let alone begin to understand how you went about inferring such a belief from my post.

If some corpus callosotomy patient can present an exaggerated sense of self-agency, where they produce verbal confabulations discordant with other behavior, whereas another can present with essentially the opposite (i.e. alien hand syndrome), then self-evidency alone cannot be a reliable deducer of truth in this matter. Unless you want to special plead and define these patients as not real people, which I haven't seen a convincing argument for.

If you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, you are deterministically removing certain possibilities from life and thus you can gain a certain freedom in noncompliance.

>>15817987
Stanford scientist (who was destined to be so), after decades of study (that he didn't choose to do), concludes (through no free will of his own): We don't have free will (just as it was preordained).
Wow. what a nothingburger. What a complete non-statement. How endlessly mundane.

>>15830961
it's an important ontological matter

The anti-determinism crowd gets stumped with one question
>Why do some people end up making good decisions and others end up making bad decisions
If you answer with “genetics” “intelligence” “education” “how they were raised” “their role models/influences” “their personality” then determinism wins

If you ask “why” enough times determinism wins

>>15831376
>>Why do some people end up making good decisions and others end up making bad decisions
Surely you must understand probability, anon. The chance of making a good decision vs. a bad one is 50/50. Your decision is either good or bad.

>>15831382
So it’s all entirely luck? The reason why some people turn to crime and others don’t is completely arbitrary? Then that’s practically no different from determinism anyways, you can’t blame anyone for anything because the people we hate are just unlucky

>>15831387
Oh no it has nothing to do with luck, but not everyone can pick the good choices. It is, after all, either a good choice or a bad choice. That's half of all choices!

>>15830950
>self-evidency alone cannot be a reliable deducer of truth in this matter.
Are you going to claim that self-awareness and self-reflection don't impact your decisions, but only serve to confabulate rationalizations for them? This is self-evidently absurd and something only a meat GPT would conceive of. If you're not claiming this, what is your point? That the brain can rationalize "autonomous" actions that higher cognition doesn't even enter into, in order to keep the internal experience coherent? That is interesting, and it has no bearing whatsoever on decisions in which higher cognition plays a crucial role. In short, you're a pseud and your belief system is a cult.

bumping to prove my free will

>>15832037
where on this cortical pyramidal neuron is the free will contained?

>>15832042
>nonsensical bot reply

>>15832060
>filtered by basic neuroscience
many such cases. maybe open a textbook or do some computational modelling before you talk about muh free will

>>15832085
>nonsensical bot reply followed by 100% generic babble

>>15832205
quality contributions, keep it up

>>15832227
call me back when you have anything rational to say. your nonsensical reification fallacy barely passes as sentient

>>15826004
Read the book, moron

>>15832427
Not an argument. Nothing is fair or unfair when you reject free will. Everyone is just doing what le physics force them too.

>>15831442
>Are you going to claim that self-awareness and self-reflection don't impact your decisions, but only serve to confabulate rationalizations for them?
No, the validity of an argument for or against a claim can be questioned without positing the claim itself to be true or false. Showing that an alleged (dis)proof of the Riemann hypothesis is bogus does not mean the Riemann hypothesis actually holds or not. FWIW, I'm not the anon who posted >>15821872.

>If you're not claiming this, what is your point? That the brain can rationalize "autonomous" actions that higher cognition doesn't even enter into, in order to keep the internal experience coherent? That is interesting, and it has no bearing whatsoever on decisions in which higher cognition plays a crucial role.
Sounds like weasel words. How do you formally demarcate a decision incorporating what you deem to be a sufficient quantity of higher cognition and one without?

>In short, you're a pseud and your belief system is a cult.
I'm not the one debating with appeals to mockery and common sense. My belief system is the scientific method and if you're gonna stoop so low as to reject that then you should definitely stop wasting time on /sci/.

>>15820527
This is the correct answer. Or actually one step further, "randomness" likely doesn't actually exist at all - it is just a shorthand term for "thing we can not reliability predict yet." This is true for things we even consider "random" now, like radioactive decay.

Think about it: it's impossible to prove if a fundamental phenomena is actually "random" or rather we are just lacking knowledge of a (as yet undiscovered) more fundamental law that is determining it. It's basically Plato's Cave. We can keep going "down" deeper into layers of reality to find even more fundamental laws and particles (sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic particles).

And theoretically, if we had all the tools and knowledge to 100% reliability predict a random phenomena, then it wouldn't actually be "random" it would now be known to be just regular old deterministic cause and effect (like everything else in the universe). The scientific method is also predicated on reproducibility. So if a phenomena can not be reliability reproduced, it doesn't prove it as false, because you can't prove a negative. You can only positively prove a claim based on reproducibility.

Randomness can not be proven, because it is a negative claim (randomness is just an absence of predictableness) and thus randomness is not reproducible. So if randomness is a real fundamental truth, it is forever a known-unknown.

And this doesn't even get into the computation issue: it's possible that the entire universe itself could be predicted and calculated accurately (fully deterministic) but to do so would require a computer capable of reproducing the whole universe (mathematically). Which we would never be able to create and contain within the universe itself. To be able to fully calculate the deterministic nature of the universe would require one to be outside of the universe to calculate it. It's not impossible, but practically speaking undoable without some deep reality-bending technology or god-like consciousness.

>>15825479
>I still haven't seen anyone explain how something can exist without a cause.
Because to the best of our knowledge, it can't. And that alone basically hints at the universe being deterministic. Everything in the universe is bound by the chain of cause -> effect -> cause -> effect -> etc etc. And if this is true, then the actions of a human making a "decision" are no different than the actions of a river flowing down a hill, or the formation of a hurricane. Just complex interchanges of natural phenomena.
The only thing unique about a brain is it's a ability to adjust it's own outputs based on its inputs, and loop the outputs back into itself as new inputs (reflection/awareness). But even basic computer programs can do that, albeit at a much simpler level. So there's nothing supernatural about how brains function.

>>15832792
>the validity of an argument for or against a claim can be questioned without positing the claim itself to be true or false
You repeatedly fail to explain how what you posted even relates to what you're "questioning" beyond vague implications.

>How do you formally demarcate a decision incorporating what you deem to be a sufficient quantity of higher cognition and one without?
There's no need to demarcate anything. You either admit that some such decisions exist, or admit that you're arguing the absurdity outlined previously (which indeed follows from your retarded beliefs, but you obviously can't admit because you know you lose the argument immediately).

>My belief system is the scientific method
LOL. Thanks for confirming that you're part of a literal cult.

>>15831382
Probability doesn't debunk determinism. It just proves we lack the information to fully predict the phenomena. All future events (probability) rapidly collapses to 1.0 the closer in time you get to the point in which the event is determined. And all past events are set in stone with their given probability of 1.0.
If a coin toss has a 0.5 probability of heads, it's probability of heads is realized the moment the coin comes to rest. It thus either collapses to 1.0 (heads) or 0.0 (tails).
It's the same with weather predictions - weather isn't probabilistic, it's just that there are so many variables that our ape minds can't possibly grasp all the data needed for proper full calculations. And as future "predictions" approach the present, the probability collapses into reality (eventually an 80% chance of rain is adjusted through time, and determined to be either 100% (it did rain) or 0% (it didn't rain)).
The past and present isn't probabilistic, unless you can somehow prove that past events have probability to change after being determined (breaking cause and effect).
When you realize this, there is no other way that events could have unfoldeed.

Words like chance, luck, probability, and random are just different ways to describe our human lack of understanding of the full complexity of certain systems. "Luck" is not an actual fundamental force of nature, it's just a conceptual convenience to describe we humans use to describe a cause/effect chain that has more data than we can process with our currently limited tools.

>>15833512
Reminder that cause and effect are primitive human fictions.

>>15833151
>You repeatedly fail to explain how what you posted even relates to what you're "questioning" beyond vague implications.
Different people and different cerebral hemispheres of their brains incorrectly identify whether or not they made a decision. How can this be observed if such an identification is self-evident? Self-evidency means they should always have the right answer, by definition.

>There's no need to demarcate anything. You either admit that some such decisions exist, or admit that you're arguing the absurdity outlined previously (which indeed follows from your retarded beliefs, but you obviously can't admit because you know you lose the argument immediately).
You've only asserted absurdity ipso facto rather than demonstrating it so far. What logical and experimental contradictions result from denying the existence of these decisions? I want to believe you are right, but I don't know how to operationally find the answer to this question.

>LOL. Thanks for confirming that you're part of a literal cult.
Is it opposite day? Do I fit in yet?

>>15833625
>Different people and different cerebral hemispheres of their brains incorrectly identify whether or not they made a decision.
In an extremely narrow context that can't be extrapolated.

>You've only asserted absurdity
Are you going to claim that self-awareness and self-reflection don't impact your decisions, but only serve to confabulate rationalizations for them? Notice how you are unable to give a 'yes'/'no' answer.