/sci/ - Science & Math

Ways free will could scientifically exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>>15823267
Hi, Mr.Penrose, still saying that consciousness is a quantum event?

LOCK WILL UP
Give it to me straight, do we have enough evidence to put him in the slammer, please answer me, our community depends on it!

>>15823275
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nwcbfMHNf8

>>15823262
no

Not everything has to be quantum. Like really, consciousness is emergent phenomena, and calling it quantum put it on the wrong bandwagon of this quantum ages.

>I'm sure I'm unconscious, I've seen laser interference that shouldn't be there if I was observer, but yet I still see and percieve, world is weird.

>>15823262
Free will absolutely does not exist. Its just some ancient christcuck buzzword that means nothing.

>>15823267
Retarded nigger

>>15823350
>emergent phenomenon
Empty buzzword only used by NPC.

>>15823314
wordfilter "quantum" to "occult" and go to /x/

Accepting / rejecting free will is a matter of duality, itself rejecting the possibility that duality could be rejected, i.e. accepting duality.
OP could have written,
>"Do we have free will or semi-free will or pseudo-free will or limited free will or absolute free will..."
and another problem is, suppose I don't want free will, and I want something that works just like free will, but it's better than free will
now, some would say
>"If it works just like free will, i.e. it has the same property as free will, namely providing you with the faculty of choice, then isn't it just free will?"
this supposes some sort of "viral" or "infectious" nature to free will whereby it is able to conquer and invade anything that looks like free will, i.e. free will is a doppelgänger and hunts anything that looks like free will
so, where did this monster come from?!?! how is it possible for free will to become anything that gives you choice??

There's just something so very fitting about hearing leftards say
that consciousness doesn't exist
and free will doesn't exist
and independent, creative thought doesn't exist.

It's kind of like listening to a person born without genitals say that sex isn't real.

>>15823350
>>15823354
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

>A fun exercise is to eliminate the adjective "emergent" from any sentence in which it appears, and see if the sentence says anything different:

>Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
>After: Human intelligence is a product of neurons firing.
>Before: The behavior of the ant colony is the emergent outcome of the interactions of many individual ants.
>After: The behavior of the ant colony is the outcome of the interactions of many individual ants.
>Even better: A colony is made of ants. We can successfully predict some aspects of colony behavior using models that include only individual ants, without any global colony variables, showing that we understand how those colony behaviors arise from ant behaviors.

>Another fun exercise is to replace the word "emergent" with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:

>Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.
>After: Life is a magical phenomenon.
>Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
>After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.

>Does not each statement convey exactly the same amount of knowledge about the phenomenon's behavior? Does not each hypothesis fit exactly the same set of outcomes?

>>15823262
"People" who can't make the philosophical distinction between a rock rolling down a hill when it's kicked and a conscious, self-aware entity reacting to its circumstances are literal NPCs. There is no scientific or factual substance to this question. It's purely a matter of being able to make the distinction.

>>15823402
>lesswrong actually being less wrong about something
Goes to show how profoundly retarded emergentism must be, that even those clowns call it out.

>>15823402
>>15823410
Based

>>15823262
do we have free will (all the time)?
>no
does free will actually take alot of effort and mental conditioning to reach its threshold point
>yes
do you have to be trained in order to use free will?
>yes
do people innately know who to use their free will?
>no
now all the neuropsych and pseudopsych fuvktards can stfu.

>>15823262
As a being with limited perception and awareness, you inevitably experience your decision making process as free will, regardless of whether you believe in determinism or not, and indeed, weather or not it is a real thing. Only gods and laplace demons can be both conscious and lack free will.

>>15823497
>As a being with limited perception and awareness, you inevitably experience your decision making process as free will,
Wrong. You can have such a limited degree of awareness that you have no genuine decision-making process to speak of which usually results in passionate deteminitard regurgitations.

>>15823350
The problem is that anything in macroscopic level seems to be deterministic, albeit too chaotic to be easily predicted. Unless there's something special in our brains that allows for uncertainty, the argument for free will would be a weak one.

I myself strongly believe in free will, so I'd say there's something else to it. The idea of microtubules is appealing since that would "solve" part of the problem.

>>15823262
yup

>>15823555
>it seems deterministic
>i can't predict it
Pick one.

>>15823555
>too chaotic to be easily predicted
That's only true for retarts such as minds evolved for primarily passing on their genes or even just flushing their genes down the toilet.
We've evolved for reaching certain objectives and understanding the self is far from prioritized. That's why savantic abilities for calculation isn't the norm despite living in a mathematical reality.

>>15823579
Even trivial chaotic systems cannot be accurately predicted by any practical means.

>>15823262
We are either deterministic and all our behaviors can be predicted or we are deterministic but quantum physics makes us chaotic over time and our behavior can only be predicted on short scales. Neither are the metaphysical "free will" that magically allows you to do otherwise. You do what you do simple as

>>15823805
>t. NPC
See >>15823404

>>15823464
/thread

>>15823839
Yes, you are a system that makes decisions based on sensory input and self refrence but those decisions are bound by physical reality aka a deterministic process. There is no special metaphysical freewill.

>>15823849
>this zero-intellectual-content NPC regurgitation again
See >>15823404

>>15823849
except the special metaphysical free will we think about

>>15823853
What's your take on control systems and AI then?
>>15823857
ESL

>>15823865
>What's your take on control systems and AI then?
What do they have to do with anything?

>free will just isn't real, I read Rawls, I know
>it just isn't... Okay!?

>>15823262
oh no it don't

>>15823262
Depends. Are you a deterministic automaton? Are you alive?

>>15823262
not really, but your subconscious still makes decisions
the whole concept of "free will" is ill defined
obviously you aren't free to do anything, how is free will defined? the freedom to choose between two choices or not to choose at all? in that case the choice is made by your unconscious mind, but isn't that you as well?

>>15823977
what is life if not deterministic automatons? consciousness is not necessary for life in any case

>>15823987
>automatons
You meant: automata.

>consciousness is not necessary for life in any case
You meant: consciousness is not necessary for NPCs but consciousness is necessary for Human Life.

>>15823262
no.

free will is the ability to have done otherwise.

explaining why someone did not do X given they could have done X is impossible, thus this ability must not be real.

>>15824007
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>15824007
>explaining why someone did not do X given they could have done X is impossible, thus this ability must not be real.
proof?

>>15823262
No.
We have the ILLUSION of free will, but every choice we make is already pre-determined. We're just along for the ride.
>Minkowski Cube

>>15823354
there's nothing spacial about you as compared to any other human. you shit and die the same like anyone of us. the only difference maybe is that you are retarded

free will is a political concept and has nothing to do with science. doesn't make any kind of rational sense, and is always used for political means. free will is religious political propaganda nothing else. only retards argue for it.

>>15823262
if I can call you an idiot I have free will
>
holy sh1t I cant!!!

>>15823350
this is what I come to sci for
the pic
i didn't read your post

Even if you had free will, you'd be forced to own that ~_~ It's that you're only allowed to be free... Tuh.

>>15824196
Mphh, good kek

>>15824166
I'm morally and intellectually so different from you that we might as well be separate species.

>>15824166
>>15824249
Don't be fools, physics cannot create consciousness

>>15823262
You don't have free will. There are pre-determined checkpoints in your life that you are destined to cross no matter what but you're allowed have a bit of free will fun in between checkpoints. Does that make sense?

>>15824272
Yabut

Yes, and if you say no it's because you're a nigger trying to avoid consequences for your own actions.

>>15823262
This wording already assumes there is no free will, because it assumes it is only a matter of giving the right answer and you will be set as either Yes or No, and settled. OP already creates a sense of emergency as a passive victim and gets rid of all the responsibility and blame.

The answer is however obvious: can you make decisions? Obviously yes, you, an existing entity, consider two alternatives, then pick one, either the better or the worse. That is free will. Whether a machine or rock also have free will is another question, but we know for sure that a mind chooses what to think and what to do within the scope of its real world decisions. People are free to go against logic and deny free will, their denial then is evidence of their bullshit.

if you drink some beer you make different choices. a chemical alters the way your brain deals with info and suddenly starts making different choices than it would without alcohol.
that clearly means you don't have free will. else you'd make the exact same choices with or without alcohol.

>>15824362 me
whatever is calling the shots inside your brain, the algos, "free will", is always doing it considering input/output and context of your memories.
in your waking state you have a certain brainstate in which "free will" happns, as in normal (determined) behavior.
if you consume alcohol that internal state chances, but the overall process is the same
say you want to go saturday night to some club, but remember your ex will be there, and when you realize that you "free will" instantly into not going there.
where if you drink a few beers before, and you decide to go to that club, whenever the thought that your ex is there pops up, it WEIGHS differently in the "free will" process. hence you go to the club and make an ass of yourself in front of your ex.
you don't free will shit, you always weigh shit and compare possible outcomes and you always choose whatever fits you based on all info.

>>15824378 still me
and this happens with any brain state. be it with drugs, alcohol, love chemicals, pheromones, all these present different states of "free willing" your next move. each affects how shit weighs for you when you "free will". on alcohol you don't give a shit about social norms, that doesn't weigh in your decision making process. if it did you'd "free will" like you do in your normal waking state.

>>>/lit/22643615
>>Scientist, After Decades of Study, Concludes: We Don't Have Free Will
>
>https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientist-decades-dont-free.html
>
>Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new generation. Today we know epilepsy is a disease. By and large, it's accepted that a person who causes a fatal traffic accident while in the grip of a seizure should not be charged with murder. After more than 40 years studying humans and other primates, Sapolsky has reached the conclusion that virtually all human behavior is as far beyond our conscious control as the convulsions of a seizure, the division of cells or the beating of our hearts.
>
>This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane. "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."
>
>Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will. So do most philosophers and the vast majority of the general population. Free will is essential to how we see ourselves, fueling the satisfaction of achievement or the shame of failing to do the right thing. Saying that people have no free will is a great way to start an argument. This is partly why Sapolsky, who describes himself as "majorly averse to interpersonal conflict," put off writing his new book "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will." [...]

>>15824446
>>>/lit/22643615#

>Analyzing human behavior through the lens of any single discipline leaves room for the possibility that people choose their actions, he says. But after a long cross-disciplinary career, he feels it's intellectually dishonest to write anything other than what he sees as the unavoidable conclusion: Free will is a myth, and the sooner we accept that, the more just our society will be. "Determined," which comes out today, builds on Sapolsky's 2017 bestseller "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst," which won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and a slew of other accolades. The book breaks down the neurochemical influences that contribute to human behaviors, analyzing the milliseconds to centuries preceding, say, the pulling of a trigger or the suggestive touch on an arm. "Determined" goes a step further. If it's impossible for any single neuron or any single brain to act without influence from factors beyond its control, Sapolsky argues, there can be no logical room for free will.

Threadly reminder that free will denialism is nothing but an ideology. It is not a scientific stance. It has no factual content. It's a poorly rationalized expression of the mental constitution of chronically powerless "people" who deeply resent the sense of agency displayed by their betters.

Free will is an introspective fact. It is a quale or a set of qualia experienced in congruence with the informational observation of agency, volition, decision making and the hypothetical of having done otherwise (The determinist doesn't understand "How would you have felt if you didn't eat breakfast?"). Eleutherophobic WEF shills will claim this experience is "just an illusion". But they consistently fail to address the questions of necessity and persistence.

>necessity
According to determinists all behavior and all decisions are completely determined by physical laws on a lower level than the "illusion of free will". This "illusion" itself thus has no effect whatsoever. It is purely epiphenomenal. A person without that "illusion" would behave just like a person with that "illusion". In particular, this "illusion" cannot be an evolutionary advantage. In fact, it turns out to be a disadvantage. Producing such an "illusion" consumes energy. A person without "illusion of free will" would be energetically more efficient. The usual determinist reply to this argument is an ad hoc appeal to 17th century psychophysical parallelism: "Actions are accompanied by this illusion because ... uhm it just is like this even though I can't explain a mechanism".

>persistence
Once you understand an illusion, it loses its deceptive power. The 10th time you see the same optical illusion you immediately see right through it. You can e.g. freely (!) switch between the vase and the face, or state why Escher's paintings are paradoxical. The "illusion of free will" however cannot be escaped. In every action and every decision making you keep experiencing agency and volition. It is impossible to consciously decide (!) to switch into autopilot mode. Even though eleutherophobes claim to be just passive observers of their own behavior, the idea of your behavior acting completely contrary to your experienced will seems absurd. Can you imagine being remote controlled without a remote controller?

>>15823262
Nope.jpg

You don't need to be knowledgeable about physics or biology, the very concept is illogical. It is based entirely in ignorance, in the same sense as primitive peoples assigned natural phenomena to magic or deities, i.e. we don't understand the deterministic processes by which we act so we assume there's a "you" in charge of them. There are guys out there who dedicate themselves to fucking car exhaust pipes or wearing used diapers after microwaving them, there's no "free will" in that.

>>15824645
>Implying we are either in support of free will or determinism and the two can't be understood in a matter that combines them both

Will isn't direct, it's indirect. It is built-up mental power, such as having the will to give up smoking. Yes we do have free will but it doesn't concern our direct action, our direct actions are definitely determined.

You seem to have this image in your head of a man in a bubble who finds absolute parity in his wake, being totally physically free, as opposed to having restrictions such as the updraw of planetary conditions and a need to think. Free Will is the ability to temper or break what is already a given.

>>15823402
Now apply it to this sentence.

>From simple rules complexity emerges

>>15823404
What if the rock is self-aware, and reacting to its environment, the hill, by rolling down it? How would you rule this out if there is no scientific or factual substance to the question? If you can't make the distinction you are an NPC.

just saw a podcast with Brian Keating and Michio Kaku and they were talking about burgers not financing some science experiment as it wasn't looking for god or something along those lines (was some particle experiment/accelerator?)
do burgers really? is it that bad? as in institutionally? that would explain the sustained propaganda for free will and god and all that. I didn't think it was THAT bad.

>>15823262
for all practical purposes, yes

>>15824802
>What if the rock is self-aware
I don't see how your baseless hypothetical fantasies are relevant. Rocks aren't sentient as far as anyone can tell. You sound mentally ill.

>>15823262
https://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

>>15825362
>you can also add in at least a rudimentary understanding of quantum physics for good measure.
... he pretentiously states at the beginning of his blog post but then never mentions quantum again.

Quantum completely disproves everything you wrote. Quantum provides the mechanism of interaction that makes free will act freely on the physical world.

>>15825372
extremely low IQ post

>>15825362
>>15825373
>muh vortex math
>muh sacred geometry
>I le saw le geometric pattern of le circles and now I feel le universe must be le deterministic
>le circles perfectly describe my le mind
>*opens cock hungry mouth like a good soi boi*
>but I'm le totally different from the "I heckin love soience" crew doing the same with artist's impressions of space

>>15825391