/sci/ - Science & Math

>ranking on a # basis rather than per capita
derp

>>2863255
I picked a random picture tbh but i doubt thats done with pure figures or china would make more appearances.

>>2863247
define free will

>>2863260
If the universe were rewound to just before I posted this thread and I chose to do something different, I'd have free will.

>>2863266
define yourself

free will exists but within a limited periphery.

There is no free will.

Also whether we acknowledge or not, doesn't change the reality.

Typical criminal case:
Guy murders someone.
He was determined to do that.
But we were also determined to punish him for it.

Also: That picture is made with per capita.

>>2863255
definitely not ranked by # why would the UK be in there for "Total Crimes" lol foo'

>>2863281
this isnt the case though is it.
If everyone came to the conclusion that free will does not exist they would surely see punishment as immoral and so stop punishments.

>>2863286
what?

>>2863286
What is immoral?

Also i know determinism and i don't see punishment as wrong.

It is just result of evolution and it helps us to refine ourselves as a species

>>2863293
isn't that a bit fascisty XD
sounds like a sorta shadow of eugenics to me

also i know these things are difficult to define but surely it's atleast intuitively immoral to punish someone for something they could not have avoided doing.

Vid related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4pKblwm4V8

>>2863308
damn broken sound card :(

>>2863302
What if it stops other people from doing the same?

You are saying that people are just going to give up punishment when crime reaches all time high.
Why work if you can steal?
All this while you have justification of "i can't stop me from stealing"

You also have to take into account that you as the law and punisher have the exact same justification. You can't stop yourself from punishing criminals.

>>2863308

good stuff is at 3:24.

>>2863325
If you think something is immoral you shouldn't do it right? Then why if a judge has come to the conclusion (as we have) that people do not have free will, should he sentence the man to punishment? In the individual case.

I'm not here to argue or anything I'm still trying to get my head around the concept to be honest.

>>2863247
There are two parts to determinism. Part 1 is the idea that everything that occurs, occurs according to natural laws that are known or knowable. If anything supernatural exists, it can look but can't touch (Deism, and the soul is just along for the ride). This is hard to refute and must be regarded as true, or at least as very likely.
Part 2 is that all physical processes are non-random when viewed at the lowest level. As far as we can tell, this isn't true, down at the quantum level, except in a statistical sense.
So we have a universe which is not, strictly speaking, totally predetermined, but one in which we have no actual control over events.

This has nothing to do with punishing criminals though. If Joe is predestined to rob people, then the policemen are also predestined to pursue him, the DA to prosecute him, the jury to convict him, and so on. There's no reason to worry about his lack of control while ignoring everyone else's.

>>2863358
The judge doesn't have free will.
It's not immoral for him to punish criminals.
This is his job, and it secures a functionin society.

It's not immoral to save lives and security.
Without punishment there is no order.
Sometimes we must sacrifice one for the greater good.

>>2863382
Determinism surely has some effect on the law though.
Maybe the better way to look at what I am getting at is:
Does determinism leave any room for the ideas of justice or morality?

>>2863413
Again, though, you're cheating. It does not and cannot matter if determinism leaves any room for the ideas of justice or morality. People are predestined to have the moral beliefs that they do, and to make the laws that they do. If you believe behavior is predetermined, you must also believe that the morals people have are predetermined and the laws they make are also predetermined. The people cannot be more morally responsible for the justice of their laws than the criminal is for breaking them.

>>2863413
There are no morals.
There is only personal opinions of people.
This what i was after when i asked, what is immoral.

Justice depends on the definition.
It could be said that it exist as actions that are beneficial to the society or mankind.
If justice means some form of "right" then it too, doesnt' exist.

>>2863444
right now surely this should colour your answer to my 2nd question (in the original post)
If justice and morality are non-existant this must surely affect the way you live your life.

>>2863462
It doesn't too much.
I try to live my life according to my ability.
I just see the reality that is behind all this.

I have my morals and i will act according to them.
I see justice to be those actions that help me, my nation and humans in general.

I don't see why we should act in completely different matter even if determinism was widely accepted.

>>2863501
Well I think accepting determinism has huge implications. To be ambitious in a deterministic universe is basically nonsensical. You may as well cross your fingers right?

>>2863286
lack of free will is not the same as a lack of freedom, liberty or volition.


You brain is wired electrochemically to make decisions based on external stimulus. If it did something more than this, we'd have free will. People can still make good and bad choices. Good and bad being defined by society usually based on achieving human flourishing as opposed to give absolutely from above.

>>2863266

No, you would do the exact same thing because you already did.

Just because our brains are computational machines, ultimately acting in an automatic way (at the lowest level), does not affect the notion of free will on a social level.

On any level involving whole brains: free will exists.
On any level below whole brains: free will is n/a.
Why?
Because WE ARE OUR BRAINS!!!
If you go below the level of the self, you can't expect concepts that only emerge with the self to apply.
It's like saying "evolution doesn't exist (on a biological level) because when you look at the level of DNA it's just chemistry". Of course the concept of evolution doesn't apply to individual atoms in DNA, it only emerges at a higher level of complexity.

To say that "you don't have control over your own actions", is bullshit because the very concept of "you" already takes into account the determinism that you claim destroys >"your" ability to decide.
So, (deterministic)you does have (deterministic) control over your (deterministic)actions.
As determinism is attatched to all terms in the equation it can be ignored when dealing with problems such as what action to take and personal responsibility etc.

Now, onto morality,
of course morality exists. To behave in a way that you know is either unfair or will lead to a decrease in fairness is to act immorally. To act in such a way that is fair or will lead to an increase in fairness is to act morally. Simple as.
The only reason there are disputes over what is fair is because we do not have the capacity to completely prove what is the most fair option all the time (even though it in theory does exist). Simmilarly, there are disputes (opinions) over the effects of different economic strategies, but that doesn't mean economics is "subjective".

>>2864541

Very well put.

Good job.

>>2863247

I like how plastic surgery is included in your picture with rape.

>>2864541
>implying that the brain is not just responding to stimuli in much the same way that any other organism does

>implying that, because morality has a definition, there is some universal morality to ascribe to


possibly the weakest argument in the whole thread

I liked:>>2863382

and
>>2863501

And, in general, free will is not so important as people think. Some of your brain's stimuli are internal (memories, feelings, etc.), so what you think about free will or not will affect those parts. Whether or not there is free will does not affect the overall system of decision making.

ITT:
>If everybody know about determinism, then everybody can do whatever the fuck they want with no responsabilities.
Reality:
>If everybody knew and perfectly UNDERSTAND determinism, everybody will still follow the law because we would have eliminated the root of problems.

Free will is a given. We all experience it. The hard question is how it can exist. It is just as hard as how consciousness can exist, because free will and consciousness are the same thing. Or as Kierkegaard said, the "self" and free will are the same, and are a relating that relates itself to itself.

>>2864585

>We all experience it.

Not proof of free will. Also, not everyone experiences it (alien hand syndrome, schizophrenia)

Canada; Rape #3.
4/10

Bitches dont know about my quantum physics. Probabilism /sci/.
Also, Camus
"Knowing whether or not a man is free doesn't interest me. I can only experience my own freedom."

>>2864670

Quantum physics doesn't help or damage the idea of free will. It remains as impossible as ever.

>>2864677
True, but it doesn't help determinism.

>>2864677
Quantum physics is a dice roll whether you want to believe it or not.

>>2864690
And, if you take out chance from the free will/determinism argument you are just being simple minded

>>2864651
I thought Canada had the highest rape rate per capita?

And how is the UK second in "total crimes" when it has such a small population? For that matter how is the US higher than India in that category. Is crimes per capita /= total crimes.

>implying CO2 production is bad
Fuck the biosphere, fuck it hard with a chainsaw covered in tobasco sauce.

>>2864694

What do you mean?

You think disproving determinism would help the existance of free will?

>>2864690
There's no evidence that can distinguish between pure randomness and self-determination in quantum phenomena. Given the experience of free will, the default hypothesis should be that all quantum phenomena that is described statistically by distributions is actually self-determined rather than a "dice roll".

>>2864701
I dont give a shit about who wins the simple minded argument, thus the camus quote. Im just saying you guys are making pseudointellectual arguments because you arent even accounting for chance.

>>2864702

>self-determined

So sub-atomic particles have free will? That should be the default hypothesis?

>>2864707

Because chance wouldn't change anything.

If things happen according to predetermined rules it's determinism.

If things happen by chance they're random.

Free will fits neither of these. Anyone whose thought of free will has realized this, which is probably why it hasn't even been mentioned word-for-word.

>>2864701
It does. The fact that determinism is, for all intents and purposes, wrong, validates the idea of free will.

>>2864708
Yes

>>2864713
How would you experimentally distinguish between the random and the free?

>>2864716

see

>>2864713

How does randomness equal free will?

>>2864723

You can't.

But assuming that means it's free is preposterous.

>>2864700
>And how is the UK second in "total crimes" when it has such a small population?
give free money for kids, make traditional adoption almost impossible.

>>2864713
>Because chance wouldn't change anything.
thats just fucking silly
>If things happen according to predetermined rules it's determinism.
fair point but there is of course no way to prove this hypothesis.
>If things happen by chance they're random.
Yeah, that's what im saying there are random elements to life.
>Free will fits neither of these. Anyone whose thought of free will has realized this, which is probably why it hasn't even been mentioned word-for-word.
you seem to think im on the side of free-will which is incorrect. Like I said I dont give flying fuck. However, it could easily be argued that chance gives an opportunity for choice like in that new shitty movie "The Adjustment Bureau" the argument wasnt has clearly made has it should have been, and could have been clearer, but if you see the movie it makes its point

>>2863266
Why would you choose something different? Choices aren't random; they're made based on what you want and what the pros and cons of a decision are.

>>2864727
Still that would mean that it would have more than 3 times as many crimes as the US per capita. That just doesn't seem physically possible.

And having alot of crimes and arrests might just mean that a country has cops that actually do their jobs and very strict laws.

I know it's a troll chart, but they really should have put more effort into it.

I'm sorry, this is pic related. I'm no sci fag but the imense ignorance put into that pic just made me triple take. CO2 is not the poison deadly crap that everyone bitchs about. That's carbon dioxide, the shit you exhale and plants use for photosynthesis. I think it was supposed to be CO, carbon monoxide. The shot cars spew out to no end and is very much poisonus.

Experiments have already proven that human conciousness (i.e observation) affects the behaviour of sub-atomic particles on a quantum level.

It is this kind of ability that allows our actual thoughts to change the behaviour of the atoms in our brain (and not the other way around).
It is this kind of ability that makes it possible for the soul to excercise free will in an otherwise deterministic world.

>>2864839

>trying to troll
>use a picture of trollface as the image

>>2864859
He is doing fine by my watch.

>>2864839
This is correct. The brain creates a quantum superposition of electrical impulses. The consciousness, or soul, observes them and using free will decides which eigenstate is realized. This also explains why the electrical signal appear to be detected before the decision is made. That's because when the machine measures the brain, its state becomes entangled with the electrical signal. So when the soul collapses the wave function, it determines the state of the measuring device as well as that of the brain. So while it seems like the equipment predicted the choice, in reality the choice had a non-local affect on the records of the measurement.

>>2864898

Complete conjecture from start to finish.

Those numbers were not as high until we start giving niggers human rights. Fucking dumb liberals. I say send those nasty niggers back to the cotton fields and start making America better and pure again. Like white America should be! You don't see black stars on our flag, those are white stars!

>>2864912
Nevertheless it remains a promising scientific hypothesis. Further research into the role of the observer in quantum mechanics will either confirm the hypothesis or lead to a revised hypothesis about how interaction between spiritual and material entities takes place. It certainly can no longer be claimed that the lunatic dogma of materialism is supported by scientific evidence.

>>2864933

Except that a human consciousness doesn't affect the behaviour of sub-atomic particles, the apparatus we use when trying to measure them do.

>>2864965
You have no basis for that assertion.

The question of whether we have free will or merely the illusion thereof is irrelevant - we can't discern a difference between the two.

You're confusing observing with the act of measurement.

There is no basis for the original quote that I attacked:

>Experiments have already proven that human conciousness (i.e observation) affects the behaviour of sub-atomic particles on a quantum level.

I read about free will in War and Peace of Tolstoy.

Interesting to read as he explains that there's no such thing as free will due to time and our limitations.

(for example, if I raise my hand up I can't raise my hand up constantly, just once in a sec and not 500 times, neither can I do something else with that hand while I am raising it, I can't even raise it like I want to, but how it's the most comforting for my body/hand.)

Something like that.

>>2864992
Aether was wrong to say "proven." It would be better to say "suggested" since while this is the most straightforward interpretation of the experiments, there are also hidden-variable theories such as Bohmian mechanics which can also reproduce the experimental facts without requiring an observer. However, Bohmian mechanics has the clear disadvantage that it does not respect relativity of reference frames.

>>2864541
So you'r saying basically that this thread and your reply were already determined to exist.

>>2865035

So?

>>2865042
So that's what you're saying.

I would post an interesting and witty reply to your arguments that free will doesn't exist, but I chose not too.

It's actually pretty sad that some people would rather postulate hidden variables or alternate universes which we can never observe rather than admit that we live in a non-deterministic universe containing souls. After all, the soul is the only things you've ever directly observed; everything else is sense data.

>>2865061
Whatever you choose it was already determined in your brain before you became 'aware'.

>>2865075
Hah, yeah sure.
God exists too, prove me wrong.

>>2864700
>>2864727
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes

>Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

We have free will because I am choosing to respond to this thread, even though I could just not respond right now and forget I ever saw it.

>>2865067
>After all, the soul is the only things you've ever directly observed

Is that a fact?

>>2865096
It's a fact. You've never perceived actual neurons, only the image of neurons in your soul. Your soul is the one thing you can be absolutely sure exists; anything else could conceivably be an illusion.

>>2865123
I've never perceived a soul. What's its viscosity?

>>2865134
Yes you have, your soul is the only thing you apprehend directly. Do you feel happy? Sad? See the sensation (not the wavelength) of red? That's all your soul. It doesn't have a viscosity because it's not a material object. Don't be a silly troll.

>>2865123
How can I observe the soul if the soul is what I use to observe? How can I test for its existence if I must assume it exists a priori?

>>2865142
Those are mental states. You may as well say an AI has a soul, because it 'experiences' similar modes of existence.

>>2865143
You don't have to test for its existence. You already know it exists a priori.

>>2865154
If I want to rigorously show it exists, I do. Unless soul is some trivially inclusive concept.

>>2865153
Artificial intelligences, much like unicorns, do not exist. Therefore any argument citing them for evidence is the work of a madman.

>>2865159
Computer games have AI. In this case, I don't refer to strong, human like programs.

>>2865162
That reminds me of when I was a kid and would kill a bot in a game and started thinking to deeply about if it had consciousness since it could perceive what was going on in the game and make simple decisions based on that.

>>2865162
Characters in computer games don't have thoughts or feelings any more than a book has thoughts or feelings. Any thoughts or feelings it seems to have were just put there by the author. You know this.

One could wonder the same thing about tape worms and their small environment.

>>2865174
Books aren't active systems, so that's not a compelling analogy. What makes you think your mental states weren't inherited from past developments?

Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

>>2865142
> Do you feel happy? Sad?
Those are emotions, ni‍gger.
> See the sensation (not the wavelength) of red?
No, I don't see a sensation.
> That's all your soul.
You're redefining soul now to meet your nigg‍er argument?

>>2865184
Some books are active systems. Turn to page 8 if you want to learn more.

I know that my feelings are real and mine because I feel them. It's possible that books have feelings, but that I just don't know what they are because I've never been a book. But our knowledge of how books/games/other forms of entertainment work suggests otherwise.

As long as you don't know what you're going to do, you have free will. It may not exist in a physical sense, but it makes absolutely no difference to your existence.

Stop wasting your time on shit like this and maybe spend your time finding a way to actually improve live, instead of coming up with excuses for suffering.

>>2865215
Well, it's no wonder you're a racist if you can't distinguish between a person and the sensation their skin color creates in your disturbed soul.

>>2864898
Electrical impulses -are- subatomic particles. There's no soul necessary, it's turtles all the way down.

>>2865310
The soul's role is to collapse the wavefunction. The soul isn't electrical impulses, it just observes and controls them via wavefunction collapse.

>>2865314
> The soul's role is to
get back to >>>/x/

>>2865336
Don't like your determinist dogma being challenged by the advancement of science?

>>2865344
Wave functions collapse all the time, throughout the universe. Are all of these wave function collapses caused by individual souls? Are all of them caused by the same soul? Are none of them caused by souls at all?

Occam's looking kinda slicey.

>>2865352
>Wave functions collapse all the time, throughout the universe.
No, they only collapse when there are souls to observe it.

>>2865369
So all chemical reactions involve souls? All radioactive decay involves souls? The sun is full of souls?

I'm confused.

Oh, it's THIS chart again.
>switches back and forth between absolute numbers and per capita. In other words, a fucking joke with the sole purpose of making America look comparably worse and sow distrust and conflict amongst the communities of the internet.