/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3087320
Do you even need to ask?

>>3087326

Yes.

Oh look, it's this thread again.

The will certainly doesn't exist anymore. Freedom is debatable.

OP sure is a robot. A gay robot.

No.

>>3087349

But surely the fact that particles act in deterministic ways essentially means that we have no free will.

>>3087331
then you have free will, good job.
/thread

I can't choose whether i have it or not.

does that answer your question?

Depends entirely on how you define it.
In genral no but of course you can define it so that it exists
Troll thread

Ultimately it's impossible to know.
But according to our human perception it seems fairly unlikely that we wouldn't have free will.

>>3087383
what possible mechanism could there be for free will to exist?

>>3087395
Magic.

>>3087395
<div class="math">\sigma_A\sigma_B \geq \frac12 |\langle[A,B]\rangle|</div>

>>3087395
>what possible mechanism could there be for free will to exist?

>>3087395
Uhh the variables your brain are capable of?
/thread

I am dissapoint /sci/.

Define free will.

And I think it's gonna be a long long time, til touch down brings me round again to find

>>3087466
Did you have some other expectation?

>>3087320
No, although I should warn you that this thread is doomed to become swamped with morons claiming that we do.

>>3087457
I mean what's making the decision? I don't think free will can exist without some sort of "consciousness", but that would have to be supernatural would it not?

No again this bs.
Ok, if you want a real answer listen.
I had hundreds of these threads.

Basically free will is impossible(in the way most people think free will).

Why?

1.If everything is deterministic then your brain is gonna react to stimulus, so everything you do and think is nothing more than a reflex, even if it seems deep and sophisticated the human brain, doesnt make a difference, its all energy/matter action/reaction etc.

2.Everything is random.
In this case you act randomly, everything is random.
Which you can't have free will, let alone will of any kind since nothing can be done.

3.We live in a deterministic world but our brains is random?
Same, we are random, no will whatsoever.

4.We live in a random world but our brains is deterministic?
Then reflexes.


Free will is impossible, and thats not really 'bad', its just how it is.
Even this post i post now, my ideas and thoughts are formed in my brain through matter and energy, which were shaped by some experiences and stimuli which i coulnd't control etc etc.

td;dr we actually live in a deterministic (for the most part) world, so free will does not exist.

Stop making these threads.

God dammit this thread again.
In the words of Sheldon Cooper, PhD
"While we live in a deterministic universe, you do have free will. Now sit down."

No, you have no free will. Now do whatever the fuck you want.

Part 1/?

As a determinist myself I would say that whatever action the man takes, it was the only decision he could ever make.

Whatever he does, it's not free will, it's a byproduct of causality. If you cool water enough it has to freeze. And if you send certain impulses down the optic nerve into the brain, the gooey neurons that make up the brain have to chemically react in one way. Those chemicals are our thoughts and emotions and personality and actions. Claiming that there is some magical force in the brain that can let us "choose" how our brain chemicals will react to impulses is just as ridiculous as claiming you can make a pot of water boil only with the force of your mind. The impulses that play on the brain are bound by the exact same laws of physics as the baseball in flight.

To change them would require nothing short of magic.

You're scoffing, just as you were destined to scoff from the moment the universe burst into existence billions of years ago. "After all," you say to your computer monitor, whilst arrogantly stroking your luxuriant beard, "I can choose to stand up or remain sitting! I'm sitting here right now, making the choice! I can do either one! I know what it feels like to freely choose!"

That feeling that you can choose to do something different than what you wind up doing is just a chemical side-effect, an impression of the emotions that feels like something it really isn't, just as a certain formation of clouds can look like a castle or a tree branch can look like it's flipping you the bird. You're getting an impression of something that isn't really there.

>>3087521
Part 2/?

Determinism is the only true scientific way of thinking. All other schools of thought are null and void. The idea is that humans possess control of some kind of invisible metaphysical energy ("soul") that lets them actually choose their actions, apart from the pure physical push of genetics and stimulus. It supposedly exists independently from the physical brain and it acts by choosing, not based on opinion, but by recognizing inherent "good" and "bad" things in the universe.

They imply that the emotional impression you get from a kitten in a blanket versus a pile of maggots on a human face is a result of the soul actually tuning into an inherent "goodness" in the first and "badness" in the second. They imply that these attributes exist whether you are there to observe them or not. They imply that if there were only two men left on Earth, and one murdered the other, the murder would still be wrong even though there is no one left to think it is wrong.

And by that, they say, humans are able to do something incredible, which is to re-make the physical universe in ways they see fit. It may have been destiny for a stone to roll to a certain spot and stay there, but this power of "will" lets a human actually interrupt that destiny by picking up the stone and sticking it in his pocket.

It only demonstrates how ridiculous this is when we notice that the only observable instance in all of the universe where this power is exercised is via one particular species living in one short span of time on one particular tiny speck of a planet out in the vast ocean of nowhere.

That would suggest that human beings are not only unique in their physiology, but actually harness a sort of energy that is stranger and, in some ways, more powerful than that found in the stars that dwarf their planet. We're back to the ridiculous geocentrism that says all of the universe revolves around us humans. As if there was something special about us.

>>3087521
>mfw I saw this thread a couple months ago and saved this quote too.

>>3087521
I would say man is quite capable to be as stupid as this anon, and he can choose to blame all existence on clockwork and never bother to accept his life as anything more causal.

>Agnostic determinist?

To all mind-body dualists:

How does the mind interact with the body? What is the mind?

There is no proof either way.

>>3087528
Oh it burns...
>cries to self

If a coin lands heads up we could say the coin chose to fall heads up, therefore coins have free will.
You don't need free will to make decisions. Even small AI programs make decisions. Decisions can be based purely on logic

Individual liberty, autonomy, etc. means that your self-aware brain is making decisions and can be held accountable for them.

Free will means that your brain is not pre-destined to make the decisions that it will make in biochemical process that it does.

Compatabilists believe in a version of free will that is closer to definition to liberty

We can say that the universe is deterministic without taking "power" away from ourselves. Free will-determinism is in that sense a false dichotomy because you can't accurately predict the future. But that doesn't mean free will exists. it's just an unrelated side effect.

>>3087542
I'm saying it's stupid to speculate on anything more at least until we know more.

>>3087320
probably not

>>3087320
Better question: Is there an athiest who believes in free will?

Determinism makes no sense, just because a black guy raped a white woman in 1975 does not eliminate free will.

>>3087589
Hitchens, but he also said something about how he recognises the irony in declaring you have free will - I wasn't entirely sure what he meant.

>>3087594
>doesn't understand determinism

>>3087597

> doesnt understand determinism

>>3087594
I thought glenn beck raped a girl in 1993?

>>3087595
He said something along the lines of, "You have no choice in the matter."

this thread:
>Implying the past and future exist
>implying that the idea of a "decision" is not a completely human (and empirically meaningless) concept

“If I hadn’t spent so much time studying Earthlings,” said the Tralfamadorian, “I wouldn’t have any idea what was meant by ‘free will.’ I’ve visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will.”

>>3087601

>doesn't understand irony

>>3087594
No one said anything would eliminate free will. But determinism has to be the default position -- at least until we prove we have the capacity to override nature

>>3087621

The fact that I exist within an environment does not mean there is no free will.

>>3087623
No one said we are eliminating the prospect of free will. But there's no way to prove it exists. So we have to go by what we know. There is not enough evidence to suggest free will.

>>3087563

How does having a biochemical basis for the human mind undermine free-will? This seems like a straw-man argument.

If all my life's experiences is encoded into my mind bio-chemically, and I draw on these experiences as I make my decision, then this to me does not undermine free will. Even if someone took a snapshot of my brain, and integrated forward all the PDE's to predict my next decisions, so what? A psychologist or a good friend could do the same. I am who I am.

>>3087510

This is my position.

>>3087616
another one:
Vonnegut has a way of making very bleak concepts funny.
Billy had a framed prayer on his office wall which expressed his method for keeping going, even though he was unenthusiastic about living. A lot of patients who saw the prayer on Billy’s wall told him that it helped them to keep going, too. It went like this: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.” Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future.

>>3087623
ITT CHALLENGE: EXCHANGE ALL WORDS RELATED TO EXIST WITH AN APPROPIATE FOR OF PERSIST.

>>3087631
You have presented any evidence for free will. You have merely presented used a straw man determinism to hold onto your belief in free will.

We have free will because we can do whatever we want. It's just that our wants are predetermined. Life is a roller coaster ride to be enjoyed.

Hitchens believes in free will? I am disappoint.

>>3087654
Yeah but it's more what is expressed here: >>3087648

>>3087631
Yes, but looking back on your life from your deathbed, could you say that it could have gone some other way? there was only one way, the way it went.
where is your choice? at what point was there a fork between what could have happened, and what did happen? I say never.

>>3087642

But I did use complete sentences and successfully communicated a coherent thought.

Words. Use them.

>>3087664
foreveralone.jpg.gz

>>3087676
*haven't.

there. that was the only error. My apologies. I assumed it was so minor you'd be able to work out what I meant from the context.

I expected too much of you.

Every moment in your life is a turning and every one a choosing. Somewhere you made a choice. All followed to this. The accounting is scrupulous. The shape is drawn. No line can be erased. I had no belief in your ability to move a coin to your bidding. How could you? A person's path through the world seldom changes and even more seldom will it change abruptly. And the shape of your path was visible from the beginning.

>>3087676
Hrm. Is there a deterministic system that can destroy information more than the human mind?

no, free will does not exist. if you do something irrational to prove you have a free will, you only did this to prove yourself you have a free will, and therefore the action was not free.

>>3087685
and if you act in an environment where you don't know how much of your action is buffered?

Define Free Will:
The ability for the mind to reach a conclusion about its environment via stimuli receptors with the goal of accomplishing a set of desired outcomes.

Define Determinism:
The concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state is completely, or at least to some large degree, determined by prior states.

These definitions can co-exist. It's a beautiful marriage of psychology and science.

Belief in free will = Belief that your decision-making mechanisms are somehow outside of cause&effect = Belief in the supernatural = gb2/x/

>>3087682
I got here the same way the coin did

>>3087692
Only if you use a compatibilitist definition of free will. Too many people try to define free will as overriding causality itself.

>>3087692
>The ability for the mind to reach a conclusion about its environment via stimuli receptors with the goal of accomplishing a set of desired outcomes.
this is a terrible definition of free will.

>>3087696
but could you determine that from the initial conditions?

>>3087704
laplace's demon could

>>3087664

Wow. looser.

I could have married Sue instead of dumping her (god the sex was good).

I could have walked away from a business deal, but I chose to gamble.

I'm sorry you have never stood at an obvious fork in your life and had too look within at who you are in order to make a decision.

>>3087594
Did anyone get what this guy was trying to say?

>>3087710
So clairvoyant are in actual fact claiming to be able to predict the position and momentum of particles? Interesting... If I ever meet one I'll be sure to tell CERN.

>>3087715
That "look inside yourself" was just another cog in the deterministic system of cause and effect. Given the same conditions, you'd come to the same conclusions and make the same decisions, even if we'd rewind your life and let you do it all over again. There is no element of "free" choice.

>>3087710
Was his demon operating via free wil

>>3087715
facepalm
What I said was:
looking back now, is there a fork between two paths? or is there one path, the only path. yes you COULD have kept on banging sue, but you didn't, you never did, you never will, it just doesn't exist.
your small human mind believing that a hypothetical (read: fictional) situation is somehow occuring somewhere is irrational and a fallacy. it tricks your mind, but THAT never WAS bro.

>>3087703
I agree. But it represents what free will is and that was the point.

>>3087702
Yes that is the main issue in this thread it seems. For me the evidence for free will is in the brain's reliance on analysing the present in order to predict the future. It is a mathematical construct in itself and a subset of determinism.

>>3087742
>Yes that is the main issue in this thread it seems. For me the evidence for free will is in the brain's reliance on analysing the present in order to predict the future. It is a mathematical construct in itself and a subset of determinism.

Interesting. You make a good point. And I do believe this is the "irony" of free will we mentioned. It has to be considered an illusion since there is nothing particularly "free" about it as it's bound up in cause and effect. Perhaps "My Will" is a better term.

>>3087729

And that is your straw-man. You are defining free will in such a way that it cannot exist, then saying AH HA! it does not exist!

Christ, if I'd had a cold or been down I could have made different major decisions at times. There is also an element of randomness in the universe that gives space for our free-will (or for you our deterministic intellectual auto-processes) to shape our lives.

>>3087748
But you never had and were never going to have any more beers than your did have.

>>3087748
THEIST SPOTTED

>>3087748
How does randomness allow our free will to shape our lives?

>>3087748
It's not a straw man. It's just a lack of coherence in definition between two parties. You're using a compatibilitist definition while he isn't. The reason we don't have a single working definition is because there isn't any evidence to suggest free will is at all "free" from causality.

When there isn't any evidence you don't go speculating on the unknown. You stick with what you know: which is causality.

>>3087751

There you go again.

At some point I decided. Maybe a pretty girl caught my eye, and I chose to stay at the bar. Maybe my friend had one too many and I chose to leave because he was being a dick. True, the past is the past, but my internal state combined with the reality I observed lead me to make my decision. And that, my poor, confused philosopher friend, is free will.

>>3087748
>And that is your straw-man. You are defining free will in such a way that it cannot exist, then saying AH HA! it does not exist!
Nonsense, I defined it the same way you did.

>Christ, if I'd had a cold or been down I could have made different major decisions at times.
Which part of "given the same conditions" did you not understand? Yes, if you'd been sick rather than well at a certain fork in your life, then things might have been different, however, they *still* would have been within a deterministic causal chain. It would have just been different causes with different, but *equally inescapable* effects.

/sci/- Semantics

>>3087777
>my internal state combined with the reality I observed lead me to make my decision

This isn't free will. It's still very much locked within a causal chain of events. see: >>3087729

free will = god
/thread

Modern philosophical literature on the free will debate is not only concerned with the simple question of "does free will exist or not" but with the question of the definition of the term free will. The spectrum of opinions is not a simply bidirectional line of yay and nay sayers, but a complex of positions from metaphysical libertarians (who believe in contra-causal free will), many different types of compatibalists (who attempt to reconcile the term "free will" with a causal, mechanistic reality) and free will pessimists (who believe the term "free will" and our psychological intuitions regarding it are incoherent and must be abandoned for a more realistic look at human agency)
Many people in this thread need to read more professional philosophical writings (specifically of the analytic tradition) before coming to a conclusion on this issue, pic related

personally im torn between some forms of compatibalism (such as susan wolfs argument that the concept of sanity can satisfy our intuitions regarding moral responsibility while maintaining that we do not possess contra-causal free will) and complete free will pessimism (like galen strawsons Basic Argument position)

The only creature I know of that has free will is my cock .

>>3087528
>Determinism is the only true scientific way of thinking.
And Newtonian mechanics are the only true scientific laws of motion.
Hopefully the poster didn't equate indeterminism with free will, because that'd be just silly and proof of his lack of understanding.

I was thinking of posting a thread about free will and about the uncertainty principle, but since it's pretty late where I am I decided not to. As I scroll down, I see first a post about the UP and another about free will.

God is clearly toying with me.

>>3087807
Interesting.

A few things though. I don't see what particularly bleak about what you call the pessimistic view. I think the compatibalist definition is but an illusion. It may be or have been an important psychological illusion but I feel we can dispense with it since it may carry with it some troublesome--too often implying something superseding reality or a kind of humancentrism that could lead us into undermining the natural conditions on which we depend. What do you think?

>>3087528
>>Determinism is the only true scientific way of thinking. All other schools of thought are null and void.

Hi! I'm Werner Karl Heisenberg and I...
Uh...
you seem to be busy ehm, fellating yourself.
I'll be back later.

>>3087840

It is perceived as pessimistic because people want to be special and in control, and from that perspective a pessimistic attitude towards free will can seem rather dehumanizing.

Of course there's nothing actually wrong with it, it's just not what people want to hear.

>>3087845
>>3087830
the presence of uncertainty or randomness in the universe doesn't render causality null and void.

>>3087848
Well I'd have to say to that: Tough shit. The universe isn't required to be perfect synch with human ambition.

>>3087849
Causality =/= determinism.

>>3087856
>>3087845
>>3087830

I love how people really elucidate their points on here.

>>3087840
This is why I find debates over free will so confusing. Show me a single useful scientific notion that isn't intrinsically 'human-centric.'

It's all observer dependent. Observer-independent determinism is self-contradictory, it's entirely a fabrication. Pure metaphysics.

>>3087856
But it's a key factor. You're trying to advocate a compatibilitist approach and I'm trying to tell you that's a trick of the mind since it's still all bound up in causality.

>>3087854

Too bad most humans deny or are afraid to admit or consider that.

>>3087845

that was pretty fucking well elucidated :)

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

>>3087868
I know what it meant but it was too caught up in some it's own smugness to illustrate the point beyond insult.

>>3087864
>you're all trying to whip out your dick
>I'm all no homo

If free will exists you wouldn't post in this thread.

>>3087864
Compatibilist to what? Sorry, english is not my MT, maybe I missed something.
I'm not talking about free will, merely about determinism.
The entire discussion about free will makes little sense to me as I still can't seem to understand what consciousness is. Before I figure that out, any comment on my part about it would be like the story of the three blind men and the elephant.

This should come in handy for those who have been having difficulties with the definitions.

>>3087882
Well we're talking about determinism in relation free will. read the entire thread back to yourself if you want to understand the context of what I'm saying.

>>3087840

im sorry, i should have clarified the term "pessimism"
it doesn't necessarily imply a bleak, unhappy view of existence (although many people think not believing in free will would be bleak and unhappy) it is simply the technical term for the philosophical position that free will cannot exist under any definition due to some logical incoherency in the concept itself

i dont think compatibilists run the risk of implying something that supersedes physical laws, in fact compatibilists are careful to define free will in a way that matches our physical understanding of reality. The reason for this is to have a conception of free will that doesn't fly in the face of the laws of physics (like the metaphysical libertarians) but still allows us to hold onto our everyday intuitions about ourselves and our lives and maintain the idea of moral responsibility

essentially compatiblists are saying: "we dont have free will in the sense of being able to transcend physics, but thats okay! because we can understand the idea of free will that doesnt trouble us.

>>3087892
You're like those "agnostics" who can't understand the difference between belief and knowledge.
Hard indeterminism, faggot.

>>3087903
I think you're reading a bit too much into my picture.

>>3087897
Yeah we already spoke about that "pessimism" thing.

I just meant that there isn't that big a gap between the compatibilitists and the guys who say humans are moral agents because their actions are not predetermined

And I don't think morality has too necessarily come from free will (or the illusion of free will). the whole origin of morality is a separate debate which it's too late to get into

thanks for the discussion

Compatibilism > free will > hard determinism.

hard deterministic is the worst kind of determinism with the worst kind of people who believe in it.

>>3087933
Explain. these threads are always full of people stating and things and completely failing to follow up on it. Infuriating

>>3087942
But he did explain. "I don't like people who believe in hard determinism, therefore, it's wrong."

Never heard even a single convincing argument for free will. This thread sure as fuck didn't contain any either.

>>3087955

Perhaps _your_ life really is meaningless.

sorry sport.

>>3087964
>non sequitur
Blah, blah. Blah blah blah blah *blah* blah blah. Blah! Blah blah.

>>3087964
Still waiting on that explanation, sport.

Hard determinism =/= meaningless existence

Meaning is subjective anyway.

I don't know, but I think my captcha has good advice on the subject.

>>3087896
maybe, but I never mentioned free will. I merely pointed out a flaw in your definition, I didn't address the whole argument.
Where did you cough up that "compatibilist" from?

>>3087973

>>3087964
hahahhaI've been reading the thread for a while. and now it is officially over. this guy can't reconcile the fact that his "decisions" don't have any real meaning.
>Emotional investment in my life equals empirical meaning.
(this is what he REALLY believes)
UMAD BRO?
this is looking more and more like a religion vs. atheism thread.

>>3087972
>Hard determinism =/= meaningless existence
>Meaning is subjective anyway.
Those two statements are not compatible.

if youre an atheist: no
if youre a theist: most likely
if youre an agnostic: i dont know

its really that simple

>>3087980
How? Again I'm gonna need you to follow up on that.

>>3087980
There is no objective meaning. Are you saying that proves determinism false?

>>3087982
Are you serious or just trolling?

>>3087931

from what ive read it doesn't seem like compatibilists are edging into arguing moral responsibility requires no predetermination. in fact, most compatibilists assume our actions are predetermined, but simply that this doesn't need to bother us, it simply necessitates reconfiguring our concept of free will to match up with natural reality.

i agree with you that morality need not require free will, but it still seems like the issue of how we conceive of free will definitely affects ethical theory. After all, can we consider anyone to be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy for anything in light of our understanding of actions as determined by a series of mechanistic neurochemical events? (whether these mechanistic processes are entirely newtonian or exhibit quantum uncertainty is irrelevant) The issue of free will definitely effects moral discourse by either altering that discourse or forcing us to come up with compatibilistic interpretations of free will in order to preserve that discourse

>>3088014
>it simply necessitates reconfiguring our concept of free will to match up with natural reality

That's nice but it sounds kinda like they're just arbitrarily conceiving of something to keep themselves content and away from insanity or nihilism.

All I'm saying is you don't need to do that.

>>3087990
You can't say that determinism does not imply meaninglessness if you're also saying that meaning is subjective. In order to make a rule that determinism does not imply meaninglessness, meaning would have to be objective. If meaning is subjective, then for what meaning is for some people, determinism could very well imply meaninglessness.

My 2 copper pieces on this:
we really cannot discuss the qualities of consciousness unless we understand what it is and how it works first. It would be like claiming we have seen a painting because someone described it to us (crappy metaphore, maybe someone here can think of something better.)

Ultimately, what does "I" means? What does freedom means?

It appears obvious to me that indeterminism doesn't equal freedom of choice: a decision taken by a god who play dices is just as deterministic as one taken by a chess playing one. (it's 2 in the morning an english isn't my mothertongue, bear with me.)

As for the uncertainty principle, it's impossible to know if it's actually random. Maybe the concept of actual randomness eludes us, just as the idea of an eternal universe without a prime cause, but this doesn't make it wrong.

Free will doesn't exist. Your consciousness does though!

That means something damn it

We have no fucking clue of how consciousness actually works.
For all we know it could as well be some kind of event horizon: reached a certain point (self consciousness), the rules as we know them stop applying.

>>3088048
what you are describing is perfectly clear without the metaphor

Retarded, there is no proof either way.

Sure, I just got it on DVD.

>>3088031

i think that's absolutely a valid point. in fact many critiques of compatibilist positions complain that compatiblists are redefining free will in a trivial manner simply because they find the idea of free will pessimism repugnant somehow. a free will pessimist claim would be that free will is not savable as a concept due to basic incoherence and should be abandoned, and that it is our moral intuitions that require reconceiving in the face of an absence of free will. This would entail either defining moral responsibility in a way that fits with free will pessimism, or amending our moral discourse in a way that discounts the idea of moral responsibility (or abandoning moral discourse altogether and accepting moral nihilism). Many compatibilists find these options impossible or unpalatable and would therefore rather seek to salvage the concept of free will

Compatibilism is right, determinism is somewhat right (hard determinism is completely wrong), and free will is somewhat right (biblical free will is completely wrong).

>>3088059
yeah but metaphores are the post it of our brains (see what I did here?). The really cary the message across.

>>3088081
see
>>3087942

The brain is extremely fucking complex, it isn't a simple computer like most believe.

Therefore we do not know enough to be able to conclude if free will is right or determinism is right or whatever.

just wait another 10 years and see

>>3088086
this is /sci/.

no one knows what they are talking about while at the same time they think they do.

>>3088089
>> The brain is extremely fucking complex, it isn't a simple computer like most believe.

Neurobiologist here.
Thanks. I just needed to read this to remember the world isn't inhabited only by idiots.
I do agree with you, the new brain scanning techs will do miracles.

>>3088089
>Therefore we do not know enough to be able to conclude if free will is right or determinism is right or whatever.
We do, actually. On a macroscopic scale, absolutely everything we've observed about our universe so far has been bound by the laws of cause and effect. Assuming that the mind is somehow above those laws would be completely unwarranted. Determinism is a perfectly legitimate explanatory model until we actually come across some real evidence that contradicts it.

ITT: proof philosophy is full of idiots
ITT: hipster philosophy faggots throw empiricism and science out the window

>>3088107
Fuck empiricism if it takes away my free will.

>>3088104
Typical philosophy faggot.

go back to your pop sci books and post-modern philosophy.

>>3088112
Try an argument.

>>3088112
>durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>>3088110
empiricism doesn't prove free will or determinism either way, chances are both theories are wrong

>>3088110
I'm not just talking about free will, this include determinist faggots.

also you are obviously a determinist who is trying to make people who believe in free will more stupid than you determinists when instead they are equally stupid as you determinists

>>3088104
In the same sense that God is a perfectly legitimate explanatory model for the creation of the universe until evidence is found disproving his existence.

>>3088116
>>3088117
Shouldn't you guys before in your coffee stores on your macbooks and reading Nietzsche?

>>3088127
>be*

>>3088121
All empirical evidence so far points towards determinism. None points towards "free will". Claiming that both propositions are equal in terms of plausibility is just plain wrong.

>>3088122
see
>>3088116

>>3088130
But there isn't any evidence pointing toward determinism, and the pathetic level of understanding we have of the human mind points toward free will.

>>3088126
No, there was never any evidence for God.

>>3088107
>>3088107

Are you retarded? You think anyone in this thread is a professional philosopher?

You haven't tough that people have avoided this thread because, well, just look at it!

I hate the free will debate. this "big" philosophical question isn't relevant anymore. If free will is this magical something that isn't deterministic and/or random, then it doesn't exist. If it is, then we can slowly come to understand it. This debate is a non-issue.

>>3087452
How about I close the book you hipster fucking author.

and how about stop trying to base your belief on a young field which hasn't reached its peak yet.

code word for future self: ITT argument new thing perfect time and past thing brain PLY when young etc complexity issue new L and P obver and N science and test hypo

>>3088104
Why do you keep equating causality to determinism?
If the behaviour of quanta is indeed random determinism fails but causality is still intact.
Also, "On a macroscpic scale" is pretty much the same as saying "on really large numbers".
And you know the law of large numbers yes?
You can predict the behaviour of large amounts of atoms because statistic is more useful on large numbers.

>>3088130
really, what empirical evidence is there for determinism?

Have we solved any non-trivial non-linear systems that I don't know of?

>>3088140
>But there isn't any evidence pointing toward determinism
As I said, everything we know about the universe (on a macroscopic scale that is; quantum mechanics are an entirely different breed, though they're not an argument for *free* will either) is causal. Assuming that our consciousness and decision-making mechanisms are as well is just reasonable. I'm not saying it's *definitely* correct, but the evidence clearly points in that direction.

>and the pathetic level of understanding we have of the human mind points toward free will.
That's complete and utter bullshit. Not a single, peer-reviewed study has ever demonstrated humans to be free agents. That's just a lie.

>>3088112

most modern philosophers (at least in the analytic tradition) find science and empiricism fundamentally essential to valid philosophical debate

the claim that all philosophers (or even most) are postmodernists is factually untrue. i mean, seriously if all of the philosophically inclined people you've met were postmodernists then i feel terrible for you and apologize for your experiences

>>3087452
Can someone explain that picture.

I'm getting the feeling the argument is retarded.

>>3088107
Throwing childish insults and wearing a cape of superiority won't do much for you.
You want people to agree on you on determinism?
Here, predict when a single radioactive atom will decay.
Then we'll talk. Unitl then, the only honest answer anyone can give is "I don't know".

I don't understand how determinists can acutally live without killing themselves.

It just doesn't make any logical sense in reality.
it just doesn't feel right.
it feels.
wrong.

>>3088176

It sorta is.

Focus on the word 'predetermined.' (predetermined by who?)

>>3088165
>Why do you keep equating causality to determinism?
I don't equate the two. Determinism is simply based on causality.

>If the behaviour of quanta is indeed random determinism fails but causality is still intact.
Yeah, I'm not arguing this. The reason why I keep emphasizing on the *macroscopic* universe is because I'm well aware that quantum mechanics cast a potential shadow on determinism. They don't validate free will, though, which is why I don't see them as much of an argument against my position.

There is a general scientific picture of the world that lends itself to predictability and certainty of outcomes and hence more to determinism than any notions of freedom or free will. Indeed in many minds, science is still associated with the deterministic picture of the world, as it was in the nineteenth century. Modern science, however, draws a picture that is quite different.

The world according to nineteenth century science was, broadly, as follows. Very small particles of matter move about in virtually empty three-dimensional space. These particles act on one another with forces that are uniquely determined by their positioning and velocities. The forces of interaction, in their turn, uniquely determine, in accordance with Newton's laws, the subsequent movement of particles. Thus each subsequent state of the world is determined, in a unique way, by its preceding state. Determinism was an intrinsic feature of the scientific WORLDVIEW of that time. In such a world there was no room for freedom: it was illusory. Human beings, themselves merely aggregates of particles, had as much freedom as wound-up watch mechanisms.

In the twentieth century the scientific worldview underwent a radical change. It has turned out that subatomic physics cannot be understood within the framework of the Naive Realism of the preceding scientists. The Theory of Relativity and, especially, Quantum Mechanics require that our worldview be based on a critical (scientific) philosophy, according to which all our theories and mental pictures of the world are only devices to organise and foresee our experience, and not the images of the world as it "really" is. Thus along with the twentieth-century's specific discoveries in the physics of the micro-world, we should consider the emergence of a properly critical philosophy as a scientific discovery, and as one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the twentieth century.

>>3088176
It's the retard paradox. A retard paradox involves the supposition (by a retard) that something is retarded.

We now know the notion that ‘the world is "really" space in which small particles move along definite trajectories’, is illusory: it is contradicted by experimental facts. We also know that determinism, i.e. the notion that in the last analysis all the events in the world must have specific causes, is illusory too. On the contrary, freedom, which was banned from the science of the nineteenth century as an illusion, became a part, if not the essence, of reality. The mechanistic worldview saw the laws of nature as something that uniquely prescribes how events should develop, with indeterminacy resulting only from our lack of knowledge; contemporary science regards the laws of nature as only restrictions imposed on a basically non-deterministic world. It is not an accident that the most general laws of nature are conservation laws, which do not prescribe how things must be, but only put certain restrictions or constraints upon them.

There is genuine freedom in the world. When we observe it from the outside, it takes the form of quantum-mechanical unpredictability; when we observe it from within, we call it our free will. We know that the reason why our behaviour is unpredictable from the outside is that we have ultimate freedom of choice. This freedom is the very essence of our personalities, the treasure of our lives. It is given us as the first element of the world we come into.

Logically, the concept of free will is primary, impossible to derive or to explain from anything else. The concept of necessity, including the concept of a natural law, is a derivative: we call necessary, or predetermined, those things which cannot be changed at will, or by will.

>>3088185
>it just doesn't feel right.
Cool science, bro. It's like the mommy instinct that tells you that vaccines cause autism.

>>3087320
> Does free will exist?
Nope.The neurons have to fire /before/ you think. You're only made aware of your thoughts after the fact.

>>3088215
Come back when you acutally have a knowledge of neuroscience, philosophy,any other fucking things, and not pop neuroscience, philosophy, or any sort of pop sci.

this goes to everyone in this thread and also me

>>3088215
But that's just what stupid, old empirical evidence tells us. It's not a valid point, because tomorrow, we might discover our minds to run on invisible fairy dust that enables us to make decisions free from time and pesky causality, so... let's call it even, okay?

>>3088231
see
>>3088116

>>3088200
Macroscopic = large numbers. Go tell butteflies and cats that the behaviour of a single atom can't have any repercussion on a macroscopic level.
The fact that we can predict the behaviour of macroscopic systems is, from what I understand, only due to the law of large numbers:
a large number of trials will give you a result closer to the expected value. Think about half life of radioactive elemets: with more atoms, the overall decay is less random.

>>3088243
see:
non-linear dynamics and exact solutions

Good luck with your empiricism, bro.

>>3088243
typical philosophy faggot

how about you stop reciting what you read on wikipedia or your post-modern philosophy books.

>>3088252
Talking about pop science.

>>3088215
'sup pal?
...just trolling you.
Probably.

>>3088257
There was absolutely *nothing* even remotely post modern about anything I said. Do you even know what that term means?

All uranium found on earth is thought to have been synthesized during a supernova explosion that occurred roughly 5 billion years ago. Even before the laws of quantum mechanics were developed to their present level, the radioactivity of such elements has posed a challenge to determinism due to its unpredictability. One gram of uranium-238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance, contains some 2.5 x 1021 atoms. Each of these atoms are identical and indistinguishable according to all tests known to modern science. Yet about 12600 times a second, one of the atoms in that gram will decay, giving off an alpha particle. The challenge for determinism is to explain why and when decay occurs, since it does not seem to depend on external stimulus. Indeed, no extant theory of physics makes testable predictions of exactly when any given atom will decay.

>>3088275
I know how to make determinist faggots like you expose your stupid non-empathetical philosophical beliefs.

Of course OP. If it didnt why else would i post in this thead knowing ill look like a complete dumbshit who is getting trolled.

>>3088288
see
>>3088243

>>3088310
trolled hard

you stupid determinist

>>3088303
Because a causal chain of events made you develop into a dumbshit. No free will necessary.

>>3088320
troll detected

go back to your cave which you were pre-determined to do

if time exists then no free will does not

but then again if time doesn't exist life is kinda meaningless

>>3087420
source?

>>3088310
See:
>>3088243

>>3088328
>but then again if time doesn't exist life is kinda meaningless
No it isn't.

keep your nihilistic mindset off my science, philosophy fag.

>>3088340
Yes, I do see how much of a faggot you are.

Please continue.

If >>3088165 is true then >>3088168 must be false, because >>3088233 couldn't exist without this also existing >>3088052 . But if you ignore
>>3088117 then you also ignore >>3087790 which leads me to believe that >>3087807 is the only way any of you faggots will avoid being >>3087320

>>3088248
>Go tell butteflies and cats that the behaviour of a single atom can't have any repercussion on a macroscopic level.
That's really not what I was implying at all. I'm not denying, or ignoring quantum randomness and its potential effects on the macroscopic world in my argument. I was restricting myself to a macroscopic level, simply because I didn't want to get into any speculations about the implications of quantum mechanics. I already acknowledged this to be a potential deal-breaker for determinism in a previous post.

Point remains, though, that an argument against determinism based on the unpredictable behavior of particles at a quantum level is *not* automatically an argument for free will.

Hello, humans.

I am what you call a bee (a bumble one to be exact).

I find your beliefs on determinism and free will amusing.

Let me tell you one thing.

Determinism, free will, and Compatibilism; are all wrong.
There something you do not see, humans.

>>3088342
You're just mad, because your mom was determined to be a fat whore.

Free or Determined? You choose? Or has your thinking has already been determined by prior events?

There are a variety of positions and each has strong and weak aspects.

Which position has the best evidence and reasoning in support of it?

Which position is your position?

Do you choose not to have a position? Have you been programmed, trained or conditioned into making that response?

>>3088386
he really had no choice.

>>3088369
I agree on the indeterminism =/= freewill, mostly because I cannot give a definition of freewill anymore than I can give a definition of supernatural.
By determinism I mean the idea that the course of the events is preordained, like a mechanism. If quantum behaviour is actually random, this definition of determinism cannot stand.

>>3088384
Man with the X-Ray eyes here. I just had a look and, no, there isn't. Sorry.

>>3088412
>If quantum behaviour is actually random, this definition of determinism cannot stand.
I would agree. I think we reached some common ground after all.

>>3088413
But you don't have special bee eyes.

Free will is an illusion. It does not exist in the sense that most people think it as: our thoughts and actions are not independent of the external world. Our brains are constantly shaped by the environment, and we base our actions on this stimuli. This alone proves that we have no "free" will since it is constrained by the environment.

>>3088386
>>3088400
Either samefag or butthurt philosophy fags fucking each other.

>>3088421
I respect your personal belief even if though I do not agree.

>>3088416
Wait, what did you mean by determinism then?
I only knew this definition of the word.

Please stop posting in this thread.

There are several other free will threads still on other pages.

>>3088451
I don't think we have differing definitions. I agreed with you last post, because I do concede that, under the condition that quantum mechanics are acausal and truly random, hard determinism would be an insufficient explanatory model.

>>3088480
This one has the hottest bitches, though.

>>3088488
And the most booze

>>3088480
I'd like to, but the determinists have shown me I have no free will to choose an alternative thread.

Since this is true, this is the only thread I can post it. It's of utmost determined among any number of arbitrary choices, which one I shall choose.

That means, despite this being a completely arbitrary matter, the universe has determined that I choose it.

As you can see, I have no choice, even if that choice is arbitrary.

asking if human beings have free will or not is kind of like asking whether an atom is a wave or a particle... there is no "yes or no" answer.

In one sense, we are a force, driven by primal instincts instilled in us by either chance or design. In another sense, we are a body with a polar charge, attracted to other polar bodies through the medium of the senses, a mind in search of stimulation.

I guess the real question is, are these simply two forces, like waves crashing against each other in the ocean? Or is their an impassive observer, forwarding the cause of the id or ego in turn, at times favoring one over the other, but striving to keep both in a delicate balance, so as to differentiate himself from beasts and other men?

I like Searle's take on Determinism: "You're sitting in a restaurant, and the waiter says you have a choice between a vegetarian dish and a beef dish. You can't just say, 'Look, I'm a determinist; I'll just wait to see what I order.'"

look, all i know is, if free will existed, i should be able to blow shit up with my mind.

Compatibilism affirms the exact same things as hard determinism, but uses a different label for PR reasons.

Don't be a pussy.

>>3088628
Right and agnosticism is just the new age atheism.

Free will exists... but its worthless because there is no god...