/sci/ - Science & Math

Man: I want to fly
Physics: you can't. you are too heavy, and you lack features required for flying
Man: FUCK YOU! (builds airplane)
Physics: okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

Laws of physics are swell and everything, but the universe appears to be fundamentally random, not deterministic.

The mind is just the brain. Just because it's complex and not understood doesn't mean we should adopt a "not physical" explanation.

There is no free will, just deterministic processes in the brain.

>>3361076
youtube determinism and free will by daniel dennett.
mind = blown.
your welcome

>>3361121
Please state your definition of free will.
Then we talk.

>>3361098

I'd thought of that before but hadn't realised it'd been put forward by anyone (I've got no background in philosophy).

However, Laplace's demon is considering whether it'd be possible to predict the future if we could work out the position and speed of everything in the universe. All I'm asking is, because our brains are made of atoms whether we can actually have free will from that; working out the atoms' positions and movements is irrelevant since we're not trying to predict what will happen, merely consider whether what will happen is decided by physical laws or free will.

>>3361128

Doing that now, thanks for the suggestion.

>>3361130
I'm not the one who believes in it, so I wouldn't really have one. But following the meaning of words, "free" suggests that the will would be somehow uninfluenced, which is just not possible.

>>3361147
Here is how I look at it:
Freewill = free + will
ability to do something that you want freely; ie without anyone/thing some one telling you what to do. What you want to do freely is your choice, you choose what is best for you given a situation.
That is free will.
And yes despite the quantum uncertainty, even if the universe was fully deterministic, free will can exist.

>>3361134
The important thing to take from that is not that we can't work out those predictions because of some flaw in our observations, it's that the information simply doesn't exist.

Randomness (or rather, probability) is the rule.

>>3361168
I see what you're saying, but those choices you make are wholly deterministic processes. Your brain could not have changed from state A to state B in any other way, unless you want to introduce randomness. So you could never have chosen differently than you did. That doesn't feel very free to me.

The reason people do not get freewill and determinism is a linguistic one. Consider the following:
In a deterministic universe the future is inevitable.
The word 'inevitable' is highly misleading.

>>3361181
Yes ... that is about all the 'freeness' possible and it is enough. Think about it from a natural selection point of view. We do what we do to improve our condition and if we can do it without, say a dictatorship telling us what to do, we are free to choose.

Choice is the fundamental principal behind freewill. The more we have it the better the chance of avoiding harm and 'catching' the good.

Dan Dennett gives a talk on this in uni-edinburgh. It is 1.5 hours long but really gets to the point.

>>3361229
Randomness doesn't mean it's suddenly a freer choice.

I believe in soft free will, or as most call it compatibilism. The fact the initial state and surroundings dictate your behaviour just means you have a unique set of potential choices, not no choice at all.
When you're just a wee baby your actions mean little, you don't even understand any of the things you do. As you grow up sometime after age 6 you are suddenly faced with an enormous spectrum of choices, but as you establish your personality these will slowly filter out. I look at the matter by comparing degrees of freedom in choice as free will, which is derived from the aggregate of your past experiences. Your choices may not be free in the hard sense, but you have the ability to re-evaluate your past choices and act differently in the future. A rock will always fall when being thrown, but the same person can act differently in the exact same situation, albeit at a different time.

Free will doesn't exist.
All choices you make come from chemical makeup and past experiences. Simple as that.

>>3361236
You should think of the atoms in you brain as lots and lots of those small rocks, always "falling down when thrown", that is, always obeying the laws of physics. Just because it's a very complex system doesn't mean it's free from those laws. It's just a difference of scale.

>>3361076

>or that the mind isn't physical

Allow me to lecture you on the basic concepts that would alleviate your confusion.

Mind=/=Body

Psychical=/=Physical

No need to thank me!

>>3361251
no I accept the deterministic brain part, what I am trying to say is that there are degrees of non-free will, if you would prefer calling it that, and that our biggest issue with this debate is that any one moment only happens once so we can't prove anything.

>>3361284
>>/x/

>>Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

>>3361298

>>/b/

it kind of blows my mind that we can even think about the concept of free will and how the atoms in our reality react to it. Some will say that free will is a man-made illusion, but man is made of the same atoms as animals, plants, stars... everything, really. So if free will is an illusion, then I was predestined to write this response. But there's always the possibility that I won't submit this, or that I'll incorrectly type the captcha and have to do it all over again. Will it change the universe? Probably not. If free will exists, then I am destined to respond how I am responding, in spite of any consequence. If it does not exist, I am still destined to respond the same way, but I won't be changing anything in the universe. So obviously, I'm going to respond after having written all of this, but if I didn't submit this response and just went about my business, there's that possibility that our entire reality could change. Or that simply BECAUSE I pressed submit, our reality will change. Either way, it seems that no matter what you do, free will or predetermined destiny, you are going to change the universe.

Of course, I use the terms 'universe' and 'reality' with the same interchangeable meanings.

>>3361288
Totally agree....
density of choice = abs[freewill];

philosophy is fun!
>>3361301
Totally irrelevant, the premise here is that all physics is deterministic. If freewill exists in a deterministic universe it can also exist in the non-deterministic setting.

>>3361311
You already knew you were going to submit it before you even wrote it.
You were predisposed to it.

>>3361076

You are using Reducto Ad Absurdum.
Just because there are limitations does not necessarily indicate that there is no freedom at all.

Also read this (>>3361284).

You are mixing mental and physical when they already have their correspondents.
Either use mental and bodily or psychical and physical.

>>3361339
i didn't know that. in fact, if i didn't come back onto /sci/, i wouldn't have even written that response, or this one for that matter. and now my day is slowed down; i was going to go for a run 10 minutes ago. I was predestined to be jogging right now. yet, here i am.

now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to open this box and see if my cat is doing okay..

At the fundamental level of physics, reality is not deterministic, it is effectively random and aggregatively probabilistic. On the macroscopic scale, then, you don't actually have determinism, you just have a very drawn out bell curve of results. IOW, there are no laws of physics, just guidelines.

Free will is indeed an illusion.

>>3361076

Free will is certainly an illusion Op.
And you arent utilizing Reducto Ad Absurdum at all.
And you are never a homosexual.

Determinism is an extrapolation of a reductionist approach, a fanciful idea with no serious basis in reality. Randomness is much the same. Free Will is the base experience of all humans, and the only reasonable conclusion on the matter.

We won't fully know until we can 100% understand the connection of the body with the mind, but I think it's safe to assume how our mind works is based on our brain's electric signals which our body contributes to.
imo, no there is no free will.
But it sure as hell seems like it, so there's no need to like give up life or anything.

Science cannot account for everything. There are things that Science cannot prove but we accept as rational.
1. Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math, so that to try and prove them with science would be arguing in a circle.
2. Metaphysical Truths, like the notion that there are other minds other than one's own, or like the external world is real, or that the past was not created 10 minutes ago with an appearance of age.
3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.
4. Aesthetic Judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
5. Science itself. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with un-provable assumptions. For example, in the special theory of relativity; the whole theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any two points, A and B, but that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that, in order to hold to the theory.

>HERP DERP FREE WILL WE HAVE CHOICE

THEN ANSWER ME THIS YOU MOTHERFUCKING SOPHIST COCKSUCKING FUCKTARD, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU MAKE A CHOICE?!?!?!?!

>DURRRRR I JUST CHOOSE WHAT I WANT CUZ I WANT WHAT I CHOOSE LAWLZ

SO IF YOU FUCKING CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT, HOW THE FUCK DID YOU CHOOSE "WHAT" YOU WANTED? I.E. CAN YOU CHANGE WHAT YOU WANT, AND THEREBY CHANGE WHAT YOU WILL CHOOSE?

>LOL IDK BUT HUMANS R SPESHUL XD

free will adherents = theodicy scumsuckers

Depends on what you mean by free will.

But ultimately? IT MAKES NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER

FUCK

WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE THESE THREADS, THERE ARE LITERALLY NO CONSEQUENCES TO IT

I've used this example in every free will thread I've ever contributed in thus far, so here it comes again.

The comparison between determinism and free will is the same as between a regular book and one of those pick-your-adventure types, there is no difference if you can only read the book once.

>>3361437

>Making a choice
>Exercising free will

laughinggirls.jpg

>>3361444
>The comparison between determinism and free will is the same as between a regular book and one of those pick-your-adventure types, there is no difference if you can only read the book once.
Not bad.

I'm with >>3361438
It makes no difference.

>>3361445
Decision-making can be deterministic too, you asspained child.

And it makes no fucking difference.

>>3361438
You sound like those two facebook faggots trashing stephen hawking because his theories will never affect them.
It's just interesting to consider and theorize about, and gives us a better understanding of our mind.

>>3361437

Learning a little about Logic wouldnt hurt you.

>>3361447
> gives us a better understanding of our mind.
No, no it does not.

The debate is both unfalsifiable and without consequences.

>>3361437
u analpained, bro?

>>3361450
Thinking about free will stimulates my mind and i enjoy it.
There's consequence for you.

>>3361444
>The comparison between determinism and free will is the same as between a regular book and one of those pick-your-adventure types, there is no difference if you can only read the book once.

A nice formulation, but misleading. Choices are repeated, choices are interactive, and choices make new choices possible. Further, human imagination effectively allows one to read ahead and make different choices.

since nobody in here actually read philosophy (not surprising):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Freedom_of_the_Will

"you can will what you want, but you can't want what you want": (you are not doing what you are wanting, you are wanting what you are doing, but people mistake the relationship between these two)

>>3361466
the following 2 posts are also mine so you should know I agree, but don't think that example was misleading at all.
>>3361236
>>3361288

>>3361446

-.- I was sarcastically pointing out that making a choice does not necessarily invovled exercising free will

>>3361485
Agreed that there are degrees, it's not a binary state.

>>3361478
>"you can will what you want, but you can't want what you want"

Can so. See also Buddhism.

>the world obeys natural laws

>rocks aren't free, viruses aren't free, planets aren't free, mice aren't free, fish aren't free, dogs aren't free, cats aren't free, monkeys aren't free

>humans are free, cuz dey b speshul

>>3361497
No. To the degree that "choice" has any meaning, it is shared with varying degrees by animals, and possibly even plants.

>>3361478
"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants" is the right quote; there is no willing of want.

>>3361497

I cant wait for summer to end, so children like you will leave.

>>3361503
>>3361497
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/03/20/1229233/If-We-Have-Free-Will-Then-So-Do-Electrons

Now stop being so incredibly fucking stupid.

>>3361508
It's a thought that I think is on the right track, but is not strictly true. We DO have some degree of metachoice - choosing to influence our desires. It's not easy, and takes time, but we can.

>>3361515
You're just arguing semantics.

I fully agree that the universe is not deterministic. You're misinterpreting that article. Can I say that electrons are alive, because I am made of electrons, and am alive?

>>3361508

>"Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants"

>but he cannot want what he wants

How can he initially want, if he cannot "want" it?

Can you explain this?

>>3361520
Now you're the one misinterpreting that article.

>>3361516
>i can choose [2] to change my choice [1]

so can you change choice 2 or is it determined?

>A1: free, i can choose [3] to change my choice [2]
so can you change choice 3 or is it determined? ... etc. etc.

>A2: determined
EOF

>>3361515
>>3361508
these two explanations are indeed at odds with each other, and obviously don't refer to the same notion of free will. I'd say particles are free to act, but they have no will and aren't making a choice. on the other hand, sapient creatures have a will but no freedom in choosing what they're willing. both seem to be correct, we just need to decide which we're discussing instead of calling each other idiots or unknowledgable in philosophy.

>>3361516
That is precisely what is meant be free will in some traditions.

>>3361535
My bad quoting at work there. The greentext boy was the fucking idiot. The other post I was just referencing because it is about the same point that the article argues.

>>3361525
Choosing what you want to do.

Can you change what you want? That's the question.

>>3361530
Ah, so, how can we tell the difference between something predetermined and a choice that we make?

>>3361515

What you are stating is that, whatever activity your contents are capable of, you must be capable of such activity as well.
Which is ridiculous.

Just because i am constructed out of certain cells and those cells can regenerate, does not indicate that i am capable of regenerating myself(Limbs for example).

>>3361548
You can't. It's impossible to tell.

Hence the fucking stupidity of this thread.

>>3361551
The article is likely referring to a very radical and "strong" meaning of "free will", which no one ITT seems to actually be promoting.

say you are given the choice between a cup of coffee or a cup of tea.

most humans will argue they are free to choose between either coffee or tea. "I can choose either" This is true, but what they will choose is dependant on what they prefer at that particular moment where the choice has to be made. Now either the choice is a calculus of variables, and in that case it is determined which one (coffee or tea) will be chosen, and, given the re-establishment of the universe at that particular moment in time with the same variables, they will always choose the cup of coffee (or tea).
Or, the choice is not a strict arithmetic of fixed variables, but also depends on a variable that is non-determined (i.e. chaotic, unpredictable: re-establish the universe at that point in time and 73.95% of the times, they'll go for coffee). But in that case, there is no talk of freedom either, since it is not they who make the choice, but the external random variable that made the difference.

In the first case, the universe is determinist, in the second case, the universe is random. but in neither case is there something like "Freedom"

>>3361546
I have anecdotal evidence, quitting smoking. your brain obviously wants you to keep smoking, but you can stop smoking after concluding it is bad. your wants can change, and sometimes you can want mutually exclusive things, implying choice (still not implying freedom, external factors or "strength" of each option comes into play).

>>3361559
>but in neither case is there something like "Freedom"
Not by your definition.
>>3361530

>>3361551
>What you are stating is that, whatever activity your contents are capable of, you must be capable of such activity as well.

No, that's not what is being said. The Game of Life shows that objects appear to act willfully on small and large scales. What they're saying is that what we call will in humans is not significantly different than what individual partiles do.

>>3361566
Doesn't bother me.

This debate really is silly. You don't have to have some bizarre and unjustified metaphysical belief to accept the reality of executive functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_functions

>>3361554
Thus why determinism is an unfalsifiable piece of shit, and has no business being postulated.

>>3361579
Same with the equally-strong versions of "free will"

Point is that our executive functions DO have shaping causal influence over our basic desire-patterns, and that's just a fact.

>>3361575
>You don't have to have some bizarre and unjustified metaphysical belief to accept the reality of executive functions.

Sure, but that doesn't answer the question.

You do what you want, but you cannot control what is it that you want. So, free will exists or not depending on the definition. On a broad sense, no it does not.

>>3361587
>Point is that our executive functions DO have shaping causal influence over our basic desire-patterns, and that's just a fact.

And our wills have shaping influence over our desire patterns. What's your point?

>>3361546

In that case i believe such quote is incorrect.
For example narcotic addict will want/desire to use narcotic but he can also want/desire to end it since it is ruining his life.
With external assistance and internal power provided he can cancel one want with the other.
Hence you can change what you want.

>>3361606

>>3361590
>Sure, but that doesn't answer the question.
Then the question is ill-posed. I'm guessing that whatever definition of "free will" you have in mind is obviously false.

>>3361606
I'm supporting a sort of "soft" free will that can exist whether the universe is deterministic or not. You know, the one for which there is real evidence and falsifiability and not just metaphysical masturbation about things that cannot be tested.

>>3361607
but WANTING to change what you want is a want in itself, so how did that one come up? it's an infinite recursion

So, can anyone help me understand the difference between predeterminism and determinism?

It seems to me that predeterminism is the idea that everything that happens is the effect of a long chain of events.

Determinism would be that everything that happens is based on conditions that are occuring at that moment.

Isn't it the same thing? Determinism is just predeterminism but without the chain of events. But without the chain of events, where do the conditions come from?
I don't get it.

>>3361619
rock on bro, I think beside the unfalsifiability issue the second largest one is the dualism, it MUST be free will OR determinism.

>>3361627
And in the end, it doesn't matter whether it terminates in a deterministic leverl or just recurses forever.

Really, it doesn't matter.

>>3361619
>I'm supporting a sort of "soft" free will that can exist whether the universe is deterministic or not. You know, the one for which there is real evidence and falsifiability and not just metaphysical masturbation about things that cannot be tested.

Compatibilism says nothing meaningful about the metaphysical nature or teleology of reality. It's a clever description of the same dead-end reductionism as we've had for hundreds of years. If this is where you want to be, fine, enjoy. I find it completely useless.

>>3361630
the difference is only in predictability. pre-determined implies only one potential end outcome, whereas determinism can account for things like randomness.

>>3361651
>Compatibilism says nothing meaningful about the metaphysical nature or teleology of reality.
Statements about the metaphysical nature or teleology of reality are inherently worthless.

>>3361651
> the same dead-end reductionism as we've had for hundreds of years
what

>>3361627
It's only an infinite recursion if you assume wants are effects and not causes.

>>3361651
Philosopher detected

Say you convince yourself that you have "solved" this unfalsifiable metaphysical problem. Now what? It makes fuck-all difference.

>>3361671
Isn't he referring to an infinite chain of recursive meta-desires? I want to want to want to want to...

>>3361676
The assumption is made that all wants are effected by some cause.

>>3361683
can you name a single thing in the universe that does not have a cause?

>>3361686
Which is to say that you are assuming causality.

>>3361627

>but WANTING to change what you want is a want in itself, so how did that one come up? it's an infinite recursion

Allow me to provide you another example:
I want to execute function X(To fuck bitches and get money).
However i rationally know that such function is impossible.
So i decide to convince myself to want to execute function Y(To eliminate function X).
After some time i finish my function Y by eliminating previous "want".

Now explain me what you dont understand about it.

>>3361698

>So i decide to convince myself to want to execute function Y(To eliminate function X).

(To eliminate "want of function x")

>>3361672
>this is what people in Plato's cave actually believe

our culture operates in a fashion designed to give us free will, or at least a modicum of free will. The way we go about fulfilling our wants and needs is based on our culture and how we were raised. Even our brain structure differs between culture.

>>3361698
>However i rationally know that such function is impossible.
>So i decide to convince

so there is a function Z that says: If Y is not possible, do X?

so where is function Z' that activates Z, and Z'' that activates Z', etc.?

>>3361711
Yeah, philosopher detected. And your allusion to Plato is pretty damn presumptive. Plato gave a shit about things that matter, like "what makes a good ruler" and "should we trust our first-glance perceptions".

Still waiting for any indication of what good your masturbation will do.

>>3361723
He also knew the value of living the examined life.

>>3361734
>He also knew the value of living the examined life.
I'm not against inquiry. I'm against lines of thought that have no hope of providing understanding or benefit, by their very untestability.

>>3361720

>so there is a function Z that says: If X is not possible, do Y?

What?
If you have rationally arrived at the conclusion that your resources can be lucratively allocated elsewhere, then whats preventing you from including such "Z" function?

>so where is function Z' that activates Z, and Z'' that activates Z', etc.?

Now you are contradicting your previous description of your function "Z".

>>3361723
See
>>3361465

>>3361763
Yeah, sounds like masturbation.

At least masturbation is exercise.

>>3361607
There is a candy and a carrot on the table. I want the candy. I know I should want the carrot, since it's healthier, but I cannot do anything to change it; I will prefer the candy no matter how hard I try to like the carrot more.

>>3361742
Halting problem. You cannot predict the value of the understanding before it is reached.

>>3361787
>I will prefer the candy no matter how hard I try to like the carrot more.
At that moment.

You CAN eventually change yourself to the point that you look at candy with disgust and prefer carrots. Even if your taste buds are still sending the same signals as always to your brain.

>>3361796
Perhaps.

But how much digging through shit without any indication of understanding or benefit before you decide you should spend your time thinking about something else?

>>3361787
I could really go for a carrot right now.

>>3361803
I don't have a universal answer for you. It's an individual decision that you will have to make for yourself, of your own free will :)

>>3361787

>There is a candy and a carrot on the table. I want the candy. I know I should want the carrot, since it's healthier, but I cannot do anything to change it; I will prefer the candy no matter how hard I try to like the carrot more.

----------------------------------------------------

That is why i included this:
>With external assistance and internal power provided he can cancel one want with the other.

Internal power being self-control.

Self-Control.
Discipline.
Confidence.

Im certain there are other words that can also provide valid hints but i believe that these are enough.

>>3361619
>metaphysical masturbation
You remind me of my math teacher, who was always ranting and sometimes went with "AAH RIGHT MENTAL MASTURBATION, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO ALL DAY"
Good times, man.

>>3361076

>What is it about atoms when arranged in the form of a brain that would allow free will to exist?
>Worrying about physical properties of atoms
>2011

This is going to be long, reeeeeeeeeally long. This thread has managed to get like a million posts while i've been writing this.

Quantum wave states of the electrons in our neural pathways allow our brains to operate, how this works is physically impossible to discover as measurement collapses wave functions. Not that you would be able to isolate and measure individual electrons in the environment of your head for the study of thought anyway.

This talk of the mind not being physical is enraging as nothing is truly physical. As for free will being an illusion, that's only true on the group scale. It’s both real and not real depending on where you are.

letting a handful of sand fall from your hand allows one result, the sand flowing from your hand downwards into one pile, one single group movement. Go down in scale to the individual grains and each piece has it's own utterly unique unpredictable route, bouncing off the other grains and fighting with the air resistance. Imagine the maths required to work out something like that, the interactions between each grain. Millions, billions of pieces of atomic data. Now imagine the maths required to work out every social or sense based interaction in your lifetime. That's your free will, it applies to the grain scale. The species group scale, the pile, has only the simplest of movements. The inevitability of the formation of the pile of sand is as inevitable as the birth of a new generation. How that happens individually is up to you.

1

>>3362118

The problem with deep questions like free will is that they penetrate several layers of scale at once, in the OP we had the atomic scale (1) through to the group human species scale (6) as free will starts with the individual and has group nature aswell. A single group movement on the higher scales divides into billions of pieces of data, and at the same times remains one higher scale interaction.

So to try to compress this into some kind of answer which I will sort fail at, what allows the arrangment of the brain atoms to give you free will is merely the fact they exist.
Quantum wave states (0), practically infinite possibilities collapsing into one particle (1), interacting with billions of other particles and atoms to form a miniscule electrical current in the brain (2) which in turn become a small thought, a single smell or touch for instance (3), which become experiences and memories (4), they become opinions and personality traits, likes and dislikes (5), they become people (6), they become families (7), tribes (8), countries, races, species, ecosystems, planets, solar sytems, star clusters, galaxies, galaxy clusters, the universe, you see where I'm going.

>>3362125

These questions people ask attemp to penetrate the fabric of the universe and all it's scales when we have only been able to branch out to our nearest scales with the invention of microscopes and telescopes in recent years. We don't understand scale well enough to even realise that we blend them into a mess when we ask questions or try to understand the world around us. A single movement on the higher scales becomes billions on the one below. Really there is only the universe (1), and at the same time quantum infinity (0). Everything and nothing. Your free will is you and at the same time merely an utterly inanimate piece of the higher single movement. It IS the atoms that make up your grain. Your free will exists and doesn’t exist on different scales in the same way the universe is everything amd nothing on different scales.

TLDR – All we are is dust in the wind dude.