/sci/ - Science & Math

could you please rephrase the question in scientific or mathematical terms?

I don't believe in it, and I'm not sad ...

your argument fails .. gtfo

>dat body

oh god. one day, i'll acquire that type of physique ...

one day. ;_;

>>3891167
Because they are imposing an external locus of control, meaning they no longer have to feel liability for their own failues. The failures are what makes them sad.

Those who do not believe in free will usualy have a pretty strange definition of free will.

>>3891167
that's basically what they also said about people who believed the earth is not flat.

>>3891190
>type
Minus the HOLYFUCKVEINS I'm guessing?

>>3891167
>believe
evidence

I believe we have free will because we have no choice to have free will.

>>3891203
Prove it.

>>3891214
free will within the confines of immutable laws of nature. Not free will from define authority. How can freedom be imposed?

Also, they're socially awkward, with no confidence and and no cheer for life. For example, look at Daniel Dennett - he stutters like a faggot and has no charm.

>>3891216
I hereby summon the /sci/ default position. GTFO

>>3891247

>>3891248
wat


in any regard, it depends on how free will is defined. im not just saying that to be pedantic it's actually crucial

The disparity between knowing objectively that you are nothing more than a collection of particles which deterministically obey the laws of nature, and the subjective sense that you are an entity, distinct from the environment, and have free will is a difficult thing to accept. Soren Kierkegaard did a lot of work on this subject.

>>3891263
actually it's the easier thing to accept. people have more trouble accepting the prospect of no free will when its initially proposed

the fact is you can be seen as an individual entity and it all depends on definitions.

>>3891247

Lol

>>3891272
Reading comprehension fail...

>will
>free

choose 1

>>3891294
explain how, please.


fucking hell... you are so stupid

Free will is a nice idea, but it's not needed to explain anything about living things on any scale. and it also gives living things a special position in the universe, which may be true, but just seems like rubbish to me.

some stupid electron gained enough energy to leave its nuclear partner and one of my neurons hit action potential...

so that's why i'm posting itt right now

>>3891314

it's a little bit more complex than that

>>3891303
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."-Arthur Schopenhauer

>>3891304
I stated that it's difficult to accept that you don't have free will, despite the subjective sense that you do.

You then tell me that it's the easier thing to accept, whereas accepting that you don't have free will is the more difficult thing to accept.

Do you see the problem?

>>3891319
it's a joke.

>>3891314
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/03/20/1229233/if-we-have-free-will-then-so-do-electrons

>>3891344

does that pass for a joke in your ass burger circles?

haha, oh wow.

>>3891319
As a whole it may be more complex, but it doesn't change the underlying simplicity of the thing.

People arguing against free will seem to think that the fact that there is a reason behind a decision makes it a non-decision.

>>3891348
Yes, because cell respiration and reproduction and other biological processes are so unpredictable. Everything is fucking stochastic! Save me the anguish from your quantum newage jargon.

>>3891342
The confusion arose between what you said was 'difficult to accept'. I thought you meant "the subjective sense that you are an entity, distinct from the environment, and have free will" is difficult to accept, whereas you actually meant the disparity was difficult to accept. Your sentence was problematic.

>>3891359
Just because things are complex to the point of our not being able to model or predict them doesn't mean they're not deterministic.

>>3891349
i'm autistic for bringing humor to an obvious troll thread?

i absolutely love the stupidity of people here.

you're clearly autistic for even attempting to 'correct' me

>>3891359
if cell respiration and reproduction aren't randomly determined willed upon, then neither is anything that happens at a macro level. ie you do not have free will.

>>3891357
No, it's because that there can be no other choice made due to previous interactions.

>>3891374
No, you are.

>>3891374
>>3891387

You both may be excused.

>>3891375
They're not randomly determined, you idiot. Ever heard of fucking embryology, you faggot?

>people ARGUING about free will
Gee, am I in high school again ?
What next, arguing about God ?

>>3891393
I don't see the need for vulgarity.

Also, I think the point was that everything in biology can be reduced to particle interactions, which are deterministic, and thus brain activity is deterministic.

>>3891386

So what? The fact still remains that the brain processed the previous information and came to a decision. Regardless of whether this was the only outcome or not the decision was made, and that is what free will is.

>>3891167
Because that's bull? I don't believe in free will but I'm happy.
I always preferred movies over games

>>3891397
Beats posting snarky comments on /sci/ about intellectual discourse. What does the that you, fuckhead? That's right, a philstine. Now scurry along like the neckbeard you are.

>>3891397
Why does this happen in every thread? We have a discussion and some tool shows up and derides us for having it because we're not qualified physicists or philosophers...

>>3891399
Exactly. Way to argue with me only to make an unintentional concession with my argument.

>>3891386
you can't know if any other choice could have been made under the same circumstances.

the only option is to remain agnostic to the existence of free will. and since doubt is not philosophy of life, the question down to whether or not you believe in free will. In the absence of knowledge it would be foolhardy to blindly believe. So we have to swallow the bitter pill and say we do not believe in free will.

of course, you can say that you can make choices, individual choices, but you can't possibly describe them as free unless by 'free' you mean nothing more more than 'not imprisoned'

>>3891400
>Regardless of whether this was the only outcome or not the decision was made, and that is what free will is.

I think you're very confused. By your definition, a rock exhibits free will when it falls.

>>3891405
make you*

>>3891393
i said precisely the opposite. they arent random. wtf l2 read

>>3891407
But isn't that exactly what you did above, with the added benefit of some unnecessary anger?

>>3891167

I never liked that ripped, fatless look. Prefer the offseason look where the skin is smoother, more hydrated & supported by an even layer of subcutaneous adipocytes.

>>3891400
that isn't what scientists mean when they speak about free will. is what most people mean when they talk about individual choice and freedom though.

I don't believe in free will and I'm generally a pretty happy person.

What the hell is up with that man's body though?

>>3891409
"The only option is to remain agnostic regarding the equation 2+2."

>>3891400
Free will can't exist because cause and effect are strictly linear. Unless of course you look at an event affecting several or more variables, then it'd be a type undulation with respective bijection.

>>3891418
I misread your argument! Sorry.

>>3891439
No problem.

>>3891437

>cause and effect
>implying that doesn't come to pieces at the quantum level

If you went back in time and were only able to observe the past without interacting with it and you would make EXACTLY the same choices, everyone else would behave exactly the same, does that mean that they don't have free will?

>>3891450
yeah where everything is random probability. random probably isn't evidence of free will either.

>>3891450
>quantum level

>>3891450
>implying we know enough about QM to make such an assumption
God of the gaps.

>>3891455

prove it

>>3891459
if every things random, there is no decision to be made.

>>3891466

>random
>implying that isn't the very essence of what free will is

>>3891450
This is currently unknown. As I stated above, our inability to measure a thing isn't evidence that it's not deterministic. Bell himself forwarded the possibility of superdeterminism, which caries down to the quantum level. This has the added benefit of making a lot of the strangeness of quantum mechanics go away.

Also, the act of using 'quantum weirdness' to give people free will is equivalent to magic. You may as well be a theist...

>>3891470
It's not since we're not referring to the bloody quantum level here. We're referring to biological process and their impetuses.

>>3891450
>quantum physics
Alright, thread's over.

>>3891476
Yes, this!

>>3891476
current prevailing belief is that cause and effect have no meaning at the quantum level.

cite as many obscure theories and people as you want.


>>3891477

>implying everything doesn't boil down to quantum physics

>>3891470
No, this is very wrong. To say that quantum effects somehow drive 'decision making' in a lump of matter at 300 kelvin is ridiculous.

good nice /sci/

nice to know I can argue against free will and still beat you ugly fucks

>>3891487
Thank you, Depak Chopra.

>>3891476
The question of determinism is distinct from that of "free will," but quantum mechanics is necessarily non-deterministic. A particle simply doesn't exist in a particular location until it is forced to interact with another particle in its own probability distribution. An interaction between two probabilities is stochastic.

>>3891478
Not quite...
Hitler.

>>3891487
Not everything boils down to the Quantum level, dumbass.

>>3891167
I don't believe in free will, but I also do.

The world is made of dualism and paradoxes, and especially paradoxes.

>>3891500
>The question of determinism is distinct from that of "free will,"
No.

>but quantum mechanics is necessarily non-deterministic
Again, this is not currently known.

>An interaction between two probabilities is stochastic.
From our viewpoint, within our ability to measure and model the system.

It's a silly argument, because no matter how hard someone tries to convince themselves that free will doesn't exist, they will still experience something like decision-making.

>>3891470
no

>>3891470
free will is you caused something to happen with your ambiguous powers of will

>>3891517
Which leads us back to this:
>>3891263

>>3891517
Decision making is illusory.

>>3891514
>>The question of determinism is distinct from that of "free will,"
>No.

Please explain. Because to me, any process governed by rules, even a stochastic process, doesn't necessarily imply free will. A chemical computer governed by those rules, like our brains, is just as victim to the outcome of those interactions whether the process is mechanical or not.

>>3891517
decision making exists but it is not, nor will it ever be, free. it's quite the opposite, it's constrained by all manner of things. how is that hard to accept?


the argument really is about differing definitions. what physicists regard as free will and what everyone sees as regular choice and incorrectly name it free will.

>>3891524
The sense of freewill in it, that is.

>>3891524
The tricky bit is: what is experiencing the illusion? I find it better to state that decision making is unreal.

>>3891529
>how is that hard to accept?

It's hard to accept that a physical system can somehow choose anything besides the only option left to it by cause and effect. If no other choice can be made, it's not a choice at all...

Determinism and indeterminism has nothing to do with it, "free will" is just as illogical in both systems.

>>3891527
I guess I was looking at it from the direction, in that if you have one, you can't have the other, and as such they aren't 'distinct' which is probably a sloppy description on my part.

>>3891541
thats how physicists would view free will as I mentioned. it doesnt' exist

but the illusory decision making that regular people are familiar with is real., even if its an illusion.

hence we have free will because we have no choice to have free will.

>>3891542
I would tend to agree. The system is either deterministic and free will can't exist, or it's based on quantum randomness, in which case free will still can't exist...

If free will existed, then psychology wouldn't work
>inb4 some moron says it doesn't

>>3891554
>but the illusory decision making that regular people are familiar with is real., even if its an illusion.

This is gobbledygook. Why is it 'real'? Because you feel strongly that it happens and others attest to the same?

free-will is obvious to any conscious being

just because particles are determined doesn't mean everything they create is determined

fallacy of composition

just because sub-atomic particles are odorless doesn't mean assholes are odorless

things emerge at different levels of organization, a simple philosophical point most of /sci/ is too stupid to comprehend

>>3891575
because it feels real and you can't escape that feeling. if i give you power to make decisions you are not going to reject the offer by telling me decision making is an illusion

>>3891586
Could you have strung together any more baseless opinions at once?

>>3891591

>butthurt
>can't refute anything I said
>12 year old mind detected

>>3891593
No one can refute russel's teapot either.

>>3891589
A lot of things feel real that aren't. It feels perfectly obvious that the sun moves and the earth doesn't, that doesn't mean it true (for most people)...

As neurology advances, we may be able to start to correct some of these issues.

>>3891593
Oh God, you're that Qualia douche from yesterday.

>>3891593
fallacy of composition, determinism are all irrelevant in this debate. you haven't read the the thread so don't think you can just swoop in and claim top prize

>>3891593
>just because sub-atomic particles are odorless doesn't mean assholes are odorless

Where does one start?

>>3891586

Hey kiddo, you forgot to read one part of the text when you wikipedia'd that fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition#Exceptions

>Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will, too. In such instances, the fallacy of composition does not apply. For example, if all parts of a chair are green, then it is acceptable to infer that the chair is green. Or if all parts of a table are wooden, it is acceptable to infer that the table is wooden. A property of all parts that can be ascribed to the whole is called an "expansive" property, according to Nelson Goodman.[1] For a property to be expansive, it must be absolute (as opposed to relative) and structure-independent (as opposed to structure dependent), according to Frans H. van Eemeren.[5]

I'd say being governed by the laws of physics is an absolute property

>>3891597
>A lot of things feel real that aren't. It feels perfectly obvious that the sun moves and the earth doesn't, that doesn't mean it true (for most people)...


I'm totally aware of that, but the thing is people didn't say the earth moved around the sun until they observed it. so until we know more its okay to believe the illusion. it's harmless in this regard.

>>3891595

yes, except that analogy doesn't apply here.

You can refute what I said if you had half a brain.
Fallacy of composition, show how it doesn't apply.
Emerging properties show why consciousness isn't one.

Free-will is obvious to any conscious being, show why this is wrong, someone already did anyway (Sun + earth example)

>>3891599
Look, the guy feels strongly that he exists, and will look for foolish ways to try to bolster his case. I can't say I blame him.

>>3891608
>so until we know more its okay to believe the illusion. it's harmless in this regard.

How can you possibly know that?

>>3891610

>Free-will is obvious to any conscious being

What do you mean "obvious" ? You mean that we experience it?

So what? How does that make it real? Do people with Phantom Limb Syndrome really have an extra limb too?

>>3891610
If atoms combine, they form logical compositions, if atoms abide the rules of physics, so does anything they make. Odor isn't a property of something, it's a human perception of that something.

>>3891623
it's harmless to believe in the matrix until we find out whats outside the matrix, it's harmless to believe in the real world until we find out about the brain in a vat laboratory. Even if it turns out its been harming us all this time, we can say we had no choice. . this is what Hitchens means when he said we have free will because we no choice but to have free will.

>>3891606

Thanks for googling the fallacy, I hope you learned something today.

You haven't shown why the fallacy doesn't apply in this case.
Determinism doesn't apply to all phenomena, things can be random / probabilistic.

And the question is what is doing the determining? You were determined to have a mind, and your choices are determined by your mind, but you=mind.

So determinism still holds, except you enter the chain of causality now and do the determining.

The laws of physics aren't even laws, they are observations, none of them are absolute, everything in science is tentative to change (12 year olds aren't aware of this yet).

You can't know the nature of determinism anyway, the most we know is that deep down the uncertainty principle holds, beyond that you can't judge it reasonably.

>>3891624
Exactly. This guy is just waving his e-penis in the wind...

>>3891642
Proof?

>>3891642
>>3891476

You really didn't read the tread, did you....

>>3891655
*bread

>>3891642

>Yeah well we don't know everything about the universe yet, physics is tentative to change, blah blah blah, so it's most likely magic.

A riveting tale.

>>3891636
So what? How does that make it real? Do people with Phantom Limb Syndrome really have an extra limb too?

Yes. Free-will is just a subjective experience. It's like pain.

The perception of pain is pain itself.
The perception of having Free-will is free-will itself.

You lose free-will if you lose the perception of it.

A person who wills to do X, but his body does Y instead will have no feeling of free-will. This person will feel trapped and subjugated, no exceptions.

Even if sub-consiously we figure out he really intended to do Y all along, his cognitive dissonance would render him a prisoner. Willing to do X and doing not-X is the definition of having no free-will.

You know it when you feel it, like when you have a seizure or muscle spasms, you lose control of your body, its obvious.

>>3891663

>mfw science's uncertainty, inductive reasoning and tentative nature frustrates plebs

I have a question. If you had a computer that could effectively mimic a human brain, and it swore up and down that it was conscious, could feel pain, see colors, make decisions, etc. would you believe it? Even though you could see in detail how it's 'brain' actually worked to produce these things?

>>3891694
Yes. After all, out brain itself is a supercomputer.

>>3891586

strawman fallacy

You're comparing qualities(the smell of subatomic particles and an ass) to the actual mechanics of them. Its like saying that just ebcause micro evolution exists doesnt mean that macro exists, when its pretty damn clear that the microevoluyion is what drives the macro

>>3891694
Sure, why not? Understanding a car doesn't make it not a car.

>>3891698
See, that's interesting. I would have an easier time accepting that it (and we) are both wrong...

Determinism refuted.

Determinism gives rise to your mind, your mind makes decisions, you=mind. Ipso facto, you determine your own choices freely.

Fallacy of composition, just because a property exists on one level of reduction doesn't mean it transfers to every higher level. Determinism isn't structure independent, some phenomena are random/probabilistic.

Free-will is the feeling of freedom, just like pain. Without the feeling that you are free, you aren't. It's obvious we each have this feeling as long as we are healthy and sane.

You don't go to a restaurant and when the waiter gives you a menu you say, no thanks, I believe in determinism, I'll just wait here until a decision is made.

Determinists told.

>>3891694

Sure why not. I'd still probably demand a kind of "virtual EEG" if you know what I mean.

For comparison.

>>3891608

>so until we know more its okay to believe the illusion

Except people where burned at the stake for not believing that the sun revolves around the eartyh. Pretty safe to say that believing in illusions can be detrimental

>>3891702
So it would subjectively experience pain, just as we do? What if it only had half the complexity of a human brain? At what point does the complexity become inadequate for 'selfness'?

>guy arguing that because emergent properties exist, choice also emerges

>>3891701

odor is a property of some objects
we detect it via a mechanism of interaction

determinism is a property of some objects
we detect it via a mechanism of observation and inductive reasoning

no strawman here

if you dont like odor think of some other property, but all properties are "mechanisms" even color and sound..etc

don't be a goofball

>>3891715

>So it would subjectively experience pain, just as we do? What if it only had half the complexity of a human brain? At what point does the complexity become inadequate for 'selfness'?

Complexity in brains relies on number of neurons, number of neurotransmitters, mechanisms of neurotransmission, and most importantly, architecture. "Half" the complexity? Well, if "None of the complexity" makes it dumb as a rock, then half should put it on the level of reptiles. My aspiness makes analogies hard.

>>3891712
see: >>3891641

>>3891709
>Determinism gives rise to your mind, your mind makes decisions, you=mind. Ipso facto, you determine your own choices freely.

>>3891411
>>3891541

This would be a lot easier for you if you read the thread first...

I don't know if I believe in free-will or determinism, but anyone who thinks they have proven free-will to be true is just kidding themselves.

>Hurdur free-will must be true because I made a decision today dur

>determinism is a property of some objects
we detect it via a mechanism of observation and inductive reasoning

Jesus Christ this guy is a derp...

>>3891719

No, because smell is a subjective property, like the good chap not to far above me stated.

For example, the way a car works is objective, we can point out the way it works and the like. Smell however, is subjective in the sense while we cansmell certain things other organisms can or cant smell things at, beyond or below our own senses.

>>3891725
too expand, illusions can be detrimental but the illusion of free will is one like a deist over a theist god or a brain in a vat hypothesis. it doesn't affect anything, positively or negatively.

>>3891724
>>3891715
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/story?id=1951748

>>3891709

>Determinism gives rise to your mind, your mind makes decisions, you=mind. Ipso facto, you determine your own choices freely.

How does that follow? The mind (me) is still restricted to deterministic principles (although even it was restricted to indeterministic principles it wouldn't make a difference), there's nothing "free" about it.

>some phenomena are random/probabilistic.

We simply do not know enough to make that assumption.

>Free-will is the feeling of freedom

No, free will is the ability to make a decision without it being affected by prior causes. Basically what you're doing is changing the definition of the word to something that fits your argument and using that definition to champion yourself as the winner.

>>3891724
>Well, if "None of the complexity" makes it dumb as a rock,
I would argue that on a purely physical level the rock could exhibit just as much (or more) complexity as a brain.

>>3891725

So its okay to burn people at the stake because you dont understand space?

Really now?

>>3891716

>guy arguing that emerging properties don't necessarily share the same properties as their causes

>people getting mad cuz they dunno how to respond and it's obviously true


durr cats are made of atoms, atoms are hairless, cats are hairless....lets transfer properties everywhere cuz physics laws...

atoms have one nucleus, cats are made of atoms, cats have one specific nucleus.

>>3891730
I don't think anyone thinks they have proven or disproven anything.

The point is that free-will vs determinism doesn't provide any utility to anyone. If the universe is deterministic, we are still fated to experience the illusion of free will anyway.

>>3891748
>No, free will is the ability to make a decision without it being affected by prior causes.

no otherwise you couldn't reason about it properly and use prior causes

>>3891760

I really don't understand what you're attempting to say.

>>3891760

Couldnt the prior cause just lead to the understanding of a definition of free will?

>>3891751

Technically yes, a brain and a rock could have more or less the same Kolmogorov complexity. Though the rock could be described by a simple algorithm, it would be a generic randomly-generated rock and not "that rock". Though I would argue that the brain is more complex because it has more functional complexity.

>>3891755

I know certain properties emerge.

Prove free will is an emergent property of deterministic or quasi-deterministic behavior.

And, no, quantum positional uncertainty is most decidedly not free will.

>>3891757
>If the universe is deterministic, we are still fated to experience the illusion of free will anyway.
Welcome to hell!

>>3891748
>No, free will is the ability to make a decision without it being affected by prior causes

No. It's being able to make a decision despite the prior causes.

>>3891752
no.

see: >>3891741

So what is everyone's argument against free-will?

Is it the same stupid, "atoms are determined (unverifiable) therefore so are our decisions?"

H2O Atoms lack a surface tension, but when you put them together they create something new that has a property they don't have.

When you build a sufficiently powerful structure like the mind, why is it so crazy to think that it doesn't behave like an atom, just like how a molecule of H2O doesn't behave like an atom in some respects...

>>3891773

>freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

>>3891773
Which in a physical system doesn't seem possible.

>>3891779

>When you build a sufficiently powerful structure like the mind, why is it so crazy to think that it doesn't behave like an atom, just like how a molecule of H2O doesn't behave like an atom in some respects...

At a sufficient level of abstraction any kind of crazy shit can happen, but that doesn't mean that the abstraction can just float in the air without any formal grounding.

>>3891774

But if the illusion doesnt affect anything, whats the point in believing it?

Its like saying that we know a free health care system in america willl never happen, but its okay to believe it because who gives a shit. Theres not really much of a point.

>>3891773

So you just rephrased his definition? Point being?

>>3891779
Look, you're clearly woefully out of your depth. Why don't you quit while your behind, read up, come back in a month or so and give it another try?

>>3891781
But that's a bad definition. Even free-will defenders don't say that.

>>3891779

>H2O Atoms lack a surface tension, but when you put them together they create something new that has a property they don't have.

The property was already there, it just doesnt have an affect until multiple atoms of the h20 is present.

However, you need to realize that your basically arguing "hurr when these atoms come together i have a sense of free will so MAGIC"

>>3891767

the will is a property of the mind which is most definitely an emergent property of the brain, it doesn't occur at any reductive levels, and it emerges as a multiplicity of simpler interactions...

decision making is a high order mechanism that occurs when sufficiently complex structure are in place...

why would it follow or share the same properties as atoms? doesn't make sense, molecules have properties atoms dont have...you'd think a structure infinitely more complex than a molecule would too...

why do you think otherwise

>>3891781
Don't bring god into it, that really complicates things. E.g. how do you square free will with an omniscient god?

>>3891789
Because saying it doesn't exist is tantamount to saying brain in a vat hypothesis is true or we are all living in a computer simulation.
the illusion of free will is heavily implied by the system we exist in, just like the illusion of the real world is heavily implied by the matrix. do start arguing there is a world outside the real world where morpheus fights robots would be crazy. The same with free will.

>>3891801

>decision making is a high order mechanism that occurs when sufficiently complex structure are in place...

Yes, but decision making is done on the basis of inputs.

>why would it follow or share the same properties as atoms? doesn't make sense, molecules have properties atoms dont have...you'd think a structure infinitely more complex than a molecule would too...

The underlying behaviour.

>>3891799

im arguing against faulty reductionism, which is the only argument people make against free-will

the only reasonable position is, we can't know, there's no way to test for it.

and simply using bad logic (spreading the property of an atom to all higher levels of organization) isn't going to prove anything

>>3891792

Well that's the merriam-webster definition.

I mean we have to agree on a definition before we can even discuss this shit.

If we don't agree on a definition of free will, retards like this >>3891709 can say stupid shit like

>Free-will is the feeling of freedom

And then claim free will exists.

>>3891810
>Yes, but decision making is done on the basis of inputs.
Where do the imputs start and end? I'd prefer to think of it as all one big system.

That body is absolutely gross.

>>3891813

>the only reasonable position is, we can't know, there's no way to test for it.

Yes but you must believe one way is more probable than the other. Unless you think it's literally a 50/50 chance.

>>3891813
>there's no way to test for it.
I thought there'd been a number of lab studies that showed free will isn't nearly the prevalent thing we think it is.

>>3891810

inputs don't necessitate an output.

inputs are used in the process, it isn't just input ---> output, like a binary system

the process itself is highly complex, subjective and uncertain, based on values, feelings, reasoning, and all sorts of inputs...

>>3891826

>50/50
you have no reason to think one is more probable than the other

unless you use horrible reductive logic that is totally a fallacy.

>>3891834
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Protiens have imputs, cells have imputs, organs, have imputs, people have inputs, ecosystems have inputs, the Earth has imputs. Why is it that people are the only thing on this list that most would agree have consciousness or the ability to exhibit free will?

>>3891833

no, we can't even define what we mean by "the subject" who decides, they have no way of testing if a decision is made by you, because they can't quantify "you"

the whole "decision was made by you 0.001 seconds before you were conscious of it" is bullshit

they have no way to tell what you are conscious of instantly

>>3891846

>0.001 seconds

Actually it's more like 5-10 seconds.

>>3891807


Once again, youve failed to give any argument other than "if this, then this" with out giving any real reason for why its bad. Theres not really much of a point to your argument if in the end the outcome is neutral.

>>3891813

Except the effect of the large thing is ultimately driven by the small things in the case of atoms to large objects. Besides randomness(im assuming this is reffering to the heisenberg theory? FYI this theory just says that small shit cant be calculated because to calculate, you have to shoot light at it which bounces back, giving the processor thats making the calculations information, but the light particles changes the speed and direction of the subatomic particles, it aint magic bro) theres not really much else you can possibly use against non freewill.

Also, bear in mind that if your using the fallacy of composition, this is an exception because all matter has the trait of being affected by light, other atoms, etc

>>3891834

>the process itself is highly complex, subjective and uncertain, based on values, feelings, reasoning, and all sorts of inputs...

So it's based on inputs.

Also, at no point did I say an input required an output.

>>3891846
>they have no way of testing if a decision is made by you, because they can't quantify "you"
Exactly. Because in the grand scheme of things, there isn't one.

>>3891843

because you have subjective experiences, self-awareness and feelings.

You don't know if other things share your properties, you have no access to their subjective experience of the world.

The most we can do is assume other humans have it because of how they behave and how they are structured so similarly to ourselves. We can then maybe assume animals have it...but a forest or wig are too different to reasonably assume they are like us...both in behavior and in structure.

Not everything behaves the same on earth...whats the big deal

>>3891854
You have an incomplete understanding of quantum physics. The particle literally has no definite location until it is forced to interact.

>>3891846

>the whole "decision was made by you 0.001 seconds before you were conscious of it" is bullshit

Gonna need some citations, otherwise OPINIONS

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

>>3891866

>Gonna need some citations, otherwise OPINIONS

Gladly.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

>>3891854
>Once again, youve failed to give any argument other than "if this, then this" with out giving any real reason for why its bad. Theres not really much of a point to your argument if in the end the outcome is neutral.

that's why I'm saying there isn't any real reason to argue in favour or against it, but the illusion is always present as when people talk of holding decision making power (implying it can go another way). it's not like the god debate which has several more implications and thats not an illusion thats always present (like from birth)

you can't even know if atoms are determined

even if they are you can't know if the property is universal and transfers to higher orders of complexity


it feels like we have free-will, when you have seizure or mental break down it feels like you lost it...other than feelings, you have nothing to base "free-will" on

>>3891863
Would it be possible for the Earth to exist as a system that has conscious experience?

>>3891865

>The particle literally has no definite location

Only in the practical sense, obviously you cant point to an electron and say "its here". Shits moving to fast to make that claim. To say however that its just fucking everywhere is a bit subjective dont you think?

>>3891877

free-will [ ]
determinism [ ]
undecided [ x ]

you guys are dumb as shit, this question has no answer, we can't even define what the "self" is that would do the deciding or be determined

>>3891870

>Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them

Isnt this...arguing against your claim?

>>3891875

One could say that since you are in a sense on a search for truth, that believing in baseless idea is bad for the sheer sake of it, no?

>>3891870
I've read about that study as well, but I don't think it means much, at least as much as the pop science world has said about it.

Decision-making is a complex process. Who is to say that the brain, being completely aware of the subject's task to press a button, doesn't take longer than a split second "conscious" decision as interpreted as neuroscientists?

Lol. Why so many post in troll thread?

Wuts goin on in here?

>>3891877
>>3891877
>>3891877
>>3891877


end thread

>>3891878
I've often wondered if aliens have been in contact with the planet as a whole, regarding the individual organisms on it much the same way we'd regard cells in an organism.

>>3891912
And then they send their Oncology unit and radiate all the humans...

>>3891912
People are pretty narcissistic when it comes to life. They act like it's rare and precious, but it's simply a geological process so persistent that it's completely transformed the chemistry of our planet.

>>3891888
>One could say that since you are in a sense on a search for truth, that believing in baseless idea is bad for the sheer sake of it, no?

See the thing about that is most things we believe in without evidence are imaginative speculations, fictions or lies (or we get lucky and believe the truth but that really isn't worth believe in most things).

But with free will I honestly can't see anyway to accept free will doesn't exist and then tell people they have individual choice (it would be contradicting yourself) So, in answer to the question:
is the baseless assertion/illusion of free will worth holding on to? I have to say, It's unavoidable. We have no choice.

>>3891167

I don't believe in free will. I believe everything is pre-determined because everything is a reaction to a previous action.

I believe that I have other shit to worry about so I don't bother thinking about determinism at all. Because I'm determined to become awesome.

When you ask yourself "does it fucking matter" the answer is always no, it doesn't make a difference unless you let it make a difference. Which is a reaction to something that already happened to you earlier.

>>3891957
>believes things based on nothing

>>3891957
While I maintain that not believing in something is harmless and it doesn't actually matter if free will exists or not, nor does it matter what your stance on it is. How do you justify punishing people up for things there had no control over doing? is it because we can't predict what they are predisposed to do that we lock them up or is it just their luck in life's lottery?

>>3892017
>How do you justify punishing people up for things there had no control over doing?

If there's no free will, which I happen to believe, we are just as helpless in punishing them as they are in committing the act.

>>3892091

That is silly, we punish them because we believe they chose to do what they did out of free will. If we believed otherwise our behaviour would change accordingly.

>>3892017
>>3892091
Even if you don't believe in free will, you should believe in punishment for certain things when our cognitive algorithms would respond to the threat of punishment by avoiding transgressive behavior. Basically, when punishment is actually a significant, measurable deterrence.

>>3892101
What does "believe" render down to besides a mental process, which is ultimately chemical in nature, and therefore deterministic. It's cause and effect. It's literally impossible to believe otherwise.

>>3892150
>chemical in nature, and therefore deterministic

I lost you there.

>>3892140

I do believe in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders, just not the "punishing" aspect of it. I don't believe they "deserve" things like imprisonment, but that it is needed for the good of society.

>>3892140
You're not thinking at a low enough level. The cue ball doesn't hit another because it's the 'right' thing to do, it does so because, based on prior actions, there's no other choice.

>>3892156
The bulk of this thread is devoted to exactly this concept.

>>3892150

Yes and our beliefs are shaped in a deterministic fashion by the information we have. In this case the information is shaping our beliefs into the format that there is no free will which in turn changes our behaviour.

>>3892171
Correct, but nowhere is free will evident in this process.

>>3892167
Indeed. It should read:
>chemical in nature, and therefore stochastic

The problem is more belief in determinism than lack of belief in free will.

Neither have been scientifically proven but while most people who believe in free will have some sort of philosophical basis for it determinists confuse the fact they "feel" they are right with some kind of objective logic. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule etcetera but every determinist I have read about or met uses the fallacy "you don't believe in determinism because you are afraid of the truth", "free will is for religionfags", "determinism is too shocking and edgy for you" or something along these lines, never actually discussing vacuum energy or quanta or anything.

>>3892150
Thanks this seems a pretty good answer to my question. punishment services a purpose within the chain of cause and effect even in the absence of free will. This basically tells me that the illusion of free will is probably not required

>>3892177

Correct.

>>3892188

But you don't need to believe in determinism to lack belief for free will.

Determinism/indeterminism is not relevant to the debate of free will.

>>3892179
And again, as has been mentioned numerous times above, our inability to measure or model a specific system does not in any way prove that it's not deterministic at some lower level. The very fact that physicists and mathematicians use the term pseudorandom is due to the extraordinary difficulty in finding a system that is truly random.

>>3892193
does that mean it's only the illusion of free will?

>>3892208

Yes.

>>3892205
Please provide the relevant terms.

>>3892207
Our inability to to measure that system certainly doesn't prove that it is deterministic either. When the best models we have are clearly probabilistic, I will assume they are correct until proven otherwise.

>>3892208
yes, whether it is free will or our beliefs being shaped in a deterministic fashion, the result is the same. Real or illusory freedom.

>>3892208
This brings up the question of what is experiencing the illusion. It's better to say free will is unreal or nonreal.

>>3892219
So either way we have no choice. We either have free will or have something that is indistinguishable from free will (why not just call it free will?)

>>3892216
Okay, that's fair enough. Can we connect macro-determinism and micro-stochasticity with free will somehow? I seem to recall something about pixiedust in the neurons.

>>3892222
i don't get it. who else can be experiencing the real or perceived version of free will other than the individual?

>>3892227
You can call it whatever you desire, it's your choice!

>>3892213

I don't understand the request.

>>3892231
>who else can be experiencing the real or perceived version of free will other than the individual?

Nobody else. It doesn't happen, period. The 'individual' doesn't exist beyond a group of interacting particles in a localized area.

>>3892246
exactly so why did we need to change the terminology from 'illusory' free will to 'unreal' free will?

>>3892239
>Determinism/indeterminism is not relevant to the debate of free will.

>Please provide the relevant terms.

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

>>3892235
i finally understand what Hitchens means when he says we have free will because we have no choice to have free will. he wasn't just being witty. (both presence and absence of free will lead to the same indistinguishable situation) in that regard, free will is like a non intervening god, or possibility that we exist in a simulation. In other words, for those within the system, it's irrelevant.

>>3892251
Because the term "illusory" presupposes a sentient entity to suffer the illusion, of which (in this example) there is none. Thus it is non-real. I believe Cartesian Theater addressed this problem.

>>3892253

I don't know...

Magic/non-magic ?

>>3892262
Good old Chis Hitchens...

>>3892268
That's actually about the best I expected. Thanks!

>>3892264
but unreal or nonreal implies that free will doesn't exist. I thought we didn't want to say that. Is there a word to describe the irony in the fact that both the presence and absence of free will result in the same thing?

Time is as static as length, height, and width. None can change unless you move along the axis of another. Past and future are as static as every other dimension at a single point in space-time. You couldn't change your future no more than you can change your past. To be very specific, you can't have multiple pasts and futures without having multiple presents; and they would need to be as infinite in quantity as all the other dimensions are. This is a fact in the space required to get computers to work and space shuttles to fly. But, at the quantum level, we do not yet know for certain.

The only reason this isn't obvious to everyone is because of human emotions and ego.

>>3892282
You just explained the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.

>>3892282
GTFO. Thanks!

>>3892275
>but unreal or nonreal implies that free will doesn't exist. I thought we didn't want to say that.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were after. I have no problem saying that.

>philosophy major? lol it isn't even hard science, yes i'd like fries with that.

>post philosophy question
>guaranteed 200+ replies
>everyone interested and opinionated


>post science question
>boring shit, no one cares, cya on page 16
>yawn

philosophy > science

>>3892308
I know. I misunderstood the meaning of unreal. You mean it's like imaginary but not nonexistent right?

Considering most people would have trouble defining "will"...

>>3892335

Not that guy but I don't see how it is not nonexistent just because people experience it.

If I take DMT and experience a flying giraffe coming at me, the fact that I experienced it doesn't mean the flying giraffe is not nonexistent.

>>3892391
Too many negatives. You just proved his point.

>>3892433

I don't see how the amount of negatives affect that when you could easily just replace "not nonexistent" with "existent" in your mind as you're reading it.

In case anyone is interested in source of OP's image:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivFGHsncVb7CGBF0ivgJib0gwkcIw9OtD3BR5Zx5LB1XroY5LaN
tCwomUpFquha2Vj4XkcIAuCbDoGb2kJLuyubj3uXeNYeD5S2X3XzwIPc7bBeDkdBaS_1XHZiDlHYvxrjHxR8qViwyKSdXn37gN_1
dVNqtZHqWQBt1-zdbkiIlP453ceD9hqLSYAcau4whPW1H55xMU7Hixd0mJCGBfPItYYt7D6N1tCy0_1m0q91sLMTYXINdFpIzzwB
NmxBF6vtEZL6Pp-pQRVsQRenf3sGjjXG9NxbdvxrE6CYqPc_1np1ey3nkTyEDlNmUP11Vwi9IwqNWMZJXfWt9kzfDLMF5h1bUn9I
sDfOIiqo5SqCMAtFS6FrrmYbLICBoIcZ8K0b1iM8lGi2PH9zEaLtowJYogSdvB9SEZbkZXIj0OjBJOYGUwuuzUAgbyJ20pK8Qwza
5ega_1DpNu4x3q8vPJmoPtcxTse70K-9Mt2UmnmcCzTDv2UqcO-03Bys1DZ5LEPkOBHFw-veT6UFkupdXjpeG7LmMPZPIlilwMP9
RPwJ54evmgivAy5fBKOZYv6qDiAR7SMYVjc6f923p2e2JuZC-by_19Mh_1xQc-IEoLX71nLx8U2-iU_1ScV0H7MA4yrDvz6llWjX
aonZ0EvtIal80z_1cg98X9F2U8kmp32K7qOehSaQeou4w0GeQz3FFdlGGFyZTjM_1rAV2MjDFJWP1PnY_1ztipViEYrGS7uc7vtl
Prgp9i1fW6jiAO6smiH3mVQLHjqGWRPbfQGzp4-MTI6m5Y07oyCJuSa6p3NFc-tVpO2NZVlvSXkiTp9KrgQKysnJSEJ413nWaep1
jSfZrRneVStUKK7N9yhHOlcMkDcOtHsOevV5gSQ3NHxYtfGR_1_1qSEEIyaWtCdHZwY3RjNiK5hqA3Fs5f0-psIcVEQm-_1v3m_1
TgRceUpN2ogIxFEyHtPf5x1BKKOhwi5W2b7wSv1hzp_1DTwVP9GhiMWFdlrjb0TZmIqsLMDGrjJSIwJIkKlaVFw3nXaOusDXe9zg
D6UGABPPPe-nq80w6uhat0Dbyn2I7CoHcikXf6mF7-3XYmXcp_164DiYiCEJav9R6PAtGdDednRNbGe13QX6hJ0alluZtw9KXY4b
8wylD5Fm00t3BC2wPcSkYIkuDml-4GgJGSl9xG6yrt2yIA7iDWKDZ3OMb1I31aXl7eKpyQANynv7vivam-od495KWNoPqzzwEqs4
b5L-5pewbbfpjKe7AiA4pyjxz1qVoYNuqfq517t0Wfp4eSMav1yRp-tbKtriVxLo2-OZaaTSr8NbMq8FA8zJkbAVJoUzisbx3MAO
Yv48Gkc-IgxBqG_1Xf

>>3892091
still, the idea that someone should be punished just for revenge for something they did but had no control over doesn't make sense ethically except in how it makes others besides the punished feel and it having a positive effect in preventing unethical acts