/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5353519

>illusion

this is a meaningless word.

humans can't tell the difference between illusion and reality, all we have are different points of view and frames of reference

>>5353519
only if you choose to believe so.

[hidden]metaphoric recursion implicit[/hidden]

>>5353519
Yes. The wheels of determinism keep running.

You and everything around you is a shockwave of the big bang. We just can't predict the results in any reliable manner.

In short, free will is an illusion, but a very, very strong one.

I made a decision now to drink a bottle of water. Free will exist.

>>5353547
The fact that you saw this thread and decided to drink water to make a counter-point actually proves that your decision was entirely based on environmental elements (in this case the internet).

>>5353550

Actually, I made the decision multiple times before reading this thread.

>>5353567
which was set in motion by previous events that you had zero control of.

>>5353573

So you are saying the shooter today wasn't responsible for his actions?

>>5353585
None of us are. Not even Hitler.

I remember seeing a post on here that basically said since the number system is infinite then every rational agent/sentient being could be expressed as a number. whenever you encounter an action/stimuli of some kind your reaction and consequential thoughts could therefore be predicted. like your mind is a function and all the arguments presented to it have an outcome that is a result of your brain processing it according to the algorithms it has developed. if you think about free will in this context that you can see that it is an illusion.

tl;dr math scares the shit out of me

>>5353592

>hiter wasn't bad. he wasn't responsible for his actions
>w-what? you are a horrible person! where are your morals?
>do u even determinism

I don't really see how our actions being affected by our circumstances equals no free will. Free will within boundaries, maybe. Free will with... bias? Or are we using different definitions? Or am I rock goddamn stupid? I accept that the latter is probably the correct choice (Hurr, choices. Hurr) but I've just never really understood the logic behind this.

i find the compatibilist argument to be the most convincing

they basically say "yeah, free will doesn't exist, but you still go through the conscious experience of making decisions, so don't go pardoning hitler and his crew, and don't blame fate for the fact that you're a lonely virgin"

>>5353625

Even if Hitler isn't responsible for his actions, he should still be removed to protect society.

And for everyone who believes in determinism. If it was 100% proven that Hitler was reformed into pro-social behavior, would you let him back into society?

>>5353607
We are like an advanced computer who is self-aware. We actually feel like we have our 'own' ideas and decisions. But that computer was built so it can perform the pre-determined tasks and functions. No matter how advanced you are, you will always remain in the frame of determinism. Just like a computer, we are all living a cutout sequence of a very long chain reaction that was originated long time ago.

>>5353625
>don't blame fate for the fact that you're a lonely virgin

I'm gay and the idea of gay sex and relationships is repulsive except when I'm aroused. I'm fated to be a virgin forever.

>>5353630
If strict determinism is true, and Hitler is not responsible for his actions, we are ALSO not responsible for condemning him, nor could we be held at fault for executing those sentenced to death.

In the end it doesn't matter if there is free will or not because by determinist nature we can't help but act as if there is. But it's a fun thought experiment.

Is there any credible scientific evidence that supports determinism?

>>5353677
You mean evidence that effects have causes? Kinda.

The Milgram experiment tells us we'll do anything we're told to do if it's requested by an authority in an impersonal tone.

>>5353684
that's a bit too strong of a characterization,
ever read "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemyer?
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

>inb4 psychology isn't science
idgaf, read it or don't

Who knows and who fucking cares. In the worst case scenario, we all have an illusion of free will but how will that change anything?
Also, sage for /phi/. Go to /lit/ or something, this is a science board so unless you want to discuss a neurology paper on free will, piss off, mate.

Hurr oh no my life is already predetermined better kill myself

>>5353702
It's OK - you were going to anyway.

>>5353519
Yes.

Free will is not free.

>>5353519
Depends on how you define free will.

>>5353585
It is disputable whether responsibility requires "free will". I also require a working definition of "free will", please.

How about free willy then.

>>5353585
Determinism doesn't make any explicit claims regarding *moral* responsibility. What it does claim is that the shooter's decisions were not made within a causal vacuum.

>Living in the 21st century
>even mentioning determinism

>>5353639
You are just a typical low self-loathing faggot who needs a reason for he's failures.

>>5353804
The determinism philosophical concept and the one crushed by quantum physics are two very different things with the same name.

>>5353815
>he's failures
You probably free-willed to do that.

>>5353816
I could very well be wrong, but I don't think there are any deterministic propositions dealing with consciousness (in the pragmatic sense of neurological functioning) that were crushed by quantum physics. I mean, neurons aren't quantum particles, and if there are relevant quantum effects at an even lower level, then the outcomes of those effects would still be pieces in an ultimately deterministic chain of cause an effect.

>>5353829
>cause an effect
*and

>>5353829
There are quantum effects wherever you have electrons moving about. Maybe a billion electrons will make it from one neuron to another in the first nanosecond; maybe a billion and two. We can't make precise predictions of where an electron will be in the future, only probabilities.

The same effect is present in every other object with electrical activity. Some of the noise in my stereo amplifier is caused by a slightly random number of electrons traveling between semiconductors. Nobody ever defines "Free Will" very clearly, but I think most can agree my stereo does not posses it. Just because there is random activity doesn't mean it's actively deciding how it wants to behave.

What the fuck is determinism and why do I feel like it's just another excuse for you queers to be faggots?

The brain is entirely deterministic.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

>>5353839
>Maybe a billion electrons will make it from one neuron to another in the first nanosecond; maybe a billion and two.
That's what I meant by:
>and if there are relevant quantum effects at an even lower level, then the outcomes of those effects would still be pieces in an ultimately deterministic chain of cause an effect.
I understand the probabilistic nature of your example, but I would assume that a quantum effect would ultimately affect processes *above* the quantum level, and from there on out, things would run deterministically.

But just to reiterate: This is all my pedestrian interpretation of quantum mechanics and its effects on consciousness. Please don't read too much conviction into it.

>>5353841
Because you think about queers and faggots a lot, I guess.

>>5353829
>then the outcomes of those effects would still be pieces in an ultimately deterministic chain of cause an effect
No. Look up Bell's inequalities.

>>5353841
In philosophy determinism is the opposite of free will. Your brain is a very complicated machine. Every action, thought, emotion, etc it produces is purely a response to initial genetic programming and a lifetime of external inputs. It might feel like you are spontaneously generating thoughts and motivations independently of the external world but that's only because you don't see all the machinery crunching numbers to produce them.

In physics determinism is the ability to predict the future state of a system. For example you can easily determine where a soccer ball will land given an understanding of physics and information (position,speed,mass) about the ball in the present. Up until the 1920's it was assumed all physical systems were inherently deterministic. That got destroyed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is physically impossible to simultaneously measure the position and velocity of a small particle like an electron. This means you can't determine the future position of an electron. You don't have the necessary data to plug into equations of motion. All we can do is calculate the probability it will be in some area, not an exact prediction of where it will be.

>>5353850
Probabilistic doesn't mean free will. It means probabilistic.

>>5353846
not a quantum computer != deterministic