/sci/ - Science & Math

Define free will.

>>5494808

The freedom to make choices we want.

>>5494821
Define choices and what we want.

>>5494808
the ability to create a first cause
>>5494805
no

If women are attracted to free will, then why do you still believe in determinism?

>>5494821
What do you mean by freedom? Obviously we make choices that we want, that's what "will" means. What's the "free" all about?

>>5494821
answer this guy : >>5494826
and you'll get your answer

Of course free will exists.

I willed myself to move my fingers to type this response.

>>5494808
>>5494830
cont.

Free will debates only ever happen because no-one bothers to define "free will" rigorously. As soon as someone does, the problem becomes trivial.

>>5494837
but were you free to do otherwise?

>>5494837
You made this response because you saw this thread, and felt the urge to oppose. Absolutely nothing was in your control.

>>5494841

Yes. I could of not replied to the thread.

>>5494854

I consciously deliberated whether I wanted to post or not. I was free to make that decision.

>>5494856
>consciously

>>>/x/

>>5494854
Exactly. He just saw the thread and followed a linear path just like AI does. The only difference is that we have so much parameters that change the outcome of our actions.
It's so blatantly obvious that we are no more than biomechanical organisms that follow what we have been coded.

>>5494856
But ultimately everything that caused you to make that decision was outside of your control.

Free will exists. Neckbeards living in their parents basement believe in hard determinism as a defense mechanism to rationalize their shitty lives. They don't want to take personally responsibility for their miserable situation.

>>5494889
-00/10 your butthurt isn't even funny anymore since we see so much around

>>5494894
Does it bother you that you're in fact a massive aspergers faggot? I would literally cringe at the embarassment of what you just posted.

If you ever wonder why noone likes you and you're single, this is why.

>>5494889
But that's wrong, you fuckwit. Hey let's believe this random idea not because there's reason to believe it's true but because its negation could be used for losers to rationalise their shitty lives.
Do you any idea how ridiculous you sound?

>>5494900

But did he have a choice to not sound ridiculous?

>>5494900
like i know your a "troll" and everything. But why? Why take your time and come on for 4chan to do this? Don't you have a girlfriend? And if you don't then this is why. you're so fucking retarded you even made me mad. Why the fuck would you go as far as to "troll" people...mmmm...You can't fucking answer that can? Because your pea brain can't think for it self and you just to copy-pasta.make your own shit up for once in your stupid unoriginal life.

freedom is the point between what has already been determined and freewill. freewill is dependent upon determined events, so yes

>>5494898
-99/10 your projection isn't funny either. Everyone can arrange the insults they've been exposed to one by one and make a comeback now. A little originality and wit please.

>>5494889
>>5494898
>>5494906
lol. keep going please.

>>5494908
your existence has no more worth than spending hours and hours on an internet forum making intentionally low quality “shit” posts interacting with similarly valueless people whom you might feel some camaraderie towards but realistically you probably wouldnt even be able to hold a conversation with them one on one because you are shallow uninteresting people

feeling validated just because someone replied and acknowledged your pathetic attempt at humor as being possibly better than the trash spewing out of the retards you surround yourself with while conveniently maintaining some illusion that youre different

this is the most meaningful thing you can conceive of engaging yourself with which says in so many words that you are utterly and entirely worthless

>>5494917
oh the tears...

>>5494906
I sincerely hope this is deliberately ironic aha. If so, then I commend you for the false emotion you've managed to convey, this is one of those posts that I just can't decide - is it an elaborate troll or is this individual really misunderstanding that much?

Either way your post gave me a little smile, so I guess I can't complain. If you are being serious, I recommend you consider stepping outside your perspective and taking a logical approach to this.

this escalated quickly

>>5494917

How long did it take you to get around to making this shitty post? Hours?

I'll alert the criminal justice system and tell them /sci/ claims free will doesn't exist.

>>5494981
will your free will accually let you do that?

nice try

>>5494993

Better yet, will the justice system's free will let them go?

>>5494981

How much will future discoveries in neuroscience change the criminal justice system?

>tfw no /phi/ board

I wish we had more insightful and intellectual discussion threads like this one and less boring science threads.

>>5494998
WTF does this have to do with neuoscience? You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5494972

Hey, he spent a good deal of time looking up most of those words in a dictionary.

>>5494999
>intellectual
>more

this is posted EVERY days

and there is no free will, compatibilism is the answer

Yes, but it has no effect on the physical world. Free will for physical actions is an illusion.

>>5495010
Compatibilism is a meaningless buzzword. Way to show off your pseudo-intellectualism.

this is why we all need to do science guys and not pseudo science, we need to make the universe our bitch

mfw it will lead to self destruction
mfw there is no way being free
mfw science is an illusion

>>5495010
Compatibilism holds that there is free will, defined to be compatible with determinism. Free will would be a decision-making algorithm.

If you define free will not to exist, then that's simply hard determinism.

>>5495052
>hurr durr retarded redefinitions

And if I redefine "god" to mean "cheese", I can go to /sci/ and claim god exists.

Even if god exists, he was determined to do all of this by the surreal causes we can never ever comprehend.
determinism : 1
free will : -99

I've always liked Hume's compatibilist position on reconciling causal scientific materialism with freewill (focusing on moral responsibility for one's actions). The universe is causally deterministic, which is why science works, and we are part of the universe (whether you believe we are dualistic or entirely composed of matter and nothing else). When we are said to be freely willing something, it should only mean that no other material cause is forcing us (by our perception and reason) to will something else. Modern neurology actually seems to suggest this picture.
Thus, if Anon likes loli, but is afraid of the social consequences of liking loli, anon instead faps to something else. Anon's will is not "free," and he is beta as fuck.

To be fair to Hume, his philosophy is a bit more complicated than my hastely written paraphrasing. But I think it's a pretty elegant way to reconcile strict scientific determinism with "freewill."

>>5495041
way to show off your ignorance with philosophy of mind


faggot

>>5495106
You don't know shit. What I said was right. Stay mad, high school faggot.

I'm not that (those?) guy(s), but... here's what Hume actually had to say about compatibilism. He tried to reconcile causal scientific materialism with freewill (especially accountability in the moral and legal sense) and still keep them both. He thinks the universe *is* causally deterministic, which is why science works and why induction (seems to) work. So how can a determined being still be held accountable for his actions? Semantics!
When we are said to be freely willing something, it should only mean that no other material cause is forcing us (by our perception and reason) to will something else. Modern neurology actually seems to suggest this picture.

So, yes the only reason you stole was because you were poor, but I can still hold you accountable for the result. My desire to seek justice is, of course, also causally determined.
To be fair to Hume, his philosophy is a bit more complicated than my hastily written paraphrasing. But I think it's a pretty elegant way to reconcile strict scientific determinism with "freewill." You can read it for yourself in "Of liberty and necessity."

>>5495141
Except that's not what free will means. What you describe is "being held accountable for your actions" and not free will. If all actions are physically determined, there is no free will.

"Do you believe in free will?"

"I have no choice."

>>5495148
>Except that's not what free will means.
>If all actions are physically determined, there is no free will.
Yes, Hume agrees with you on both counts. That's why he argues that THAT freewill is a myth, and we should instead talk about free will in this (compatabilist) way.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

no because determinism

>>5495167
Then there's no need for him to redefine free will. If he clearly wants to say that free will doesn't exist, then he is a hard determinist. His "compatibilism" is not a third option but only a very pseudo-intellectual reformulation of determinism, just like agnosticism is in fact atheism.

Plus it has the added benefit of explaining religious faith as categorically being the opposite of "free."
"His will be done," and not my own.

>>5495148
>hey guise you have to use my definition, any other is wrong even if it is more useful has been used since way before I was born

Obviously free will doesn't exist if it's the ability to act without the influence of external/prior factors; that's trivial to argue. This is what I was saying in my earlier posts about rigorous definitions being necessary. But the point is that throughout the years different people HAVE defined free will to be different things, and it isn't very wise or open-minded to insist that only one definition is "correct". Most of the "real" philosophers and intellectuals who argue free will DON'T argue the definition that you're insisting on precisely because it is almost necessarily impossible. They define it in ways that they believe make it compatible with the way the world really is. Often this may end up causing confusion about the term "free will", as sometimes it can seem like "will" would be a more appropriate term... but hey, that's the way the world is. Definitions are fluid and dynamic; not fixed.

I don't know about free will, but I have a random number generator linked to a geiger counter, and I use this to make some decisions. No pre-determined future for me.

>>5495176
>just like agnosticism is in fact atheism
I hate to risk a derail like this, but this common statement really does depend very heavily on how you define atheism. Often it really is defined as "the belief that there is no deity", in which case agnosticism does not necessarily come under it. You also need to bear in mind that agnosticism wasn't even a word in English until Huxley coined it to mean an option ASIDE from atheism and theism.

See >>5495182
Like I said there, you seem to have a view of definitions that is far too concrete and fixed. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but it's pretty narrow-minded.

>>5495176
>like agnosticism is in fact atheism.
Actually, that's not true in the least.
A "theist" is someone who believes in gods. An "atheist" is someone who does not believe in gods. A "gnostic" is someone who believes that human beings can known whether or not gods exist. An "agnostic" is someone who does not believe that human beings can know for sure whether gods exist for not.

Thus, a gnostic theist is someone who believes they know for sure that God exists. An agnostic theist is someone who is not sure if God exists or not, but chooses to believe. A gnostic atheist is someone who knows for sure that God does not exist. An agnostic atheist is someone who is not sure if God exists or not, but chooses to believe He does not.

What does free will even mean? Either you do things for reasons, in which case it's determined, or you do things randomly, in which case you're random. How does free will even make sense?

>>5495198
>derailing a metaphysics thread

>>5495203
I literally thought that immediately after I posted it. Meh.

neuroscience, philosophy, and thei relation to free will:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
http://www.psychologyinaction.org/2011/11/27/decision-making-biology-free-will-and-accountability/

>>5495202
It's like qualia, mathematical models are insufficient to describe it.

The first step in doing philosophy is to define one's terms.
This is why people study philosophy at universities, and not just science or math. It is quite rigorous in its own way.

>>5495215
>The first step in doing philosophy is to define one's terms.
>This is why people study philosophy at universities, and not just science or math. It is quite rigorous in its own way.
This. You know all those morons who talk about GMO food changing your DNA if you eat too much of it? All those people who think quantum physics somehow PROVES that people have souls? Those unwashed masses talking with authority about things they don't understand in the slightest?
That's what you're doing in this thread. If you want to know whether free will exists, don't ask your friends or simply report what you've "heard." Ask an expert or read a Goddamn book about it, just like science.

if I say it's going to rain tomorrow and it rains tomorrow did I predict the future or just make it?

>>5495229
lol y u mad tho?

>>5495248
...you predicted it.

>>5495267
What if he lied?

>>5495248
learn to distinguish between correlation/causation

>>5495282

What does "cause" even mean really?

How is it this is even a discussion? I don't understand.

Doesn't quantum mechanics, or whatever, rely on probabilities?

I thought that most mainstream interpretations of quantum physics were non-deterministic... relying on probabilities, etc..

I mean this assuming that we're equating 'free will' with determinism, of course. It just doesn't seem like it should be such a major debate.

If everyone agrees that free will 'seems' to exist then what arguments are there in favor of it being an illusion?

Of course, I don't know if this is a problem that could be solved philosophically. A greater understanding of how the human brain works would shed some light on this issue.

>>5494889

While I would say it's better not to know that free will doesn't exist (more drive, determination) ultimately your life is the culmination of a bunch of predetermined variables and we're all just passengers in our bodies and like dude what if humans were REALLY conscious etc. etc.

I swear to the end of my days I'll see this thread at LEAST once a day if not more...

>>5495300
>If everyone agrees that free will 'seems' to exist
everybody doesn't agree on that

>Doesn't quantum mechanics, or whatever, rely on probabilities?
us not understanding something doesn't mean you can project whatever values validate your spirit beliefs

>>5495300
>Doesn't quantum mechanics, or whatever, rely on probabilities?
Yes, your point being? Probability doesn't mean free will

>If everyone agrees that free will 'seems' to exist then what arguments are there in favor of it being an illusion?
Only trolls and /lit/ and /x/ folk agree to that. There is no evidence for free will.

>>5495352
>us not understanding something doesn't mean you can project whatever values validate your spirit beliefs
conformed for 'philisophical zombie' troll.

I'm just saying that there's no way to know for sure right now.

inb4 typical p-zombie troll response

>>5495416
but that's exactly what you were doing

I think free will exists. However the thing we deem most important is ensuring our survival, so by having this as a top priority our free will disapears to an extent. Most of us will have to live in the boundaries society has set up to survive.

>>5495352
>>5495355
obvious samefag.

>>5494917
>>5494928
Samefag basement dweller who after weeks of working on a word document attempted luring people into his "argument" so his copy paste was fitting, then adrenaline pumping waited three minutes and posted "laughing girlz" in the hopes of starting a mexican wave of recognition.

>>5495425
two distinct responses made in a different posting style for no reason whatsoever
if i were a samefag, why wouldn't i have incorporated the points of post 2 into post 1(mine)

>>5495425
Terrible call.

>>5495440
>>5495433
another obvious samefag

Sage goes in all fields

>>5494855
>could of

If free will existed the existence of a multiverse triggered by a different approach to a scenario would have to be denied because if you would have picked another approach the process of picking an approach would be chaotic. And if something is chaotic then the outcome would be random, leaving everything to chance does not imply free will because if you actively decided upon this on your own you would have reached the same conclusion every time provided the circumstance were the same. Since we have no way of verifying this and I cannot think of a better "experiment" I'm going to say that it's the same as proving the existence of god.
Most likely the question we are asking is wrong.

You can't prove free will does or doesn't exist. You also can't prove god does or doesn't exist. That being said... there is no evidence of god and the evidence for free will says it happens on quantum mechanical scale. That is, we can't predict but we can estimate what a collection of atoms will do.

As Michio Kaku says, it's almost as if the Universe decided to assemble atoms together to study itself. Therefore the Universe is because we observe it.

sage

>>5495551
>re<span class="math">[/spoiler]dditor thinks sage is a downvote

>>5495549
lol no, you absolutely can determine whether free will exists or not. Neurons are macro-molecular, and therefore are not affected by quantum randomness, and hence are deterministic. But, even so, lets assume that's not true, and that neurons are to certain degree random. Then you still don't have free will because it's randomness that's driving your actions, and hence your decisions are still determined by forces outside of your own will, implying you do not have free will. Free will can only arise when you presume the existence of some meta-physical property that allows it, which is of course retarded.

>>5495599
>>5495599

>Neurons are macro-molecular, and therefore are not affected by quantum randomness

Uh-huh. Take a basic quantum physics course and come back before you start spouting gibberish.

>>5495544
>>5495549
>it's the same as proving the existence of god.
>You also can't prove god does or doesn't exist

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

Why is /sci/ so shitty? There's actually less trolling on /b/ than there is on /sci/.

>>5495616

It's not false if I believe it's true now is it?