/sci/ - Science & Math

they should make a free-will board for free will related discussion

no, we live in a simulation

>>8292840
Jajaja maybe, but what do you think?

>>8292844
Isn't that idea very human-centric?

Define will. Define free.

>>8292837
>philosophy
sage

>>8292850
Okay, in the biblic sense: we have the ability to choose. Beyond our genetic code and our environment.

>>8292837
No. Now go back to >>>/pol/ >>>/x/ >>>/b/

Buridan's Ass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

>>8292837
Define yes. Define no

>>8292866
define "define" bro

>>8292855
>we have the ability to choose. Beyond our genetic code and our environment.
hahaha, no.

even if the universe is not deterministic (which i personally doubt), it's just quantum particles playing roulette that make your 'decisions'. free will is nothing but a useful illusion.

>>8292871
That's my position too

>>8292871
so nobody is responsible for their own actions?

guess it was those quantum particles that made me burn your house down.

>>8292877
yes, exactly. that doesn't mean we shouldn't lock up criminals for the protection of others.

>>8292880
how can you label someone a criminal if they are not in control of their own actions?

if free will doesn't exist, behavior patterns are inconclusive and irrelevant.

>>8292855
>biblic
nonsense

People make decisions yes. The social order demands we praise or condemn people based on their decisions. The problems come when people defend the existing social order as worthy of preservation.

Me? I see society as arising naturally from the lives of social animals.

>>8292885
If a snake attacks you, what do you do, protect yourself and try to smack it? if an animal tries to kill you do you try to kill it back?

>but it was just its nature bro!

Well its in your nature to also destroy the snake as a consequence of your natural self-preservation

>>8292837
If you want to have this discussion with a scientist - know that there are researches in the field which you can access with google.

And there is not sufficient data to even define consciousness properly, yet complex mechanisms like will inside it.

Someone should make a chart with all philosophical definitions of free will - I might do it, but I need to start paying attention to people here giving their own definitions - please if you do so - also back it up with links.

>>8292885
prove that you have free will. prove that you can directly manipulate the particles you are made of.

>>8292885
Do animals have free will as well? What about a stone or a plant? They're all made out of the same stuff.

There is no free will. What is interesting is to study why people make the decisions they make (including the decision not to change their situation.).

Free will is worth chasing. Who cares if it's really real?

>>8292861
No one's addressing this?

G-d is all powerful and all knowing, therefor free will can not possibly exist.

>>8292904
no sorry I'm not addressing a wikipedia article.

if free will exists, why can't i stop breathing on my own so i could die already

>>8292911
eat my autism faggot

>>8292861
>>8292904
>paradox

It would pick the water since you can survive longer without food than water.

>>8292916
god you're dumb

later everybody

>>8292916
but it's equally hungry and thirsty. this implies that it goes like 2 seconds without either it will die

>>8292920
>equally hungry and thirsty

After drinking that water it won't be thirsty anymore. Also if it's truly rational it will ignore the thirst and take sips at time intervals that maximize survival.

>>8292925
don't reply to this, he's trolling now, but only to hide his previous stupidity.

>>8292926
Anyone who engages in discussion about "free will" is trolling. Smart people know it's a waste of time and spend it on more fruitful philosophical discussions.

>>8292928
Free will is one of the big red cocks that underpins philosophy. A lot of questions are derived from it, just like mind-body.

>>8292885
how can we stop ourselves from jailing other people if we can't control our own actions?

>>8292938
dude minority report lmao

>>8292885
>how can you label someone a criminal

Because we are determined to do so. U mad bro?

>>8292861
Where's the paradox?

This happens all the time. People don't know what to do when they can only take one out of two options, when the options are equally good/bad.

>>8292906
>God

>>8292941
The paradox is that people who don't believe in free will are implicitly accepting the fact that the ass will die both of hunger and thirst because it won't be able to make a decision from its own essence

Free will is not time sensitive. You can make a choice today that effects you years later, giving the illusion you have no choice or no free will in the matter when the effects of your choice occur.

Just for shits and giggles lets imagine a world where non-time sensitive free will exists, but happens in non-linear time. Choices you make in the future can effect your life right now or even in your past. The effects of this are not perceivable because even tho free-will is non-linear your memories are not.

>>8292966
I believe in a variant of nonlinear free will.

I really wonder what the exact boundaries of our will are.

If we all have free will, why do we not rarely self-sabotage our success? Why are we often not able to bear the pain? Why are some people able to? Just what are the limits to this? How are they defined in our brain?

>>8292855
I'd argue that the biblical sense of free will is closer to the notion of identity; the identity of sinners resulting from an identification of their self with their own desires whereas the identity of the godly resulting from an identification of their self as one with god's will. When the bible criticizes sinners for choosing wickedness, p sure they just mean that their consciousness is just an island in an archipelago instead of the entire ocean + the land itself, ya see? Doesnt really have that much to do with our intuitive notion of free will.

>Believe in free will

>Don't believe in souls

>>8292966
>shits and giggles
urban redneck detected

>>8292837
No. At least for any meaningful definition of free will.

>>8292885
Ignorance.
Hypocrisy.
Delusion.
Calvin Klein.

>>8292980
Please respond.

>>8292966
>free will is not time sensitive.
>proceeds to define free will in terms of non-linear time
nice

>>8292849
No one said it was a human's simulation

>>8292837
50/50 we either have it or we don't.

>>8292876
What's your velocity then anon?

>>8292837
heres the thing about metaphysics

take for instance, the unicorn.
It is an imaginary creature representing purity and magic and freedom.

Now I ask you if unicorns exist.
You say no.
I say but surely there are instances of unicorns, to find one all you need to do is open a book play a video game and you can see a unicorn.
then you say but I can't touch a unicorn.
Then I reply not yet. But they have CRISPr technology and I could just genetically engineer a unicorn for you.

thats the thing about abstract concepts like truth, justice, freedom.

they are dreamed up, and wait inside the minds that have hope and wonder. Until the day comes that we can make it a reality.

you can really test to see if free will exists.
you can only test to see how free will operates.
We may not have complete free will, or free agency. but i think if we progress in the right way we can attain it.

>>8293162
Why is it suddenly a binary thing? Why not have a limited amount of free will? Or free will only within certain time frames or situations?

>>8293194
you can't test to see if free will exists

Realizing the illusion of free will is babby tier.

Now realizing that your conception of self and ego is an illusory construct retroactively created by brain your is the next level.

When you appreciate that the perception of you as separate to the rest of the world outside of you is an illusion created by your brain and your identity centered on the illusory self melts away, that's what enlightenment is.

Happened to me yesterday, it was like I had stepped outside the universe and could see everything.

>free will thread on /sci/

>>8292837
No we don't have free will.
You can see this for yourself, you don't need to have it proven to you.

Try and notice where thoughts come from. They simply appear out of nowhere in your mind. Stop thinking for a moment and try and maintain, just notice what happens. You notice you're constantly bombarded by thoughts that you have no control over.

Now go and make a decision. Let's say you go to the fridge and you're choosing between a Peanut butter sandwich or a ham sandwich. Whichever one you pick, you really didn't have a say in, despite how much it feels like you did. Say you pick peanut butter, why did you?
>I felt like this one more
Why? Did you have any say in that?
>No I just like peanut butter more
Well why do you like peanut butter more? Stop liking it as much.
You can't. Now at this point, the contrarian always says
>"Even if I feel like Peanut Butter more, I could pick ham!"
Okay now why did you pick ham instead?
>'insert whatever reason given'
Say this reason is to prove a point in this argument, or it's because they think ham is more filling, or it's going to go off soon. NONE of these things, were up to them, and the motivation to finally pick ham because of these reasons, wasn't up to them either. Their body and brain simply fed them those reasons.

Simply notice the feeling of making a decision. Try not just saying pros and cons in your head, try and notice what it feels like finally coming to a decision. It simply *clicks* all of a sudden, and you just finally know the answer, and it feels like you just came to it. But really why did that one click??

Free will isn't an illusion, the illusion of free will is an illusion. We just haven't been bothered to pay attention to our thoughts.

>free will
>noun
>1.
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
and how exactly does one act against the constraint of necessity?
if an event happened, the one and only out of multitude of possible ones, there must be a sufficient reason for it's happening, which necessarily leads to the previously mentioned event.
now, on a scale of single individual, for the definition of free will strongly implies its appliance to one, it is no different in the principle, but only in way of execution, namely, by the subject.
say, we have a situation, which involves the subject to make a choice, thus necessarily leading to one event, i.e. outcome.
if this event happens, there must be a reason for its happening, that is a deliberate choice of a subject, which acts as a necessary cause
now look back at the definition, which implies disobedience to the necessity
now about the choice - actually, a man undergoes the inner fight of his motives, the strongest of which necessarily wins, which illustrates the impossibility of individual's free will.
however, one's motives, outer causes and circumstances are not known precisely at any given point of time, which in turn, leads to such misconception

>>8293547
Just because people have reasons for their decicions, doesnt mean they dont have free will

>>8292837
from our perspective yes, from the perspective of an observer that doesn't give a shit about time, no

the universe in deterministic

>>8293565
You have completely misunderstood what I said. I'm saying the REASONS they have, they don't really decide. Everything you do like and don't like, or want and don't want to do is not up to you, it doesn't matter why you do or don't, the point is that either way you don't choose. Try and choose right now to "like" being shot. You can't. You don't want to get shot because you don't want to die, you can't change this fact, so you'll always avoid getting shot. You're not free to choose otherwise.

Then you'll say "Maybe one day I might choose to shoot myself though". Yes and if that happens, the reasons why you want to and choose to are not up to you, they simply are, and your subconscious makes the choice for you.

Anyway studies have already solidified this. They've shown they can through brain scans know the decision someone is going to make up to 10 seconds before the person themselves know. Google these, the actual studies are pretty complicated so I recommend science news websites summarising them nicely.

>>8293183
and how would he know that anon?

>>8293565
Let A be a situation in arbitrary conditions which requires a deliberate action, namely choice from the subject out of two possible outcomes: B and C.
Let [b] and [c] be possible deliberate actions of subject which lead respective to outcomes B and C as a sufficient reason.
According to principle of sufficient reason, each action must necessarily have a cause, namely a motive (b and c respectively).
It's a well-known empirical fact that in reality one and only one of outcomes is brought into existence.
There we have two causality chains:
A-->b-->[b]-->B
A-->c-->[c]-->C
Motives b and c are brought into subject's conception where they are elaborated and the strongest one necessarily wins, according to subject's inborn character and experience.
Ex.: A = subject saw a person accidentally drop their money
b = motive to pick up the money and give them back
[b] = action of picking up the money and giving them back
B = person thanks you, you feel good about it
c = motive to pick up the money and keep them to yourself
[c] = action corresponding to c
C = PROFIT

Question: is the choice of subject dependent on "muh free will" or was it because of his character?

Reasoning is the mode of causality, that as such annihilates any sort of freedom

>>8293032
This brit is a pretty cool guy

>>8292911
>le wikipedia isn't reliable meme

>>8292837
All that matters is that we believe we have free will; anything else is besides the point.

>>8292837

Nonsensical. If you give a person a gram of coke, they'll act hyper and do dumb shit. Therefore action and thought are modifiable by physical constraints and excesses.

>but criminals

The information they are made up of, the extra data that information parsed, and the environment intertwine.

You can only convince and change men who are primed and ready to be convinced and changed. Instead of thinking about free will, you should asking "How do I modify motivation and action to produce superior results?".

>>8293878

If you put a person in a room with only flourouscent lighting, they'll get tired over the day because a lack of UV radiation doesn't tell the body to stop producing melatonin.

It'd be interesting to see if daytime pot smokers have higher levels of skin cancer. Melatonin also signals/activates skin repair processes so...

But anyways, telling a worker he's "lazy" and "stupid" in such an environment is cruelty.

At the same time if environmental stress causes YOU to act violently in the midst of peaceful people, you're going to be locked up or put down. No analysis will save you.

>>8292846
latam fag detected

I'm just bored about this endless semantic debate...

Holy fuck..

Why do you keep asking these stupid questions, when you can create a model of reality where humans have free will, then compare that model to reality and see if it fits.

Fuck sake what do schools teach you these days when you can't answer simple af questions like this by yourself.

>>8293908

right there with you, except not bored, just not giving attention to it really. Would you like to do something actually useful with me?

>>8292846
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LatinoAmericANO

partial free will which is technically not free will.

>>8293975
define partial free will

>>8293989
>define partial free will
Not him, but humans have a certain level of understanding about how our current actions will affect our future state, and that whatever state we're in influences our actions. From this, it can be seen that humans are capable of understanding how to influence their own future actions by their current actions. In this way, we do achieve some limited measure of control over our future actions, though it's not complete and thus technically not free will.

>>8292837
take this thread, right, and
shove it up your fking ass underage popscientist

>>8292892
don't blow his mind up
plebs can't even begin to approach the subject of a nervous system existing in other animals

>>8292844
What makes free will impossible in a simulation?

>>8294039
don't discourage him, he just wants to throw out buzz words like a monkey does their own waste

>>8292885
>if free will doesn't exist, behavior patterns are inconclusive and irrelevant
and why is that so? I believe they have some causal relations in them, and ever since you implied people are free, namely are capable of disobedience to causal laws, will BEING free must make these patterns irrelevant

>>8292885
>>8294060 cont'd
>how can you label someone a criminal if they are not in control of their own actions?
>what is motivation
are you braindead? for each individual's action there must be a cause, namely a motive introduced to them via perception(conditions), conception(possible concequences) and later chosen out of multitude of others depending on it's suitability of the person's (here: criminal's) character

>>8293837
It isnt. Can you cite it as source in murrican universities or what?

this thread is such bullshit.

you try and explain actions based off of perception.

but a person goes through life bombarded with tons of perceptions of day.
so what is it that out of all those perceptions, during all that time, they finally attune to something that interests them.
be it the sound of a finely tuned engine
a cool looking comic book hero
the smell of sawdust and grease
the feel of a bolt of fabric.

I mean sure you could say they were "primed" to attune to those things.

but what about when something like that is completely alien to the person?

how do you guys resolve buardins ass?

how do you resolve "perceptions" or "previous actions" that have equal discretionary weight?


I think none of you know what the decision making process entails.

sometimes you have to make solutions instead of just finding them.

>>8293594
>I'm saying the REASONS they have, they don't really decide
Yeah, of course people will be biased. That also doesnt mean they dont have free will

>>8294074
not him, but there isnt really a choice if there is no free will

>>8292837
>dont have free will
>had no choice to type this
>but i know i dont have free will

PENIS

>it was determined in the universe for me to type this. I didnt choose to, the universe made me do it

>>8294273
look
>>8293625

what is the difference between free will and instincts and reflexes?

>>8294344
well, I guess it boils down to the semantics of "choice"

>>8294431
rather to disassamblement of individual's action:
if you do this, you are left with no place for "free will",
otherwise, namely ignoring of the principle of causality, you are led into delusion of "free will"

>>8292885
that's why I'm against jail and for therapeutic measurements.

>>8292931
it's the other way round

>>8292861
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

The picture becoming clear scientifically is that there are elements of randomness and determinism. With an element of randomness in our lives the paradoxical example no longer applies concretely.

>>8292966
Are we a slave to our own free will?

>>8292891
I can't prove to anyone that my visualizations exist, but "...neuroscientists at the University of Wisconsin attached 256 sensors to the monk’s skull. When he meditated on compassion, the researchers were shocked to see that Ricard’s brian produces a level of gamma waves off the charts. He also demonstrated excessive activity in his brain’s left prefrontal cortex.."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-worlds-happiest-man-is-a-tibetan-monk-105980614/?no-ist

Also, mostly common knowledge, people can alter their heart rates, too [with practice].

>>8292837
no

>>8292837
Anyone who says they know is lying.

>>8292861
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass
EZ BRO
since the 2 stacks are not in the same position, I choose the stack which position I prefer. It could be warmth, exposure to sun, view, anything really...

>>8292920
I would always eat first then drink in order for the food to nicely go through my throat.

>>8293931
*unzips dick*

>>8294550

The point of the argument is how it is physically possible to make a decision between two equally desired outcomes without free will.

>>8294561
I take the one I prefer

>>8293625
>he hasn't read his Kant

That's cute and all, but you need to read Kant bro

>>8294566

If you desire both equally, there is no preference.

>>8293536
WELCOME BROTHER WANT TO BE FB FRIEND ???

>>8294579
>If you desire both equally
not very likely

>>8294587

It is a thought experiment.

>>8294561
there are NEVER two equally desired outcomes, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. If they could be the same then their would be no need for choice. If choice appears it truly means the 2 outcomes are different. CHECK MATE.

>>8294603

>>8294588
its stupid

>>8292837
>Free will, yes or no? Why?
No
reason: Nothing is free.

>>8294608
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass
>A version of this situation appears as metastability in digital electronics, when a circuit must decide between two states when there is an input that is changing value. In digital electronics a small amount of randomness acts as a tie-breaker, and the circuits settle into one state or the other after a usually very small, but unbounded period of time.

>>8292885
"they" don't really exist, so really there is no one to blame. People aren't people, they are the macroscopic expression of plenty of subprocesses. A macroscopic event, like someone murdering another, is due to innumerable sub-events, on a smaller scale. A murder isn't really a thing in itself, it's just a concept we made up, like most other concepts we use to conceive our environment. It's like forests, they aren't really a thing, you can't point to a forest and nothing else, they are a vaguely defined concept made from what we decide is a lot of trees. At which point does it stops being a forest?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

>>8294603

Where is your proof of the impossibility of two equal choices?

What do you mean by no need for choice? Are you saying a decision wouldn't be made, or a choice would be made randomly through some physical mechanism?

No free will. The same person is compulsed to post this exact same thread everyday. He has no control over this addiction.

>>8292837
This is the most simple question I know of. It has a similarly simple answer: No. The irony though is that even though the lack of free will is blatantly obvious, the evidence all around us, most people will refuse to see it.

If you don't understand that there can't be free will, then there's no point in anyone explaining it to you. If you could get it, you already would have.

But if you want to check up on it, have a look at something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

Just don't expect miracles. As said, if you could get it, you already would have. Discussing free will with people who actually believe in it is like an atheist having an argument with a religious person: Logic, proof, sound reasoning and even layman's terms and examples etc have absolutely nothing to do with it. The one will *never*, not *ever*, convince the other.

>>8294623
so that means engineers have no choice but to suck cocks?

>Criminals
About criminals and people that don't obey the law. There are several possibilities really.

1-low self esteem. they already see (label ?) them selves as criminals more or less unconsciously so they just surrender to their outlaw urges.

2-High self esteem. Heisenberg in Breaking Bad is the perfect example. He basically thinks he can't get caught.

I think the only free will we have is an inhibitory one i.e. repress our "bad" urges. but even that is deterministic in a way lol.

>>8294621
choice appears when we have to choose between 2 different behaviors which demonstrates that the outcomes (behavior included) can NOT be the same.

Is there free will? No in between / other political affiliations allowed. Murican 2 party system. Take cover under one umbrella or the other.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11072166

>>8294627
>most people will refuse to see it
That's not in their control, like anything else. I think that's partly due to the fact it's a completly unpractical idea, and goes against all the bullshit we've been through as a species, without ever having a good reason to do so.

I've often wondered if a perfectly rational AI, without any irrational incentives hardcoded in, wouldn't just turn into a stagnant, nihilistic machine the moment it's turned on.

>>8294627
>If you don't understand that there can't be free will, then there's no point in anyone explaining it to you. If you could get it, you already would have.
what a cop out. fuck off you intelectually dishonest cunt

>>8294633
arugh *cough* *cough*

eeeek

ack ack ack

PREEEEEEEFRP


Yeeeaaaaa

Let me just *cough*

*unzips dick*


yeah let me just change my definition of free will once I've discovered a situation where my previous definition doesn't apply


ACK ACK ACK

>>8294649
(You)

>>8294654
wasn't the other anon you were replying to btw, that guy is chill
the one trying to explain the thought experiment to you

>>8292867
define "bro"

>>8294627
Indeed, this is one of the things that make me think "why the fuck don't people get it"

But in the end, free will or not, you can't do anything with that information, It's a pointless question

>>8294633

So what happens in the case when presented with two equally desirable "actions" or whatever word you would use to describe making a decision.

>>8294649
why so many 4chaners unzip their dix when they are outsmarted ?

>>8294627
>Logic, proof, sound reasoning
see
>>8294618

>>8294672
because we know all the retards on /sci/ are engineers

>>8292849
How much of this universe is safe for humans?

>>8294662
pic related

>>8294668
"equally desirable" could be possible if we define desirability on a single scale with a number. In reality the number of scales possible are infinite.

Why do you use your right hand over your left hand ? or vice versa ?

>>8294675
and you are ?

>>8294695

>>8294637
>poll
lol only 3 guys in this thread apparently

>>8294687

What is the proof of desirability being unbounded?

What is the proof of all possible decisions being unequal, even if they were unbounded?

Making a decision between right or left hand are not equal, and even an infinite amount of unequal examples does not prove the impossibility of equal desirability.

>>8294705
equality is a mathematical construct that can not apply in the real world

>>8294706

Contemporary physics says all photons are identical with each other, same as electrons, protons, etc.

If you are implying human logic and reason are invalid than your entire argument is self-contradicting.

>>8294706
So if I lose 5000 calories and gain 5000 calories, nothing about that situation in the real world is equal. Given the unlikelihood of that happening, still you can say that it's possible. Anyway, I'm shitposting anon. >>8294649


The equality was the axiom in the thought experiment, it's a hypothetical to explore a bit of conceptual space. Anyway, if you want to be concrete about it, the desire is equal in the sense that both biological reactions of "hunger" and "thirst" are equal

>>8294699
angry rasta man? maybe engineering could actually soothe you down

>>8294712
I got philosophy to sooth me down

>>8294706

Inequality is also a mathematical construct.

>>8294710
no that is the BIG mistake of current physics. they all differ by position. The position of a particle is an intrinsic property of it.

>>8294720

Particles without mass can occupy the same position.

>>8294730
interesting, any example of a stable one? (ie over time and not moving)

>>8294715
I wouldn't count on that. Philosophy only perpetuates the illusion of a doer. (it keeps you chained in the matrix of your own thoughts).

>>8294730
>Particles without mass can occupy the same position.
>>>/x/

>>8294628
No they can take it up the ass too
t. Computer Engineer

>>8294740

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix#Philosophical_influences

>>8294643
Of course it isn't. But as >>8294663
said, there's not much we can do with the information anyway. Our entire society is built on the idea of choice. Our values, education, careers, criminal punishment system, incentives... everything.

But I do disagree that the idea would be impractical. It's extremely practical and obvious. Your personality is the result of events preceding it. We're fully aware of the immense effect nature and nurture have on crafting a person. There's absolutely no denying the fact that at the very least, the way you're raised and the events, trauma and support you're subjected to during your life, have a significant impact on your personality. We've also tested and found that people make their choices before they're even consciously aware of them.

So we already know that any potential "free will" is ever shrinking the more we actually know about the events that preceded your present person. Does 10% "free will" then make a case for absolute free will? Does 1%? I mean, logically speaking it's not at all hard to see the pattern there, or the obvious conclusion that pattern is leading us towards.

>>8294647
You really aren't doing yourself any favors, are you? I posted the fucking vid for you, all you had to do was click it once. But apparently it was too complex a task for you, wasn't it? So you just decided to make a fucking moron out of yourself and waste the time typing up that instead. Good job you!

>>8294752
I love the allegory of the cave, it really nourishes the imagination BUT the only true matrix is the web of words, concepts and ideas in your head.

>>8294755
>You really aren't doing yourself any favors, are you? I posted the fucking vid for you, all you had to do was click it once. But apparently it was too complex a task for you, wasn't it? So you just decided to make a fucking moron out of yourself and waste the time typing up that instead. Good job you!
http://vocaroo.com/i/s06yg9WQ8t58

>>8294736

The state of "not moving" does not exist. If you mean to ask if they were not moving in our frame of reference, that is impossible as massive particles have slower propagation due to the Higgs.

Two photons in the same position propagating in the same direction is possible, although assigning state vectors to the particle is slightly erroneous. Explaining QM and QED is beyond what I am willing to discuss right now.

>>8294742

Stay in school.

>>8294770
>he didn't keep reading
>Immanuel Kant also has an influence on how the individuals within The Matrix interact with one another and with the system. Kant states in his Critique of Pure Reason that people come to know and explore our world through synthetic means (language, etc.), and thus this makes it rather difficult to discern truth from falsely perceived views.

>>8294782
ultimately there is no truth or non truth. they are just words or concepts.

>>8294790

>ultimately there is no truth or non truth

Then you can't be right and truth and non truth could exist.

>>8294790
Wittgenstein and Nietzsche would probably agree with you. And maybe Kant. But declaring there is no truth is a truth in itself, as you may obviously know.

The problem is is that we are working within certain structures that guide us through experience, therefore we can't say anything of the thing-in-itself within that same structure, it'd be like saying there is a representation outside of my representation, which is oddly irrational to say.

>>8294755
I wont watch that 1h+ video. And this is besides the point. All you said was "hurr I wont explain my reasoning since people who disagree with me are too dumb to get it anyway"
fuck off you intelectually dishonest cunt
You are the worst kind of cancer

>>8294780
>QED
quantum electrodynamics?
I love it so much, I don't have a definite opinion on it yet though. But from the little I saw about it, photons do know where they are going even before they are "launched". It's like there truly is an invisible dimension of non locality.

>>8294780
>Stay in school.
says the one who posts /x/-tier garbage
go back to your magical friends on >>>/x/

>>8294812
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1meduaujf1u

>>8294801
I mean, I have to use words to answer to this thread. My point simply is that the further you move away from feelings and things the less real it becomes. Ultimately, freewill or not, you will always have to eat sleep and shit.

>>8294817

Just promise yourself you won't drop out.

>>8294829
When I read that post, I saw this pic

>>8293547
This post best post

>>8293565
I was driving on the road yesterday, and as a socially awkward fuck who has issues with even the smallest of small talks, told myself that I should do something totally out of the ordinary and at conflict with my personality. So I went into Dunkin Donuts and ordered something.

Was that my decision? Yes, it was. But was it free will? From my point of view, no. I had told myself I to do something I wouldn't normally do, but why did I want to do that in the first place? It's because that decision I made is reactionary to the years of my past life and personality which I retrospectively regret. So I did something not entirely because of free will, but because I wanted to feign autonomy I wouldn't otherwise have.

>>8294829
not an argument
Please go back to your bullshit spouting brainlets
>>>/x/

>>8293547
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1tIZHISmP0A>>8294836

>>8294836
>But was it free will?
yes
> I had told myself I to do something I wouldn't normally do
exactly

>>8294776
kek

>>8294856
You missed the entire point of my post. Literally the entire point.

>>8294836
>>8294836

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1tIZHISmP0A

>>8293547
>>8294836
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1tIZHISmP0A

>>8294861
No. I just disagree

>>8294901
Show me the tiniest scrap of evidence that free will is physically possible

>>8294931
Show me that it isnt

>>8294939
you're the one that made the claim that this weird thing you call 'free will' exists, burden of proof lies with you.

>>8294943
you're the one that made the claim that this apparent and observable thing we call 'free will' doesnt exist, burden of proof lies with you.

But seriously, it boils down to
>>8294752

There is no hard proof either way

>>8294950
>apparent and observable thing
it's neither apparent nor observable.

go ahead, propose an experiment that shows how your 'ego' or your 'self' or wathever you decide to call it influences quantum particles directly. i'll wait.

>>8294039
Deep

>>8294939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

>>8294996
i really don't get why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around the fact that we all obey the laws of physics. do they believe in a metaphysical soul or what is the problem?

>>8294955
It is totally apparent. What are you on about? Does it feel like to you, that your choices are dictated by something that isnt you?

>>8294996
what?

>>8295002

Because the "laws of physics" are leaky abstractions of observations recorded by smarter men using different jargon and juggling systems of mechanics on radically different levels than "normal" human intuition.

You only convince people with demonstration. Everything else is their own effort. Most people aren't going to put in effort for things that don't have immediate reward or which seem distant.

>>8295022
propose an experiment or shut the fuck up brainlet

>>8295034
How about you propose an experiment that proves, that there is no free will? You are really missing the core of the problem by thinking about it this way

>>8295061
refer to >>8294996

also check out this neat image. as i have stated earlier, burden of proof lies with you.

>hurr free will exists, u can't prove that it doesn't
>hurr god exists, you can't prove that he doesn't
>hurr this thing we can't see, touch or measure exists, you can't prove that it doesn't

PROPOSE EXPERIMENT
OR
STFU

>>8295061
The burden of proof lies with you m8.

>>8295061
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>>8295061
That's easy, they've already done those.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16876476

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=84922D40CA4B0B979EC260B96667BC32.journals?fromPage=online&aid=6711468

Here is a couple of studies showing there's no free will. Now present yours.

>>8295061
read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics

>>8295101
Woops tagged wrong guy

Meant
>>8294939

>>8295083
>>8295087
>>8295094
(You)

>>8295101
Oh, I heard of this before. But thats kind of assuming that the subconsciousness isnt a part of the person

>>8292966
this is some pandimensional logic shit.
10/10

>>8295109
>(You)
great argument, brainlet. so you are completely disregarding the fact that you are made out of particles and look at the problem from a psychological standpoint only? fine by me, but it still means you're wrong.

>>8294284
>>8294314
this

How can you even think you have no choice?

i'm starting to believe that the people saying that free will exists are either dumb or trolling.

>>8295102
This is what science has to say on the subject. tl;dr: free will does not exist according to the brightest minds on earth.

>>8295114
>great argument
against what? those were just lazy shitposts. nice namecalling and strawmanning btw. How am I disregarding that I'm made out of particles? Things can have more complex properties than the parts they are made of

>>8292837
Do I have a choice?

>>8295124
see >>8295102 and >>8295094

ffs

as an absurdist this thread greatly amuses me

>>8295109
Subconsciousness is of course still "part of the person", and one could even say "they are" their subconscious. It doesn't change the fact that you have no control over you decisions. In that case it'd just mean "you" are on auto pilot, simply observing what unfolds.

This isn't farfetched, think about driving a car. You can daydream the entire drive without a single complication. And whether your daydreaming or focusing on driving, theirs no real difference in your actions, it's just where your conscious experience is being directed. Now apply that to your whole life. You're on autopilot in the same way as if you were driving.

>"Then why don't I just lie down and do nothing and see what happens?"

Go ahead, try it. Try and just remain laying down. Surely if free will existed someone on earth would eventually do this by choice. You simply can't, your determinism will decide the 'point' isn't worth proving to itself and take over and have you productive again.

>>8295128
>if I repeat myself over and over agian, maybe I will magically make a point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

>neuroscientist claims there is no free will, just the illusion of free will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU

>philosopher says there is free will


who to believe, the scientist or the pseudoscientist

>>8295143
yes, because apparently you still don't get it or you haven't read the wikipedia articles. enjoy your unscientific unfalsifiable religious (read: bullshit) believe.

>>8295140
>It doesn't change the fact that you have no control over you decisions
But I have. I could totally decide to randomly just stop the car. If one can say you are your subconscious, the it isnt really an autopilot. It is me piloting. The fact that we can do certain things as if they were automated is just the brain being efficient. Yeah, I can walk without thinking about it, but I can still consciously choose to do a silly walk

>>8295146
nice appeal to authority

this is like talking to a wall lmao

>>8295157
as these experiments >>8295101 have shown, the decision to walk silly was made by your subconscious around 10 seconds before you started walking silly. what is your point?

>>8295161
how about you listen to their talks and make up your own mind based on what they have to say? dannets entire argument is basically
>free will might not exist, but since i don't want to live in a world where people aren't truly responsible for their actions i just say it is real. i hate those damn criminals :(

>>8292891
>I will my right arm to raise
>it raises

Looks like I have free will, how about you?

>>8295174
refer to >>8295101

i have yet to see an experiment that proves the existence of free will, yet there are a bunch that prove the opposite. the one making the outrageous claim here is you and only you. the burden of proof lies with the one making the outrageous claim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g

Dan Dannet getting BTFO by Sam Harris on the topic of free will.

>>8295173
I might actually look into those, thanks. Just the way you presented it was a non-argument. They both could raise valid points, no matter who they are

>>8295174
You didnt will anything. A complex cascade of chemical and physical interactions produced the signals that caused your arm to raise. You had absolutely no power to prevent it

>>8292861
>dies of hunger
would definitively die of thirst before hunger..

>>8295198
free will CONFIRMED

>>8292941
>options are equally good/bad.
but getting water in this circumstance is objectively the better choice. regardless of the ass' thirst or hunger, you cannot survive as long without water as you can without food. you would chose water every time

>>8292885
Because locking people like you will have the deterministic consequence of preventing more people from committing the same crime.

>>8295157
But whatever "reason" you decide to stop the car, and your body/mind providing you the motivation, the will and the actions to actually do so, were not up to you.

If you were driving a car, and to prove to yourself you "have free will", you stop it. That's you exercising free will right? No.
The reasoning for stopping the car (let's use the example of proving this point) was not up to you.

>"I did it because I'm bothered by the thought there's no free will!"

- Being bothered by that thought is not up to you, you simply feel that way
- Wanting to prove the point is not up to you, you simply want to
- Having the motivation to go about proving the point is not up to you, you just do

None of the factors that actually cause the action are up to you, so every single "reason" you tell yourself as to why you did it, was really predetermined. This applies for absolutely any decision you can think of.

>>8295426
Well, you keep claiming "it is not up to you". I already understand that this is your position, but why do you think it isnt up to me? Of course my "mind" is providing the motivation, but I am my mind.
This is really just semantics/philosophy, isnt it?

>>8292837
>Free will
Do you mean free as in free beer or free as in freedom?

>>8292837
It's interesting that our belief in the matter can cause a change in our behaviour:

>After researchers provoked volunteers to disbelieve in free will, participants lied, cheated, and stole more. Kathleen Vohs has found that those whose belief in free will had been eroded were more likely to cheat. In a study conducted by Roy Baumeister, after participants read an article arguing against free will, they were more likely to lie about their performance on a test where they would be rewarded with cash. Provoking a rejection of free will has also been associated with increased aggression and less helpful behaviour as well as mindless conformity. Disbelief in free will can even cause people to feel less guilt about transgressions against others.

>Baumeister and colleagues also note that volunteers disbelieving in free will are less capable of counterfactual thinking.

>>8295455
We're not arguing whether or not you are your mind, we can agree that you are. I'm saying you have no control over your mind. You don't control your thoughts or actions. The feeling of being "you" is simply a matter of experience. You're essentially watching the movie of your life unfold.

So even if you are your mind, you're admitting that motivation for action (and reasoning) is provided by subconscious processes, and this is all you need to admit that you don't actual control your own minds decisions and actions. If I had to use a very simplistic analogy for your position it's essentially like someone handing you a knitted scarf, and then you're saying "I made this!", I'm saying no you didn't, you didn't control how it was made, or whether or not it was made, you were simply given it. And then you're rebutting with "But I have it right here so I must have made it". This is essentially what saying, to quote you "Of course my "mind" is providing the motivation, but I am my mind."

The reason there's such confusion on this topic is because not just is free will an illusion, the feeling of "self" and being a person inside a body who is the author of that bodies actions, is an illusion. There is only experience. Thoughts are like every other sense, you can't choose what you see, or hear, or feel, you simply experience those. Otherwise you'd have to think your thoughts before you think them, which is of course nonsense.

>>8295575
Why would evolution waste precious calories keeping a consciousness around if said consciousness couldn't be of use to the organism? If the consciousness is to be of use it must have the ability to do something useful, ergo your position that we are mere witnesses to a movie and not active participants therein must be false.
Not him btw.
Also free will is distinct from freedom of experience, freedom of emotion, freedom of motivation, and freedom of thought. Free will only concerns the will.

>>8295632
>Why would evolution waste precious calories keeping a consciousness around if said consciousness couldn't be of use to the organism?
why is evolution keeping bad eye sight and manlets around? what about mental illnesses?

just because it's there, doesn't mean it serves any purpose.

>>8294207
You can't even cite it in American high schools

>>8295575
I see where you are coming from, but that just confirms to me, that we look at the same things differently.
As I mentioned earlier, this is really a philosophical problem and in the end we land at the hard problem of consciousness

>>8294207
>"video games and anime are now real forever"
holy fuck, kek

>>8295643
basic physics isn't a philosophical problem

>>8295642
But you can cite its own sources just fine

>>8295729
I know

>>8295636
>why is evolution keeping bad eye sight and manlets around? what about mental illnesses?
>just because it's there, doesn't mean it serves any purpose.
But bad eyesight and being a manlet are just failed attempts at good eyes and being tall respectively. What is consciousness a failed attempt at?
As for your second point, consciousness probably increases the energy expenditure of an organism by a nontrivial amount and doesn't seem to be a vestige of some not useless feature. All other traits of this nature are useful. Evolution abhors wasted calories.

>>8295760
>a vestige of some not useless feature.
Meant to say now useless

>>8295760
I've always assumed consciousness (at least the subjective experiential side of it) is some kind of magic that gets tacked on the a functional biological organism for some reason

>>8295760
>are just failed attempts
No. not really. Those things just happen and turn out to be not beneficial. They arent attempts at anything.

>>8295765
Brool story, co
Its not really a counter argument anyway since manlets and poor sight are just tail ends of a spectrum of some trait. Consciousness is possessed by all humans.

>>8295779
I really wish people wouldnt get so defensive over getting corrected

>>8295781
>I really wish people wouldnt get so defensive over getting corrected
Not an argument
Do you have any evidence to back the claim that I as a conscious entity have no causal influence over my actions or are you just going to continue with baseless assertions to the contrary?

>>8295807
this is exactly what I mean. You are defensive as fuck. I just pointed a little misconception in your post and you sperg out. What the fuck did I assert? What the fuck did I tried to argue?
You are tilting at windmills. Please calm down.

>>8295836
>this is exactly what I mean. You are defensive as fuck. I just pointed a little misconception in your post and you sperg out. What the fuck did I assert? What the fuck did I tried to argue?
>You are tilting at windmills. Please calm down.
Still not an argument.

>>8295807
>Do you have any evidence to back the claim that I as a conscious entity have no causal influence over my actions
The entire concept of causality implies that you dont. More specifically there are experiments directly imply decisions are made outside of the realm of conscious thought such as the Libet Experiment or http://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/

>>8295779
>failed attempts at being tall

Height is only beneficial under certain conditions, see Homo floresiensis as an example of insular dwarfism of Homo erectus

>>8295847
(You)

>>8295873
>The entire concept of causality implies that you dont
How?
I dont want to argue against you. Just curious, since I always deny free will from a neuroscientific viewpoint

>>8295882
Actually that's not the best example, there's a theory that it's from an earlier wave related to the Dmanisi hominids.

>>8295779
Humans all have a spine too, why single out consciousness as special, rather than being unique when compared to the versions other species possess?

also (You)

>>8295847
You want an argument?
Here is your argument:
You are an idiot. Prove me wrong.

>>8292837
Consciousness exists. Free-will does not.

It's simply logical.

>>8295892
Because free will requires the will to interfere with a causal chain. At some level something needs to be happening without a cause, otherwise you just have a deterministic system and no free will

>>8295174
Wow! I never thought of it that way!

>>8295898
You have to ellaborate. All the anti free-will arguments in here boil down to there not being a consciousness

>>8295188
>A complex cascade of chemical and physical interactions produced the signals that caused your arm to raise
so?
That complex cascade is the "you".

>>8295760
Study evolution.

>>8295997

If you prefer, but there's still no will to be found in it.

>>8296004
Well, if I'm that complex cascade that caused the reaction, it was my will

>>8296005

If that's so, then a rock wills itself to splash into a pond.

>>8296010
>gravity is a complex cascade of chemical and physical interactions that produced the signals that caused the rock to fall
>the rock could contemplate its choices

Who cares? Answer literally doesn't matter, if yes we change nothing if no we change nothing.

>>8294578
well, indeed I haven't
what about it?

> some people still think we're not just like computers, outputting everything according to the input we receive.

Also, I believe the question doesn't make sense at all, if we had free will, would that change the decisions we make if the same situation and the same variables occurs? Would "randomness" define free will? That doesn't make sense to me.

In my opinion we would always make the same decisions, just like a computer, therefore being deterministic.

>>8295898
This is why a year of philosophy should be a mandatory part of any science programme. To prevent cancer like this.

>>8296020

You're missing the point. Being the chemicals or being the thing upon which they act is irrelevant because you can continue to regress to a higher cause. A rock may act upon the pond but you can presume it didn't get itself into the air.

>>8296050
>we're not just like computers, outputting everything according to the input we receive
How does that say, that there isnt a chocie? Surely a complex computer considers the variables

>>8296074
>you can presume it didn't get itself into the air
Sure. But either way, it is not like you could choose to not fall. While I could for example choose to make splash or shout something while falling

>>8292850
free = entropy
will = force
free will = some sort of force that changes entropy

basically that's the only way I can thought up of free will based on science. entropy in the sense of amount of "freeness" or "choices", in which the probability means "propensity". Basically free will is the ability to manipulate the probability/propensity of an event.

>>8292837
>Free will, yes or no? Why?
In some sense yes. When posed with a given situation that requires us to act in one of a number of ways, we can estimate the likely outcomes of each action and then compare each set of outcomes with our preferences and select the action which has the most agreeable consequences.
In this sense free will is compatible with determinism.

>>8296111
>and select the action which has the most agreeable consequences
or even choose any of the other options just for shit and giggles

>>8294314
kek
>some people actually believe the universe was always determined for this exact word appear here