/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9771907
>Don't breathe in the past hour
>Game over

>>9771907
>Well /sci/ do you have free will?
Most people have at least some will, but the real question is 'how much free will?'

>>9771907
Absolutely. Only Calvinists think otherwise

im robot

>>9771907
Assuming you don't have free will is the loser strategy

>Be a filthy degenerate sitting at the computer expanding into a morbid mass of grease and hair
>Don't do anything about it because no free will, totally not your own fault

>>9771907
A) Determinism is true
A.1) I claim determinism is false -> I am incorrect, but I couldn't have typed anything else, so it doesn't matter
A.2) I claim determinism is true -> I am only coincidentally correct, because I couldn't have typed anything else, so it doesn't matter

B) Determinism is false
B.1) I claim determinism is false -> I am correct, and the topic of determinism doesn't matter anymore
B.2) I claim determinism is true -> I am incorrect, but I am willingly placing myself in the reference frame A of meaning, in which case even if determinism were true and my choice of reference frame A was relevant and correct, I would still only be coincidentally correct because, by my own chosen reference frame A, I couldn't have typed anything else, so it still doesn't matter

As such there is no significant meaning which can be extracted from thinking about the question of whether determinism is true. It is a worthless philosophical question arising only from human language itself as opposed to any real analysis of reality. So despite being regarded as one of the deeper questions in some philosophical modes of thinking, it actually isn't. This proof seems too simple and too good to be true but I've yet to see a reasonable refutation.

There will never be a train of thought resulting in catharsis regarding the question of determinism. There cannot be one.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
-Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

>>9771947
A) Determinism is true
>A.2) I claim determinism is true -> I am only coincidentally correct, because I couldn't have typed anything else, so it doesn't matter

>I am only coincidentally correct
Well...
Ask a calculator what 2+2 is, it will tell you 4.
That's certainly deterministic, and yet its accuracy isn't coincidental.
It's possible you are a deterministic system that produces assertions.
The better you are at it, the more of your assertions are true.

>As such there is no significant meaning which can be extracted from thinking about the question of whether determinism is true.
The Catholic Church's view on free will doesn't touch on determinism.
Their view is that free will only relates to whether you're somehow compelled to obey God's will.
It's not really a sin if you didn't choose to do it.
This implies you made a choice, even if you were destined to make that particular choice.
After all, the factors leading to the (possibly) inevitable choice are your own genetic predispositions and the sum of your life experiences.
In this case the determining factor is who you are as a person.
cont...

>>9771947
>As such there is no significant meaning which can be extracted from thinking about the question of whether determinism is true.
I've got to agree. You can't really say criminals shouldn't be punished because "they couldn't help it".
If you stop imprisoning bank robbers, more people will rob banks, regardless of "destiny".
Going back to my calculator example, ask it 2+2, it will say 4. Ask it 3+3, it will say 6.
Totally deterministic, but the results are based on the inputs.

>>9771907
Any moral system which isn't based on free will is unable to compel the taking of responsibility, making the moral system practically unfeasible.
Moreover, any inquiry into the existence of free will is only valid if it is carried out by some amount of free will, according to some a priori accepted rules of reasoning, and not merely following an arbitrarily predetermined path.
Since lacking free will is both unverifiable and unpractical, it is an ethical dead end and can not be taken seriously given the ethical reality of the world.
The question is much like asking whether reasoning is valid, where a "no" answer generates a formally valid epistemology, but only a totally trivial null solution which is completely useless for further inquiry.

>>9771907
Free will is a meaningless concept.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Mc6QcrsbH5NRXbCRX/dissolving-the-question

>>9772026
>Ask a calculator what 2+2 is, it will tell you 4.

Because a human programmed it to tell you that,,,

>>9771907
No, but there is "will". "Free" will isn't the case because obviously you have to do something in order for your desires to take form, you have to invest something in order to get what you want. Like a seed and a tomato plant, the seed doesn't have the free will to just become a full fledged tomato plant. It has to wait and succumb itself to the ordeals of wind, rain, speed of nutrients able to be absorbed by it and the sun. Only after it has done all these things does it become a tomato plant, and even then it will still be a different form of tomato plant than the rest. It may grow big, unflavored tomatoes or small flavored tomatoes or an abundance of combinations depending on the conditions it is given.

So the "free" aspect of it is simply the knowledge and wisdom of the tomato plant. Luckily in the case of humans, we have the ability to store knowledge temporarily and more "free" will than a tomato because we can change the conditions we're in. We can imagine and think about things and learn how to overcome and change. Yes a tomato plant does this with evolution, but it takes forever.

"I want to fly", yet if I jump off a cliff I will die. It is only knowledge that holds me back as I "do not know how to fly". I learn that biologically I do not have the ability to fly, so know I must learn mechanically how to fly. That is true freedom, working to understand it rather than to just be given it. The same is the case in nature

>>9772153
>Because a human programmed it to tell you that,,,
Your point is..?

>>9772122
>Free will is a meaningless concept.
It's a question of theology, philosophy and semantics.
These realms do not involve facts, per say, but that doesn't make them "meaningless".

>>9772192
nevermind, didn't see your post here: >>9772192. If there are inputs then determinism is not true.

>>9772122
>lesswrong

>>9771907

I think before answering this question, we should come to a definition for free-will. I will start with this:

> Free will is being able to freely choose between two options.

You will always have two possible options since you will always have the choice of live or die.

Thoughts?

Helene used to sing this kitchen dancing song. "I love to dance around the kitchen with you. Then sometimes she would sing it wrong and say, "I love to dance around the chicken with yooouuu."

>>9771907
define
>"""free"""

>>9772509
>Thoughts?
If someone in prison has a more restricted set of options they are less free.
If we can gauge different levels of freedom, then surely the "free" part of "free will" exists.
The "will" part just means manifestation of desire, and we can all agree desire exists.
Sure, this doesn't rule out determinism in the human mind, but it does seem to make it irrelevant.

>>9771907
You cannot will your own will.

Actions arise from thoughts, which are a result of complex intermingling of conscious and subconscious disposition. These complex interactions are the result of a deterministic chain of events affected by your genetics, environment and physiological status, which begins - from your perspective - at conception.

Whether or not your will is a result of an ultimately deterministic or indeterministic process is moot: in either case, you are left with no possibility of willing your own will.

Anyone who isn´t religious, retarded or otherwise operating with a clouded judgement reaches this conclusion.

>>9771933
There is no "strategy" attached to recognizing your limitatations and, ultimately, very predictable path in life.

>>9773281
>These complex interactions are the result of a deterministic chain of events
[citation needed]

>affected by your genetics, environment and physiological status
Which is a really unnecessarily complex way of saying "you".

>in either case, you are left with no possibility of willing your own will.
I'm really lost on what you're trying to say here, but I'll assume your argument falls into one (or both) of two categories:
>It's not really you making the decisions, it's your brain.
>It's not really you making the decisions, it's your genetic predispositions and the sum of your life experiences.

In either case, you're clearly wrong.
I AM my brain.
I AM my genetic predispositions and the sum of my life experiences.

SOMETHING inside my skull IS making decisions. Guess what? THAT"S ME, despite your semi-autistic need to invalidate the human experience.

>>9773283
>There is no "strategy" attached to recognizing your limitatations and, ultimately, very predictable path in life.
Not me, but...
You're 100% wrong.
Even if point of believing something is to satisfy your pedantic need for order, it's still a strategy since you're adopting a belief that somehow suits your needs.

>ultimately, very predictable path in life.
Even if humans are deterministic systems existing in an indeterministic universe, YOU can't predict what I'm having for breakfast tomorrow, so the practicality of claiming we're deterministic has serious limitations.

>>9773301
>I AM my brain
So, when random memories pop up, or you start thinking of something you don't want to, WHO is doing this?
You aren't your brain, consciousness is a product of the brain.

>>9773321
>You aren't your brain,

>>9771907
Does true randomness exist anywhere in the universe? No.

That is your answer.

>>9771907
watch out!

>>9771909

Dont be born.
Check.

>>9773321
>So, when random memories pop up, or you start thinking of something you don't want to, WHO is doing this?
Your subconscious is still part of you

>>9772122
This. Why do brainlets insist on discussing this drivel?

>all these brainlets believing they have a self

The universe is non deterministic but the macro world is, therefore i don't.

>>9774202
Cogito, ergo sum.
And no, being more cynical than most does NOT make you smarter than anyone.
White it might help you get laid, it only works on nihilistic, damaged women who are empty inside.
Of course, if that's what you're shooting for....

>>9774229
>implying Hume didn't btfo Descartes
What's the matter anon, afraid you might... lose your naive belief in cause and effect?

>>9774240
>naive belief in cause and effect?

>>9774288
>he thinks cause and effect is real

>>9774210
>The universe is non deterministic

It might seem that way now but we don't know for sure.

>>9771914
how can you be sure that your actions are not preordained?

>>9771907
Yes because you can do whatever you want. No, there is no soul or other metaphysics entities, it's just a result of your brain doing its job and chance, similarly to computers, but with much more vague and random algorithms.
Universe is not deterministic because there are fundamentally random events that cannot be predicted, only estimated. The universe cannot be deterministic because the amount of information in the universe is not constant, it's increasing.

What's so hard to understand?

>>9775002
but what if all events that have taken place, and all stimulus laid upon your brain, results in a perfectly projectable path?

>>9775003
The brain is changing every time you give it any stimulus, or even when you don't, so I'm pretty sure it will behave differently every time.
And there is quite a lot of microscopic interactions there so we can expect randomness anyway.

>>9773301
>[citation needed]
The only other alternative is that they are a result of indeterministic events, in which case you also do not have control over your own thoughts.
>Which is a really unnecessarily complex way of saying "you".
You don´t choose your genetics, environment and physiological status, retard. Hence the lack of a freedom in any situation related to one´s will.
>In either case, you're clearly wrong.
>I AM my genetic predispositions and the sum of my life experiences.
But you did not will those circumstances into being - hence, you are a victim of your circumstances.
>SOMETHING inside my skull IS making decisions.
Yes, and it does that without your input.
>Guess what? THAT"S ME, despite your semi-autistic need to invalidate the human experience.
I don´t think you understand what free will entails. It denotes ORIGINAL THOUGHT, i.e SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A RESULT OF PHENOMENA BEYOND YOUR COMPLETE CONTROL - and such phenomena do not exist. Hence, you cannot have free will, regardless of whether the world is ultimately a deterministic, indeterministic or compatibilistic system.

>>9773309
>Even if humans are deterministic systems existing in an indeterministic universe, YOU can't predict what I'm having for breakfast tomorrow, so the practicality of claiming we're deterministic has serious limitations.
Predicting what you eat tomorrow morning is of little consequence. What matters in life is disposition and the education, wealth and social status that arises from it. If you´re an average or slightly dull person, your fate is to become a worker-ant soon forgotten by history.

In other words, the larger picture is reliably predicted by circumstances that cannot be changed.

>>9775002
>Yes because you can do whatever you want.
Free will entails willing what you want, which you cannot do in any universe that does not contain magic.
>No, there is no soul or other metaphysics entities, it's just a result of your brain doing its job and chance, similarly to computers, but with much more vague and random algorithms.
In this sentence, you concede that there exists no free will.
>What's so hard to understand?
You have clearly misunderstood the meaning of "free will". Whether or not the universe is deterministic or not has no bearing on the existence of free will, for both choosing by the roll of the dice or out of necessity leave equally little room for you to will your own will.

>>9775029
>this picture
Pure retardation. There is no free will in any possible combination of determinism and indeterminism, since no outcome grants the ability to WILL ONE´S OWN WILL.

A "soul", or otherwise magical phenomena, is needed to justify a belief in humans being capable of producing original thought without input from the roll of a dice or cause and effect.

>>9775012
yes, but according to the past plot of other brains actions, and yours, could one not predict with arbitrary accuracy how each brain would respond? just because it changes each time doesnt mean you cant predict that change.

>>9775021
>Free will entails willing what you want, which you cannot do in any universe that does not contain magic.
Why?
Take some neural network, give it some inputs like hunger, temperature, some environment awareness and outputs: cut tree, eat fallen apples, put tree on fire, go to new tree etc. And after some training you will get neural network that just takes care of its needs. It will come up with solution and do it because it wants to fulfill the needs. Now, apply tons of abstraction layers, make it all self-changing, lots of randomness(it won't be Turing machine anymore) and here you got artificial "magical" thing that does what it wants to do in a way it want to do.

>In this sentence, you concede that there exists no free will.
If we define free will = magic, then yeah, there is no magic in it. Still it doesn't mean everyone's behavior can be predicted nor that you don't have any influence on your choices. You are the thing that makes them, just like that algorithm that decides to not burn all the trees so it can survive longer.

>>9775056
Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "predict with arbitrary accuracy".
You can either predict some event, or calculate probability of various possible outcomes. You can always do the latter with various precision because people are not random, they follow various patterns of behavior, thinking etc. Without it we wouldn't be able to evolve and make civilizations.

>>9771909
FPBP

Seriously this is the proof that /sci/ is full of little pretentious brainlets.

I consider everyone who believes in free will at least two evolutionary steps below me. Your brain isnt even developped enough to realize that you are just a small unimportant part of the brain. I tell you to rhyme house with another word, and boom your brain finds a rhyme. You are literally no clue what your brain does and if you cant even realize that than YOU and your brain are low level animal.

>>9775108
Wow, you are so special.

>>9775119
No I am not special, we are special. We are just the next evolutionary step, we have evolved from simple minded brain to a higher consciousness. I would even bet that there is a correlation with gifted intelligence.

But it is not your fault. You can not blame an insect for not being able to solve highly abstact problems. Your brain just doesnt have the abilites, so dont worry fren

>>9775108
aspiring Hitler here, folks

brainlets itt should read pic related before jumping to conclusions and spouting off brainlet opinions

>>9775130
I consider myself superior to an ant, that doesnt make me want to kill all ants little low level animal bro.

>>9775136
"open scientific problem" completely retarded. I love how low level animals who get confronted with the truth do anything possible to give the possibility of free will. It is like their low level brain would lose its mind otherwise.

>>9771907
>quantum determinism (Everett, pilot wave or whatever) is true = total predictable order = no free will
>quantum "probabilism" (Copenhagen) is true = total chaos and unpredictability = no fully predictable influence can be exerted on a system = no free will
"Free will" is the meme that keeps on memeing. The sheer undefensibleness and emptiness of the whole concept and the amound of feel-good brainlets that defend it is staggering.

>>9774988
>how can you be sure that your actions are not preordained?
Does it matter?
If your actions are preordained, the factors leading to your inevitable decisions are all aspects of who you are, your nature and your nurture.
You can't really say you aren't making the decisions if your hand is forced by your own genetics and life experiences.
"It's not me making the choice, it's ummm... me."

>>9775157
Why call them brainlets. They have no more decided to believe in free will than you have decided not to believe in free will. But then, you don't have the choice to consider them brainlets I guess, even though such a value judgement contradicts your own position

>>9775015
>You don´t choose your genetics, environment and physiological status, retard.
Actually you DO choose your environment and the factors leading to your physiological status.
OK, maybe YOU don't choose your environment because you can't afford to move out of your parents basement, but the real grown-ups DO choose their environment.
And chosen or not, your genetics and physiological status are a big part of who you are.
>you are a victim of your circumstances.
Maybe you are, but the rest of us make our own way in the world.
Life is what you make of the hand you're dealt.

>I don´t think you understand what free will entails.
I don't think you understand semantics involves opinions, not facts.
OK, I'm not going to shit up the thread quoting the next part of your rant, but here's my rebuttal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Have a nice day!

>>9775136
Using science to comment on free will is like using religion to comment on evolution.

>>9775287
Because I wanted to, due to some preloaded neurological impulses- that's the point of the lack of free will. We're all biochemical dolls.

>>9775288
you don't seem to understand what the thread is about

>OK, maybe YOU don't choose your environment because you can't afford to move out of your parents basement, but the real grown-ups DO choose their environment.
great point, but ask yourself why did he remain a child while others turned into "real grown-ups"?
like what's the underlying reason?

>And chosen or not, your genetics and physiological status are a big part of who you are.
and this is what we mean by determinism. it could be that he was destined to be a basement dweller by his genetics

>>9775317
But surely you know they aren't brainlets? You don't believe what you do because of your intelligence or perspicacity, you are a helpless pawn of fate, so you are no better.
Seems a very depressing way to look at the world. And imagine if you're wrong!

>>9775343
>you don't seem to understand what the thread is about
I'm pretty sure it's about a bunch of spergs so in love with order and disappointed with their own personal lives that they've adopted a nihilistic philosophy that they're trying to pass off as some kind of fact.
If you 'tards had more fashion sense, you'd be the goths of /sci/.

>>9772039
>I've got to agree. You can't really say criminals shouldn't be punished because "they couldn't help it".
>If you stop imprisoning bank robbers, more people will rob banks, regardless of "destiny".

Are you suggesting that modern society is a eugenics program which kills people with bad traits?

>>9775343
>like what's the underlying reason?
The (allegedly predestined) choices he made.
More specifically, the choices he made as a result of the person he is.

>>9775409
>Are you suggesting that modern society is a eugenics program which kills people with bad traits?
We don't execute bank robbers, and even murderers are typically executed long after they've potentially reproduced.
You also seem to be assuming I'm arguing nature trumps nurture.
So no, I'm not suggesting the modern court system is a form of eugenics.
Do you normally read this much into what other people say?

>>9772113
>Any moral system which isn't based on free will is unable to compel the taking of responsibility, making the moral system practically unfeasible.

Morality is a modern belief system based on societal pressure. Do you really believe early humans stopped to think if raping and pillaging was right or wrong? No, is there was not societal pressure to prevent them. It was just an opportunity which could be exploited.

>>9775422
Back then they had religions for it.

>>9773281
>Actions arise from thoughts, which are a result of complex intermingling of conscious and subconscious disposition.

This. One day we will have superintelligent AI which will be able simulate and predict every outcome and will be able to conclusively prove free will does not exist. When this does happen people will be shaken to the core to finally understand that they are no different that the man locked in a jail cell which they have imprisoned based on what they want to see in the world. Neither the criminal or the banker is any different or less worthy of life as you could have been either.

>>9775422
https://www.google.com/search?q=ethics+vs+morals

>>9773309
I'm pretty sure I can predict what you're gonna have for breakfast actually, not with zero info obviously but a minimum of info should be enough

>>9775437

>>9775446
>but a minimum of info should be enough
OK, let's try.
What do you count as a "minimum of info"?
And remember, I'm not arguing that humans are indeterministic, just that there's little practical application of their potentially deterministic nature, at least not for individuals.

>>9775366
>But surely you know they aren't brainlets?
They are, though.
>Seems a very depressing way to look at the world.
Doesn't mean anything.
>And imagine if you're wrong!
Not really, the whole concept is broken from the start since it operates on macroscopic levels and was never supported by actual evidence of any kind, aside from empty philosophical assertions.

>>9775288
>Life is what you make of the hand you're dealt.

The hand of which determines the type of life you will have.

>>9775437
>they have imprisoned based on what they want to see in the world.
But they haven't done that. They've imprisoned him because they are helpless in the face of destiny and never had the choice not to imprison him. We are all zombies blindly controlled by fate.

>>9775460
>They are, though
You are too though. You think what you think because you've been forced too. You are no more intelligent than Alex in A Clockwork Orange is moral

>>9775468
>You think what you think because you've been forced too
Define "forced" as opposed to "free".

>>9775467
>They've imprisoned him because they are helpless in the face of destiny and never had the choice not to imprison him.

This is nicely put. But what is the solution to this absurd if we are merely passengers of fate? There is no way to rebel against this runaway train which we may be born into again once we die.

>>9775472
You are incapable of independent thought. You have no choice about your own thoughts, they have been determined for you. You have no mind of your own in any real sense. So don't point the finger eh?
>>9775473
If you stick to determinism there's no escape. It's utterly depressing and nihilistic, and I'm not sure anyone really believes it.

>>9771907

It does exist but most human beings are still slaves to causality..

>>9775488
>So don't point the finger eh?
You also have neither of those. What's your point exactly? That you have "free will"?
You sound like some /x/ or /lit/ brainlet, honestly.

>>9775505
>You sound like some /x/ or /lit/ brainlet, honestly.

>>9775408
>being this arrogant

>>9775414
>the choices he made as a result of the person he is.
and since the person he is was determined by genetics....

>>9775518
Confirming my suspicion...

>>9775488
>>9775473

i think this sentiment about life is absurd. determinism shouldnt really have an effect on your life if you cant properly assess or predict whats going to happen next which we cant.

the only issue i can see is the attributing moral responsibility thing but i think theres lots of ways to work around it.

>>9775529
>>being this arrogant
You've adopted a philosophy that invalidates the entire human experience for billions of people, but me calling you out on your pouty nonsense makes _me_ arrogant?

>>9775541
>the only issue i can see is the attributing moral responsibility thing but i think theres lots of ways to work around it.

such as..

>>9771907
I thought I did, but I changed my mind.

>>9775529
>and since the person he is was determined by genetics....
..and the sum of his life experiences.
Between the two of these, that's 100% of who he is.
Unless you'd like to postulate a soul, what else IS there?
Something is making the choices. If it's not him, then wtf is it?

>>9771907
I didn't look at "this chicken" because it didn't specify if any of the faded background chickens were the chicken of intended linguistic direction.

;^D

>>9772039
>If you stop imprisoning bank robbers, more people will rob banks,

If there is no free will, you cannot chose to stop imprisoning, or to continue incarcerations, nor can robbers decide whether or not to rob more banks.

>>9775458
>OK, let's try.
>What do you count as a "minimum of info"?
Hello? Still waiting on you breakfast prediction...

>>9775577

>>9775422
>People are completely unfettered without society
You're not very bright anon

>>9775422
>Do you really believe early humans stopped to think if raping and pillaging was right or wrong?

>>9775505
>What's your point exactly?
If nobody has free will, if we are all helpless, why judge? I know you think you have no control over whether you judge or not, but still, why judge?

>>9775577
free will being illusory doesnt mean choices or decisions dont exist.

isnt a rational choice naturally deterministic anyway... most of our choices, or atleast how we model what a choice is; is not arbitrary. "I did this because...". Naturally deterministic..

>>9775602
>why judge?
You explained it. It's irrelevant whether I judge or not.

>>9775618
But what if you're wrong and you're just being a dick by choice? Think of it as Pascal's free-will wager. It doesn't hurt you to be nice

>>9775567
Well looking at moral responsibility being a product of moral agency rather than control of their actions. Like a person's ability to understand their own actions and morality in society.

By looking at morality partly in functionalist terms where consequences are necessary. i.e. social function.

>>9775618
>It's irrelevant whether I judge or not.
And that's where the "no free will" argument falls apart.
At least for all practical purposes.
It's not irrelevant whether you judge or not.
Through your actions, you're affecting the environment that's allegedly so important in the decisions people make (both yourself and others).
Even in a completely deterministic system, perhaps especially in a completely deterministic system, your actions have repercussions on the system itself.
I'm not "fated" to have pancakes for breakfast no matter what other people do.
I might see someone else eating waffles and change my mind.
Still deterministic, but I wasn't locked in at birth to decide on pancakes regardless of the decisions others around me make.

>>9775299
>Using science to comment on free will is like using religion to comment on evolution.
t. brainlet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches

>>9775649
I'm sure creationists also feel their faith has a big impact on the evolution "debate".

Free will is a question of philosophy, theology and semantics.
Don't believe me? Just read the thread.

>>9775463
but your hand can change and the ability to change your own hand.

>>9775468
you are no more "you" either i think, which makes the notion of "you" being determined abit absurd too. In a sense maybe the idea of "you" as a person should be kept separate from this cold deterministic view. After all, we still have individual power to affect the world so that we can live as happily as we can. And we do, do that or we starve and die.

>>9775660
>Free will is a question of philosophy, theology and semantics.
see >>9775649 and >>9775136

>>9775664
The deterministic view has us as mindless zombies.
Given we can't know anything for certain, subscribing to it seems pointless and nihilistic.

>>9775648
>but I wasn't locked in at birth to decide on pancakes regardless of the decisions others around me make.

Surely in a deterministic system if you know all the initial conditions and the laws that govern the system, it is predetermined. Tbh the universe might not even be completely deterministic so no, what we do may not be predetermined.

Not being "fated" from the beginning to do a particular thing though doesn't mean we can't reliably predict certain things a type of person will do based on certain traits or histories. And this too is bothersome because those people may still feel they didn't really have as much choice over their future as the next person without those traits.

>>9775666
>see >>9775649 and >>9775136
Nice Trips, Satan.
But you're still not addressing my point:
>>9775660
>I'm sure creationists also feel their faith has a big impact on the evolution "debate".

All you've shown is there are other people like you also intent on applying science to a philosophical issue.

>>9775691
>Surely in a deterministic system if you know all the initial conditions and the laws that govern the system, it is predetermined.
We knew this wasn't true about a century before QM was even a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#Thermodynamic_irreversibility
>Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.
>In other words, Laplace's demon was based on the premise of reversibility and classical mechanics;
>however, Ulanowicz points out that many thermodynamic processes are irreversible,

>>9775697
>All you've shown is there are other people like you also intent on applying science to a philosophical issue.
You're just begging the question by wrongly assuming it's a philosophical issue.

>>9775703
I don't see how reversible or irreversible processes are relevant. As far as i can see, t
hese are epistemological criticisms of the demons knowledge, not the determinisic concept itself.

>>9775648
where the predeterminism argument falls apart.

>>9775711
>You're just begging the question by wrongly assuming it's a philosophical issue.
Says you...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit


But even if it is a scientific issue, science is nowhere near being able to touch on the issue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Sure, sure, you've got MRI s _clearly_ indicating it's not really me making the decisions, it's my brain.
Or determinism means it's not really me making the decisions, it's predestined based on who I am as a person.
Never mind the obvious flaws in either assertion, science still can't decide what the mind is, so it's really not yet within the purview of science.
And it's possible it never will be.

>>9775850
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Yes, that's what you're doing, asserting without proof.

>But even if it is a scientific issue, science is nowhere near being able to touch on the issue:
Then why are there books and scientific research on the issue?

>>9775754
>I don't see how reversible or irreversible processes are relevant.
They really aren't, I was mostly bluffing.
I guess if there is a point here, it's that determinism starts out in some people's minds as the default, and has to be disproved, even though people have been challenging this default since before the Lincoln administration took office.
Nice catch.

>>9775864
>Yes, that's what you're doing, asserting without proof.
As are you when you claim it's not a philosophical issue. But of course, theology and philosophy don't involve "proof", so you really can't prove it's not philosophy.

>Then why are there books and scientific research on the issue?
It's because there are so many people (like you) that have a pedantic emotional need for the world to be far more orderly than it actually is.
Just look at this thread.
Not one person here (myself included) can scientifically define "mind", but half you spergs are 100% certain that the "mind" "doesn't really" *whatever that means) make decisions.

Besides, you might as well ask "why are their so many creationist books about evolution?".

I have the illusion of free will

>>9775850
i think its only methodology holding science back in this field.

>>9775875
>As are you when you claim it's not a philosophical issue.
I meant that it was wrong to assume it's purely a philosophical issue.

>It's because there are so many people (like you) that have a pedantic emotional need for the world to be far more orderly than it actually is.
Since when do you need emotional investment to study something scientifically?

>Not one person here (myself included) can scientifically define "mind", but half you spergs are 100% certain that the "mind" "doesn't really" *whatever that means) make decisions.
I'm not sure what the relevance of this is

>>9775897
You've got the real thing anon. Believe in yourself.
Look at it this way:
>No free will - doesn't matter how you act, everything is determined
>There is free will and you believe there is - you can influence your life for the better
>There is free will and you believe there isn't - you go through life believing yourself to be a zombie, and probably have a shit life because of that
You may as well believe in free will, it's a free (hahaha) bet: you can't lose. Either your life improves due to your new found sense of agency, or nothing changes because nothing was ever going to change.

the only people who claim (in bad faith, really) that there is no free will are those who are disappointed with their poor life choices/decision making ability

>>9775904
>i think its only methodology holding science back in this field.
Really?
I would have thought it was mostly because its' a semantic issue.
Just look at the word "consciousness". How many /sci/ folk in teleportation threads or mind uploading threads have latched onto this word, and declared that there's a discontinuity in the human mind when you sleep.
Somehow being "conscious" (aware of your surroundings) is critical for these people to believe the mind can't just be cut-and-pasted.
They're wrong of course, you're still aware of your surroundings while asleep. But you see what I mean?

>the eternal battle between those with free will and those who are predetermined to argue against free will rages on

>>9775922
>Since when do you need emotional investment to study something scientifically?
Now you're letting the tail wag the dog.
I'm not saying you need emotional investment to engage in scientific study. I'm saying people are using science as a tool in a theological/philosophical realm because they're motivated by their emotional shortcomings.
But that was perfectly clear from my post:
>>9775875
>It's because there are so many people (like you) that have a pedantic emotional need for the world to be far more orderly than it actually is.
...perhaps you should ask yourself what motivated you to misinterpret such a clear statement?

>I'm not sure what the relevance of this is
Given that we're discussing whether or not free will is a scientific subject, the relevance should be clear.
But somehow, it's giving you trouble...
hmmm.....

>>9775938
>I'm saying people are using science as a tool in a theological/philosophical realm because they're motivated by their emotional shortcomings.
But what if they're not?

>>9775924
>>No free will - doesn't matter how you act, everything is determined
This is clearly wrong.
You could use this idea to justify ANY action, but if you were never exposed to this idea, you'd feel unjustified in taking certain actions.
And those actions have repercussions.
Free will or not, it _does_ matter how you act.

>>9775935

>>9775941
>But what if they're not?
Just read the thread.
There are tons of control-issue folk just absolutely certain they know everything there is to know about the mind even though none of them can define it.
This is zealotry, not academia.

>>9775943
>Free will or not, it _does_ matter how you act.
But if there's no free will you have no control at all over how you act. You are a helpless zombie going along your predetermined path. And if there *is* free will thats a very dangerous mindset to have

>>9775949
>Just read the thread.
What does this thread have to do with the actual scientists who have done research on free will?

define "free will"

>>9775954
>But if there's no free will you have no control at all over how you act.
I can raise my left hand at "will".
I can raise my right hand at "will".
I can't see how even the "no free will" crowd could claim I don't contr4ol my actions.
Their claim, rather, is that it somehow doesn't count since I was destined exhibit my control in a predetermined fashion.

>And if there *is* free will thats a very dangerous mindset to have
It's a dangerous mindset regardless of whether free will exists.
And surely even the spergs can't argue whether I can change my mindset, just whether I will.
Wait, I think their actual claim would be that I _will_ or I _won't_, but that doesn't count as "me' doing it because destiny is really in control.
Of course, even if they're right, the path to change is personal introspection.

>>9775955
>What does this thread have to do with the actual scientists who have done research on free will?

>>9775924
Youd have to be stupid to confound the theoretical idea of there being no free will with your own sense of choice and agency in your personal life.

>doesn't matter how you act
makes no sense since how you act is part of the causal chain so it does matter.

>>9775972
>I can't see how even the "no free will" crowd could claim I don't contr4ol my actions.
They will blather something about MRI scans, as if we fully understand how the brain works. If we're very lucky they will link to a video by Sam 'I've got 99 problems but is-ought aint one' Harris

>>9775974
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, you say that people use science on free will because of emotions, then use people in this thread instead of scientists as evidence

>>9775980
>They will blather something about MRI scans, as if we fully understand how the brain works.
Does talking about MRI scans require a full understanding of the brain?

>>9775982
>Does talking about MRI scans require a full understanding of the brain?
If you're claiming an MRI scan proves we don't have free will, then it kinda does

>>9775929
just think if you understand everything happening in the brain i.e. have access to observe it; then youll find the answer.

>>9775984
>If you're claiming an MRI scan proves we don't have free will
I'm not.

>>9775924
>believe in yourself
such logic wow

>>9775981
>I'm not sure what you're trying to imply,
Of course not.

>>9776015
>such logic wow
That's because it's philosophy, not math.
...which is kind of hi whole point, I'm sure.

>>9775972
>>9775980
>>9775984

There being free will is just logic in a world where everything is determined in chains of events under physical laws. If your thoughts are biological events then this applies to them too, in the activity of brain cells and their inputs.

>>9776026
>in a world where everything is determined in chains of events under physical laws.
Do we live in such a world?
>If your thoughts are biological events
If

After watching Westworld, I'm convinced everything is preordained.

>>9776031

the only other world youre proposing is some world with god. ofcourse our thoughts are biological events, the evidence is overwhelming.

and even in a world with indeterminism, it doesnt change anything because free will isn't randomly determined will either.

>>9776026
I'm not really clear as to whether you're arguing for free will or against it.
More than anything, this should suggest that the "question" of free will depends on semantics, not facts.

>>9776033
Because of the robot theme, or is the writing just that predictable?

>>9776054
>this should suggest that the "question" of free will depends on semantics, not facts.
Why?

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that everything is causative, nothing is outside the realm of cause and effect?

>>9776059
>Why is it so hard for people to grasp that everything is causative, nothing is outside the realm of cause and effect?
What caused the universe?

>>9776064
the universe always existed

>>9776066
>the universe always existed
So the universe is outside the realm of cause and effect

>>9776054
The crux of the issue is that our sense of self and feelings of agency aren't self-contained. So, im arguing against free will.

>>9776057
>Why?
Are you even trying????
Try reading his post with and without your preconceived conclusions, see if you can make heads or tails of what he's trying to say.

>>9776026
>There being free will is just logic
At first glance, it sounds like he's pro free will.

>where everything is determined in chains of events under physical laws.
Now it sounds like he's anti free will.

>>9776026
>If your thoughts are biological events then this applies to them too, in the activity of brain cells and their inputs.
This just re-enforces whichever conclusion he's already drawn.
Jesus, you fucking 'tards. I'm about ready to go to the catalog and find a thread where we're deciding whether time/gravity/matter exists o not.
You "free will doesn't real" 'tards just suck.

>>9776059
>Why is it so hard for people to grasp that everything is causative, nothing is outside the realm of cause and effect?
Because that's not necessarily true? We aren't actually able to prove cause and effect, we assume it.

>>9776070
how?

>>9776219
only because we can't know everything
that's just because of our own limitations not because it's untrue

>>9776059
Why do you relate this to free will?
If you insist that free will involves decisions that have no cause, you're just engaging in mental masturbation.

>>9776220
If the universe has always existed it didn't have a cause, thus not subject to cause and effect. But you and I know there was a cause

>>9776224
So how do you know it's untrue?

>>9776215
>Are you even trying????
Yes. Semantics don't change facts.

>>9776220
>how?
If the universe was inside the realm of cause and effect then it would have a cause, and so if it didn't have a cause, it's outside the realm of cause and effect.

>>9776224
>only because we can't know everything
>I only I knew everything, I'd know I was already right about my current assumptions.

Anon, the reason it seems like no-one wants to have sex with you is that nobody loves you as much as you love yourself.

>>9776248
>*IF only I knew everything...

>>9776227
what if it's an eternally ongoing process?

>>9776256
An uncaused eternal process? We need a name for this...

>>9776256
>what if it's an eternally ongoing process?
Then it has no cause, and so it's outside the realm of cause and effect.

>>9776227
See:
>>9773251
>If the universe has an external cause, said cause wouldn't have to comply with the rules/framework of this universe.
>You also left out a third option in which the universe came into being without a cause.
>More generally, you're committing a black and white fallacy by insisting the only possible options are the ones you present.

>>9776225
then what is free will?

>>9776262
but it's not an effect it's just a thing

>>9776285
its like the only thing, everything is one thing (the universe)

>>9776266
Free will is not rigidly defined, but I'd say it involves being able to make decisions.
Pretty simple, huh?
It's not perfect, but it's a LOT better than insisting on a definition that can't possibly be satisfied, just so I can pretend anyone who disagrees is a top-class fool.
Oh wait! Here's some nihilistic, hollow person desperate to abdicate personal responsibility while clinging to the belief the universe is more orderly than it actually is.
He says:"it's not really you making the decisions! It's just the atoms in your brain!!!"
Never mind that this doesn't impact my definition in the slightest, here's come another "humans are just robots" asshat.
And he says "This was the only possible decision you could have made, fate (in the form of who you are as a person) dictated this particular decision".
Again, this doesn't make sense since "who I am as a person" IS me.
Then I realize I'm only in this thread because the Fermi paradox thread went cold, and this self-realization frees me from my default path of arguing with people who want to pretend any of this somehow relates to "math and science", take one last swig of cheap bourbon (straight from the bottle), pop a jolly rancher before my wife gets home, go back to the Fermi paradox thread to make a troll post to (hopefully ) jump-start the thread.
Bye!

>>9776263
>If the universe has an external cause, said cause wouldn't have to comply with the rules/framework of this universe.
That's what I'm positing. If the universe had no cause then cause and effect is not a universal law.

>>9776295
FUCK
The Fermi paradox thread is gone!
Joke's on me, I guess....

>>9776300
but nothing exists outside the universe
so cause and effect is a UNIVERSal law

>>9776285
>but it's not an effect it's just a thing
What are you trying to say?

>>9776308
>nothing exists outside the universe

>>9775473
>passengers of fate
I'm gonna borrow that. Thank you.

>>9775648
Shit, now I have to make pancakes.
All of dinosaurs and world wars was just an elaborate plan of the first mover so that I make those damn pancaakes.

>>9776322
>>9776308

>>9771907
>Well /sci/ do you have free will?
yes, to the extent that [math]1.57\!\neq\!1.62[/math] which is plenty for most things but not enough to will a yacht into existence when you go to the beach

>>9776657
So you're saying nothing caused the universe, and so not everything is inside the realm of cause and effect.