/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9937565
What if I make the claim because I have no free will?

Doesn't deciding whether or not to make this claim give it validity?

If I reject an impulse for self-preservation in order to protect or advantage another doesn't that mean that I have "free will" in the only sense of the word that matters?

Sage

I hope none of you, contrarian faggots, will claim that there is a real scientific evidence against free will?

>>9937565
Do you define free will as the ability to make decisions with consequences - or the ability to defy physics?

>>9937565
I think therfore I am

>>9937565
If you ever find yourself in a state of mind you argue against it you're a cowardly dog in the first place fit only to be a slave.

There are some things which are entirely irrational, but good for us. This is one of them.

>>9937565
If there is random elements and the universe is not determinate, then free will must exist.

If there is no truly random element in the universe and Laplace demon is a possibility then we do not have free will.

>>9938750
Also this has implications with regards to creationism.

If we have free will then we are active agents and as powerful as any "god" or ultimate creator of the universe.

If we do not have free will we are subject to the conditions of creation and the state of the universe and any "god" or primal cause of the universe such as the "big bang" is the only powerful entity.

Also it should be noted that mathematical abstraction that is not known to be an accurate descriptor of reality such as heisenberg uncrtanty principle do not prove randomness and therefore free will.

Only actual static randomness with no attributable cause or rational can prove Fred will.

Personally I hope we have free will. But my logical faculties suggest otherwise.

"God does not play dice" -einstein

I hope you realize that being a contrarian fag got is the primary mechanism by which science is developed and explored. We would have nothing if it were not for contrary an faggots. We wouldn't even have need or reason for science. Because scientific method, the testing of a hypothesis, is only required if a contrarian element questions the hypothesis.

there is however scientific evidence that Eren is the father.

>>9938750
Random != Free Will

Indeed, if the universe is truly random, you have no free will.

If the universe is predetermined, you still have free will in the sense that you make decisions that have consequences and experience that process, and thus are riding the groove in a liquorice disc of your own design.

Unless you say in order to have free will you must be able to break causality, but in that case, you may as well say you don't have free will because you can't flap your arms and fly.

>>9938758
Key being constructive contrarianism, the opposite has done nothing but hold science and all of mankind back. Takes a bit of wisdom to know the difference, and sadly, that's a rarer commodity than even intelligence.

>>9937565
>scientific evidence of metaphysics
>material evidence of the immaterial
of course it doesn't exist since it definitionally can't

>>9937565
>real scientific evidence

Besides being hostile from the get go you have already decided to ignore any evidence or scientific evidence by claiming its "not real".

Hence, no point in enlightening you.

>>9938508

Whoops,

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html

>>9939657
>People rely on gut instincts when making a push-button decision in a laboratory where they're focusing on remembering a number
Gee, that sure is proof of lack of conscious decision making.

>>9938771
not even on /sci/ can I escape from EHfags

Free will is not even a concept. If there's deterministic will, it's not free. If there's random will, it's not free. This ideia is not even conceivable.

>>9939716
freedom could be considered a concept of consciousness

>>9939671

You asked for scientific evidence, not proof. If you don't understand the difference you shouldn't be on /sci/

free will is a pathological belief. it does not help the believer achieve their own goals.

>>9939733
What does that even mean?

>>9938508
The scientific evidence against free will is that it's physically impossible, makes no practical sense, and contradicts all facts on the evolution of life.

>>9939798
>>9939789
Scientifically speaking, you have will, that much is not in debate. We are pattern recognition machines that make decisions based on what we predict from those patterns.

From your own, limited perspective, it is free. That may ultimately be an illusion, but even if you know and believe this to be the case, it's not one you can escape. You must still make decisions without a full grasp of their results, or even the process by which they are made.

Which may be similar of consciousness itself.

>>9937565
what possible scientific evidence could count for or against the existence of free will?
people have self-aware, intelligent, rational decision-making capacities-- everyone knows this from just being alive as a human being
your question is like asking for scientific evidence that human beings can see
the only possible answer would be if there was some scientific evidence about whether what humans do really counts as "seeing," but what evidence could that conceivably be?

>>9939657
the language of that article presupposes a bizarre metaphysics that nobody believes (first sentence reads "your brain makes up its mind"--as if your brain has its own mind separate from yours and literally makes decisions), but then immediately contradicts itself by implying that the "decision" your brain "makes" is actually your decision, which you only become conscious of afterwards--and then contorts back and contradicts itself again by implying that this means an outside entity makes your decisions for you, therefore no free will
anyway that's all irrelevant, because even if your brain did have its own mind which made decisions and then sent them into your conscious mind where you thought you were generating them, how could science ever show that that's not just how free will is exercised?

>>9939693
if you had a patrician's mathematical mind as I, you would come to agree with EH

>>9939804

i agree with
>>9939716


is there even a satisfactory definition of "free will"? it seems more like a psychological weapon than anything else.

>>9939828

perhaps that's why so many children are indoctrinated with this concept. if i ever have kids i'm telling them straight not to fall for this nonsense. take the enemy's weapon away before the battle.

>>9939828
what do you mean "a satisfactory definition"?
i could point out that almost nothing is definable, but if definitions are some dogmatic article of faith for you, then why not just expect that free will is like consciousness?: we're not ready for a scientific definition, but we can say enough about it from normal experience to fix the target of the investigation
>we don't know what consciousness is, "ultimately," but we do know it's what happens when you're awake or dreaming and not knocked out or in dreamless sleep
>we don't know what free will is, "ultimately," but we do know it's whatever leeway or flexibility we human beings have in acting and making decisions which animals don't seem to have
this is just the minimal information you need to know what the conversation is about--if your only argument is "i don't understand the word you're using," then you don't have an argument against anything, just an admission of basic personal ignorance

>>9939821
and if you were a practical CS master race like me you would know that EM is the only realistic path for the story, much like CS would've been a more realistic career path for you

>>9939794
"free will" isn't a concept in a materialist view of consciousness, which I infer that you hold, but if consciousness is rooted in something less objectifiable then free will could be defined as having power to act rather than be acted upon

>>9939845
>i could point out that almost nothing is definable, but if definitions are some dogmatic article of faith for you

it doesn't have to be 100% rigorous or formal, but if we can't at least roughly describe what it is we're discussing, then our conversation is nonsense, right?

consciousness of course is real. if i didn't feel pain i'd have no reason to avoid it. if i didn't feel pleasure i'd have no reason to seek it. in this sense, you could say that "free will" is real, if you define free will as conscious experience.

but why do we think about free will? what reward does this grant us?

>>9939868

why am i thinking about this mechanism and prodding at it? is it just a useless distraction from my other goals?

>>9939845
Some things are certainly more definable than others.

"1998 Red Nissan Sentra", is much easier defined than say, "Consciousness" or "Free Will" - which is about as hard as it gets.

Personally, however, I think those that define "Free" as "Ability to Defy Physics" have seriously overextended the term.

>>9939868
>it doesn't have to be 100% rigorous or formal, but if we can't at least roughly describe what it is we're discussing, then our conversation is nonsense, right?
the whole rest of my post after the bit you quoted was answering that exact question dude

>>9939868
>but why do we think about free will? what reward does this grant us?
The ability to argue on the internet, while bypassing the truth of the matter: that we're really just ad hominem trolling by calling each other mindless robots.

>>9939878
>>9939881

the funny thing is, if you define free will as consciousness, you arrive at exactly the same answer: free will is a psychological weapon.

our conscious experiences, reward and pain, drive our actions. if people are engaged in introspection, they're neither seeking reward nor avoiding pain.

>>9939875
>Personally, however, I think those that define "Free" as "Ability to Defy Physics" have seriously overextended the term.
you just made me realize this is like an all-purpose gambit positivists use
i've come across literally countless of them who all defined both free will, consciousness, and the supernatural in exactly that way: "ability to defy physics"
holy shit i never realized how stupid these people truly are
they twist the concepts they're against so much to fit their restrictive worldview that they end up with the most flagrantly ridiculous biased misdefinition in history, even worse than a christian defining an "atheist" as "someone who hates god," and then they use the same exact misdefinition multiple times

>>9939890

catholics will endlessly ruminate over right and wrong, over responsibility, over free will. and more generally, so will anyone with empathy if they are blamed for something.

>>9939890
>if you define free will as consciousness
i was COMPARING the case of free will to the case of consciousness, not defining free will as consciousness
you either didn't read the post or you're drunk

>>9939890
>>9939892

i've always wondered how certain people seemingly have endless energy and will to pursue their goals. perhaps it's that they spend more time doing and less time lost in introspection. i've been trying to bring myself into this frame of mind but it's taking longer than i expected.

>>9939894

that's an awfully hostile reply. i didn't say you were. i just used that definition for the sake of argument.

>>9939899
I'm also wrestling with that dilemma. I think most people who live that way have a very strong central motivation
that's hard for me because I'm still mulling over whether anything matters or not

>>9939905

i'll be able to do it. it's not an irreversible state of mind. but free will is a dangerous concept. one that should not be taught to young people if they are to truly succeed.

>>9939910

internalizing the idea of "free will" must somehow damage the mechanism of free will itself.

>>9939914

i had such curiosity when i was younger

>>9939902
the funny thing is, if you use sake as an argument, you end up drunk

>>9939918

>>9939910
wtf makes you think this

>>9939918
Only if you're you can't hold your liquor like every asian ever.
Inferiors races like me can drink a looot.

>>9939910
should we teach them "everything you do is the arbitrary whim of lifeless chemicals in your brain"?
we'd raise a generation of depressed faggots like me under your system

>>9939925
>Only if you're you can't
>Inferiors races
the evidence for the "drunk" hypothesis continues to mount

>>9939918
*slaps knee*

>>9939922
sorry did i say something superficially similar to you which was actually a total non sequitur as if i had no earthly concept of what a human conversation is?

>>9939910
All it would suggest is that you are responsible for your actions, so... I fail to see how this is a dangerous concept.

Even if you go under the assumption it doesn't exist, you're still responsible for your actions, as your past actions predict your future actions, thus others have every motive to preempt the damage you may do to prevent a repetition actions you take with negative consequences for them and/or their support mechanisms.

Pretending or acknowledging it doesn't exist, doesn't seem to really change anything.

>>9939918
Damnit dad.

>>9939931
Wait, my dad's not autistic.

>>9939933
exactly, if you introduce determinism to brainlets you have to take some responsibility when they start killing and raping people and saying "ya cant fight fate bro"

>>9939945
>introduce determinism
>take some responsibility
hmmmmmmmmmmm

>>9939945
They umm... Generally don't do that.

Oddly, a lot of criminals seem to be pretty religious.

Granted, I suppose, once in awhile, someone does go down in a blaze of glory during an existential crisis.

>>9937565
I was going to agree with OP, but then changed my mind.

>>9939945
So, in other words, free will isn't the dangerous concept, but determinism is? Or may be that a belief in free will makes determinism dangerous to those who hold that belief?

>>9939950
I highly doubt that, they're probably easter/christmas catholic tier religious

>>9939957
k you keep talking about the dangers of teaching free will, wtf are you talking about? explain yourself

>>9939910
>free will is a dangerous concept
Why?

>>9939967
I'm not that Anon. (I know, this shit gets confusing.)

>>9939961
Sorta... In my experience, it's suspended when they are no gooding, but they latch to it for dear survival when they are in fear, and will beat the fuck out of anyone who dares challenge it.

Suffice to say, they generally have no concept of determinism. Not a lot of philosophy students doing crime sprees - even though I'm sure a staggering number of them are unemployed.

>>9939977
I guess that's true, but to be fair determinism is less common than religion

>>9939981
True, I'm sure free will is the majority belief model, religious or otherwise.

At the same time, I suspect the crime rate for those with sufficient education to believe in determinism is significantly lower than the general population. So I don't see any evidence of it causing people to start "killing and raping people".

On the other hand, higher IQ does seem to correlate with higher suicide rates.

>>9939986
>correlate with higher suicide rates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRDwES-jt8

>>9939986
that was just my own arbitrary intuition, but anyway I'd say it's too small a sample group to make a conclusion either way

>>9939996
I'm sure there's at least a few million, if not tens or even hundreds of millions, worldwide, that believe in determinism, that you could compare to the general population.

Might have to hire Gallop, but I'm sure the correlation between higher education (ie. potential to be institutionally introduced to determinism) and lower crime rates is readily available, at least.

>>9939946
wew

>>9939933
>All it would suggest is that you are responsible for your actions

but that's false. sometimes you're *held* responsible for your actions, but everyone understands this. free will is purely a demoralization tactic.

>>9940067
Even if no one else is involved, you still sometimes suffer the consequences. Ya don't wanna resign yourself to jumping off cliffs cuz "it's inevitable, universe made me do it".

Determinism depends on the idea of time existing with a beginning and an end, that everything is travelling through in one direction. The moment the beginning of time existed, so did the end of time, and everything in between has already been determined and can be broken down into infinitely thinner and thinner chains of causative events that we are experiencing as the present.

The issue with this is that it treats "time" as a physical thing, that has a beginning and end, a direction, things are going through it, etc, when it is metaphysical, it cannot have these physical properties we arbitrarily assign to it.

>>9940081
>Ya don't wanna resign yourself to jumping off cliffs cuz "it's inevitable, universe made me do it".

don't be a smartass.

>>9939924

not being a 'tard.

>>9940143
That would be a rather extreme example, but it's not like there's only consequences when there's other people around to enforce them.

>>9937565
there is a real scientific evidence of free will

>>9937565
evidence of free will: humans are freer in exercising their wills than animals are
>more self-aware
>more intelligent
>more reasoning
>more conscience-driven
>more able to change ourselves
>more able to self-discipline

>>9940108
how is time not physical?

>>9940344

right, but obviously you can assess risk and make good decisions without being introduced to the concept of "free will".

an animal has no concept of free will, but they're not going to jump off a cliff for no reason.

>>9940924
Because it's a metaphysical concept that has been used to arbitrarily quantify the changing of energy.

A deterministic universe needs this concept of time to exist at all, and the only way it can be done is by making time physical as well, so that the actual physical reality can interact with it, and be separated/chained by cause and effect.

>>9940975
>Because it's a metaphysical concept that has been used to arbitrarily quantify the changing of energy.
what does that mean? time is an artificial category we falsely apply to the changing of energy, which is all that really exists in nature?

>>9940634
how are you defining free will and how do those concepts relate to it?

>>9940634
does this mean some people have more free will than others?

Yes, there's no scientific evidence of free will. That has to do with the fact that psychology lacks the epistemology to even measure will at all, let alone if it's free or not. It's really just a set of observations of special cases with no real verifiable underlying theory.

>>9941012
or you could argue that actually free will is a nonsense concept.

>>9940999
>how are you defining free will
as whatever "freedom" pertains to the "will"
both the terms in quotes are ordinary english words, you can look them up or find synonyms if they confuse you
>and how do those concepts relate to it?
by being very naturally understood as some sort of freedom that pertains to the will
(or: some sort of capability/flexibility/power that pertains to mind/decision/aim-- i just substituted some synonyms from thesaurus.com)

>>9941000
yes
and the same person has more or less freedom of will at different stages of their life (e.g. infancy) or in different circumstances (e.g. half-asleep, drunk, mentally ill)
this is a common observation about the term in ordinary use

>>9941025
A mud farmer from the 1700s who's seen a windmill once would consider a car turbo to be a nonsense concept, and that's about the level of theoretical development psychology is on in terms of modelling free will if it exists.

>>9937565
>free will

What does "free will" even mean in a (probably) deterministic universe?
I mean, you are completely pre-determined through your genes and memes.
You are "free" to make your decision that was always decided upon at the Big Bang.

>>9941027
does a computer have free will then?

>>9941073
why would it?

>>9941048
but dont u think theres some weird contradiction in that we are talking about understanding some concept we've just made up. its not like in neuroscience discovering brains exist and control us and trying to work out how. its literally making something up and then trying to understand it. the reason we dont understand it is because we've made it up in a way that isnt coherent and doesnt make sense. its not because psychology is too poorly advanced to understand it. its nothing to do with psychology and all to do with philosophy.

>>9937565
Stoicism and Logos.

>>9941063
>(probably) deterministic universe?
how do you know

>>9941083
>its not like in neuroscience discovering brains exist and control us and trying to work out how.
wtf are you saying
you think neuroscience discovered brains exist?
you think brains "control us"? what kind of paranoid scifi mushroom trip are you on where a race of sentient brains have enslaved humanity

>>9941092
because we have evidence

>>9941092
I don't know, but take the opposite view: What the fuck would a non-deterministic universe be like?
And wouldn't the overall system at that point again be deterministic?

Remember: Non-deterministic systems can be simulated by deterministic ones, just with an exponential blow-up in runtime.

>>9941100
what evidence

>>9941101
>What the fuck would a non-deterministic universe be like?
like this one?
if not, why?
i don't even remember the last time i read anybody proposing a deterministic theory of causation

>>9941128
>if not, why?
We at least definitely only perceive one possible flow of things happening.
Sure, superposition is a thing, but even if you take that as an indicator for non-determinism, how does that stop the overall system from being equivalent to a deterministic system?
See DFA vs. NFA in CS.

People opposing determinism have gone as far as coining a new term for their position with indeterminism in order to avoid the comparison with non-determinism in CS.

doesn't compatibilism only make sense because it'd be nigh impossible for a society to function w/o moral responsibility?

i.e. doesn't total lack of free will make more sense but people accept compatibilism because "it just werks"?

WHEN WILL THIS END OH MY GOD
READ A FUCKING BOOK FAGGETS, NO MATTER YOUR POSITION IT'S PROBABLY BADLY ARGUMENTED IF IT COMES FROM YOU

REEEEEEEEEEE

>>9941155
>We at least definitely only perceive one possible flow of things happening.
what does that even mean?
if you mean our phenomenology presents the world as deterministic, that seems obviously wrong
people paradigmatically experience the future as open, and the present isn't experienced as "the only thing possible right now" either

>>9941158
>doesn't compatibilism only make sense because it'd be nigh impossible for a society to function w/o moral responsibility?
no, see this: >>9940634
compatibilism makes sense because none of the properties involved in free will are apparently affected by either determinism or indeterminism

>>9940957
Perhaps that's simply because the animal has no concept of determinism.

The contention here was that the concept of "free will" is supposed to be somehow be dangerous. But when it comes down to it, seems it doesn't matter either way. Your actions are going to be the same.

But as you're free to make decisions, even if, in the grand scheme of things, those decisions are inevitable, it seems, from your perspective, it's impossible to not have free will - at least until you can achieve omniscience.

From the prospective of others, either way, you still take the blame for your decisions. If there's an obvious force nearby in the chain of events that lead to it, it might mitigate the response (eg. self defense, temporary insanity), but even if you lived in a society that didn't believe in free will, that'd be much the same. Punishment, ideally, would be dolled out on the basis of how corrective and deterrent it could be to the undesired decisions and behavior, and confinement based on how likely you were to repeat a dangerous behavior, regardless of what the ultimate source of that decision was. Similarly, situations likely to lead to bad decisions would be removed. Just as it is in a world where most people believe in free will.

So, when it comes down to it, maybe determinism is the unprovable illusion.

>>9939798
Life is an open ended whole that is not constrained, or reducible to(except in a very special sense) the closed systems it moves in. Sorry sweetie, but you are a brainlet, very stupid.

>>9941296

i'm more interested in how the concept is exploited as a psychological weapon. perhaps it's not dangerous by itself.

but i think the other anon's definition, "the ability to defy physics" is how most people view free will. simply put, it's magical thinking. and it also implies that we have some degree of control that's entirely independent of our circumstances and experience.

suppose that someone makes a mistake at work, or finds themselves in any particular unfortunate circumstance. so naturally they would ask themselves, "what could have prevented this"? and here's where the idea of free will leads them astray. normally, one would recognize the deterministic processes and circumstances, the cause and effect relationship that led to their misfortune, they instead are forced to consider the supernatural. however, the supernatural does not lend itself to rational analysis, so they are unable to "correct" their behavior and end up feeling excessively guilty and regretful.

>>9941330

in other words, it interferes with the normal process of adaptation and learning.

>>9941330
>>9941334
cont.

consider any abrahamic religion. they all start off by burdening the subscriber with guilt and obligation. "original sin". right off the bat, they hit you with this.


today's modern secular equivalent is being white. that's our "original sin", the demoralization strategy they use to ruin us.

>>9941337
cont.

so far from being "necessary", it's actually a psychological weapon.

>>9941337
>today's modern secular equivalent is being white.
Anon. . . Lay off the cringe comps

>>9941342
cont.

or perhaps, a method of behavioral control. perhaps christianity was a useful tool, and indeed, its message is a good one.

however, "white guilt" is purely a demoralization strategy. unlike christianity, which aims to nudge people toward pacifism, "white guilt" nudges people toward self-loathing and despair.

>>9941354

i'm not just whining, it really is the same concept at work.

>>9941356
Do you honestly believe this nonsense?
White people are doing fine, the esjaydubbas ain't coming to get you. Stop watching YouTube polemics and read a book.

>>9941362

i firml believe what i wrote here:

>>9941330
>>9941334

it short-circuits something in your brain. ignore the "white guilt" tidbit if you're going to get pissy about it.

>>9937565
I'm pretty sure free will has been disproven.

The fact that extreme child abuse causes genes to activate which cause a person to actually feel less empathy and these same genes (i think there's 4) have been directly linked to criminality.

So if we know a complex thought like empathy can be influenced by genes thereby influencing how a person actually acts, do they really have free will?

i wonder if i can sue the church for brainwashing me...

>>9939716
Yeh sure but that's kinda gay

>>9941330
>i'm more interested in how the concept is exploited as a psychological weapon
people have asked you again and again what you mean by this, do you just not have an answer?
>but i think the other anon's definition, "the ability to defy physics" is how most people view free will
see >>9939891

>>9941390
>people have asked you again and again what you mean by this, do you just not have an answer?

i thought i was pretty clear in
>>9941330
>suppose that someone makes a mistake at work, or finds themselves in any particular unfortunate circumstance. so naturally they would ask themselves, "what could have prevented this"? and here's where the idea of free will leads them astray. normally, one would recognize the deterministic processes and circumstances, the cause and effect relationship that led to their misfortune, they instead are forced to consider the supernatural. however, the supernatural does not lend itself to rational analysis, so they are unable to "correct" their behavior and end up feeling excessively guilty and regretful.


it's used to "hijack" your normal psychology and prevent you from acting in your best interests. it also somewhat harms your understanding of cause and effect if you fully buy into the concept.

>>9941330
>"the ability to defy physics" is how most people view free will
Think most people just think they make decisions that have consequences. The majority of people believe in free will, but the majority of people don't try to fly by flapping their arms. (Well, save experimentally as children, maybe.)

>so naturally they would ask themselves, "what could have prevented this"? and here's where the idea of free will leads them astray.
How?

Guy who believes in free will:
>I did (stupid) which lead to (bad). Next time I won't do (stupid).

Guy who doesn't:
>Inevitability lead me to do (stupid), which I will inevitably do, every time, for I have no control of myself.

>>9941423

i'm not going to debate you. it's entirely possible that free will (being such a loosely defined concept in the first place) has a different meaning for you than me.

but i think you understand exactly what i'm saying, and are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

>>9941400
you're just listing possible negative consequences of believing in free will that belief is false
you're not explaining how it's a "psychological weapon"
also,
>they instead are forced to consider the supernatural.
>however, the supernatural does not lend itself to rational analysis
both of these statements are retarded and proof you've never read a book on this other than sam harris'

>>9941486
I just can't see any potential negative consequences for believing in free will... And indeed, most of the time, I don't see it making any difference in the decision making process either way.

Similar to how, whether it actually exists or not, has absolute no impact on the world or our lives. Shit's gonna go on the same way, either way.

>>9941522

well, that's fine then. i'm not here to enlighten you, i'm here to enlighten myself.

>>9941522
There are none worth discussing.

If it exists, believing in it is accurate and will enable you to act in accordance with reality.

If it does not exist, you don't have a choice about whether to believe it is real, nor whether or how to act on your belief.

>>9941522
>whether it actually exists or not, has absolute no impact on the world or our lives.
of course it has an impact, look at this list: >>9940634
obviously it matters whether we have those traits
we obviously have them, though-- the question is whether they provide a basis for retributive justice, individual responsibility, etc., and that obviously has big consequences for our lives and society
for example if everyone became an anti-retributivist, we would stop punishing murderers and rapists and instead just compassionately rehabilitate them

>>9941542
Then why are you posting these unsubstantiated claims to begin with?

>>9941551
None of those claims have anything to do with free will.

Ya can have all the intelligence, self awareness, reasoning, consciousness, ability to change, and self discipline of all the gods that were ever imagined combined, and you'd still be subject to determinism - or not. Free will or not, regardless of the sophistication of the system, it's still going to react in the same way. Thus none of those factors are relevant to the claims at hand.

>>9941551
>for example if everyone became an anti-retributivist, we would stop punishing murderers and rapists and instead just compassionately rehabilitate them
With or without free will, ya still gotta deal with your criminal element. You can justify reasons for rehabilitation, whether or not you believe in free will.

>>9941560
>Ya can have all the intelligence, self awareness, reasoning, consciousness, ability to change, and self discipline of all the gods that were ever imagined combined, and you'd still be subject to determinism - or not
that claim proves the opposite of what you want it to; it proves that free will is not affected by determinism, because all those traits clearly do pertain to a freedom of the will which humans have and animals comparatively lack (under any normal understanding of the english words "freedom" and "the will")

>>9941563
but it's much harder (in fact empirically almost impossible) to justify retributivism to responsibility skeptics, and that's the point

>>9941553

because i like prodding at this machine here. sometimes it does interesting things.

>>9941568
>but it's much harder (in fact empirically almost impossible) to justify retributivism to responsibility skeptics, and that's the point

not really. retribution serves as a deterrent to would-be offenders, so it's still arguably an effective way to preserve social order.

>>9941578
which is why i said "empirically almost impossible" not "literally impossible in principle"
historically, empirically, responsibility skeptics reject retribution and favour rehabilitation (cs lewis' essay on "humanitarian punishment" documents this from earlier in the 20th c)
deterrence is, as a matter of fact, unconvincing on its own when you've thrown out any notion of "just deserts"

>>9941578
cont.

although i don't think it's necessary to apply cruel and unusual punishments. if someone's a deranged psychopath then hang him and be done with it. problem solved. it's far less cruel than the bizarre ways we deal with people who can't be fixed.

>>9941568
>but it's much harder (in fact empirically almost impossible) to justify retributivism to responsibility skeptics, and that's the point
Do you think determinists kill their dogs or children every time they misbehave?

A living being is a potential asset - if it can be salvaged at a cost less than the potential that can be derived from it, it's only logical to attempt to repair it. Determinism does not deny the ability to adjust behavior.

It's only those who believe that retribution is justice that insist on punishing criminals. Even there, a good fraction of them believe it to be a deterrent to others, and potentially rehabilitative.

>all those traits clearly do pertain to a freedom of the will which humans have and animals comparatively lack (under any normal understanding of the english words "freedom" and "the will")
I don't think you understand the debate (such as it is).

The claim is that decisions made by any being in the physical universe are inevitable due to chain of causality. This is as true for ameba as it is for dogs as it is for humans as it is for hyper-brain alien super-AIs that have achieved enlightenment, as it is for the universe as a whole. No matter the level of sophistication of the physical system, its actions are all ultimately predetermined. Thus, some claim there is no such thing as free will, only inevitable will. In the same situation, with the same information and the same conditions, the same decision will occur, every time.

>>9941596
>historically, empirically, responsibility skeptics reject retribution and favour rehabilitation

how practical is rehabilitation? i'm all in favor of it, but some people can't be fixed. we have to strike a realistic balance

>>9941599
>It's only those who believe that retribution is justice that insist on punishing criminals. ven there, a good fraction of them believe it to be a deterrent to others, and potentially rehabilitative.
Well, them, and those that view it as cathartic release for the victims, and thus, part of their recovery process (or rehabilitation, if you will).

>>9941599
>It's only those who believe that retribution is justice that insist on punishing criminals
that's what i said, reread my post

>I don't think you understand the debate (such as it is).
i completely understand what determinism is, i think the problem is you don't understand what compatibilism is

i'm giving you a list of traits (self-awareness, reasoning, intelligence, conscience, self-discipline, self-transformation) which obviously constitute a kind of power/flexibility/control that pertains to the mind/decision/action (i.e. a "freedom" that pertains to "the will," as those words function in english), which is quite distinctive of humans, which correlates well with how the term "free will" is actually used in practice (e.g. in moral and legal judgments of when a person was "acting of his own free will"), and which--as it happens--has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism

so in short i'm giving a definition of free will that (1) is independently plausible as an accurate definition of free will, and (2) makes free will unaffected by determinism and indeterminism
meanwhile you're insisting on a definition of free will that we have no independent reason to think is accurate, and which only serves your preconceived desire to say "determinism refutes free will"--you might as well be defining "free will" as "whatever is refuted by determinism"

>>9941602
i'm not arguing for rehabilitation, i believe in free will and responsibility so i agree with retribution
i was only arguing against the idea that it's IRRELEVANT whether we accept free will & responsibility or not-- it obviously isn't, because our punitive practices (among other things) depend on it

>>9941640
>it obviously isn't, because our punitive practices (among other things) depend on it

how?

shouldn't we look at justice from a practical standpoint?

>>9941637
>i completely understand what determinism is, i think the problem is you don't understand what compatibilism is
I don't understand how any level of sophistication provides "more freedom" if every decision is ultimately already decided.

I've heard arguments of some level of quantum randomness being involved (which are shit, as that gives the decider even less agency), or that, as the decision maker's perspective isn't omniscient, they have freedom to make decisions from their point of view (and, indeed, cannot avoid this experience). That latter one I actually do find a bit more satisfactory, but it also means that a dog doesn't have any less free will than does a human, if you presume they both have perspective.

Also leads to the lovely irony that the only beings that do not have free will are omniscient gods and laplace demons. (Well, and philosophical zombies.)

>>9941637
>that's what i said, reread my post
My bad, thought you were making the opposing argument, since you were also arguing free will is a thing.

Either way, practicality still applies in the same way, plus there's the responsibility of the punishers to consider. Exercising excessive punishment would make them as guilty as the criminal. Similarly, failing to rescue the criminal from his own criminal behavior is something to be guilty of. ...in the end, the determinist and the believer in free will might argue for rehabilitation, or punishment, for many of the same reasons. Which is yet another point where it really doesn't make a difference.

>>9941282
>people paradigmatically experience the future as open
Since the system is extremely difficult to predict for a human.
The world is a system highly sensitive to differences in input.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
>and the present isn't experienced as "the only thing possible right now" either
That's a false impression, I'd say, but I can't say for sure.

how do determinism and nondeterminism have anything to do with free will?

>>9941655
>I don't understand how any level of sophistication provides "more freedom" if every decision is ultimately already decided.
then let's simplify and say there are different senses of "freedom": there's the "freedom" we have in liberal democracies where we have freedom of speech and assembly etc (call that "political freedom"), there's the "freedom" a causally undetermined agent has (call it "indeterministic freedom"), there's the "freedom" constituted by the distinctively human capabilities i'm talking about (call that "sapiens freedom"), and there are other senses too.
the question is: which sense of "freedom" is "free will" about?
i claim that it's sapiens freedom. you claim that it's indeterministic freedom.
what's your argument? i've given mine already

>>9941666
but then the question remains: why believe this world is deterministic?

>>9941671
cont.

for instance, maybe nondeterminism was in effect yesterday, but for the rest of eternity, reality is deterministic. so if i had "free will" yesterday, then what exactly am i "responsible" for in the deterministic future?

>>9941672
I'm saying your argument does not address the standard argument of those who claim determinism eliminates free will.

Ya can have all the democracy ya want - the vote's already been decided.

>>9941682
cont.

why even assume determinism or free will are immutable conditions in the first place?

>>9941685
i didn't say free will is about political freedom, i said it's about sapiens freedom
what is your argument for the claim that free will is about indeterministic freedom and not sapiens freedom?

>>9941677
>why believe this world is deterministic?

Because on the macroscopic scale we have clear rules/laws for both time directions.
It gets a little blurred on the sub-atomic scale (see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), but I don't think there is anything pointing at the world not being deterministic beyond doubt.
(And even if it was not, there are ways to "save" determinism at a higher level. I do not mean hidden variables by that. Something like: All possible worlds play out in parallel, which would be a deterministic process. You'd have to account for probabilities in that, but you can do that.)

>>9941686
cont.

every idea of "justice" that depends on free will can be reduced to an absurdity.

>>9941694
>what is your argument for the claim that free will is about indeterministic freedom and not sapiens freedom?
Wikipedia's entry on determinism, I suppose. In addition to, well, everyone who makes the claim that determinism negates free will - which tends to be what these stupid threads are built on. You're not disputing them, you're just redefining terms.

Granted, I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, as I'm more of a compatibilist myself, as I find the requisite that one must be able to defy physics to have free will absurd. At the same time, I don't find your compatibilist argument as compelling as the perspective one. I think all you're really proving is will. A dog has the same capacity to disobey his master and eat that cookie on the table as a person has capacity to shoplift, at best, the level of complexity changes, not the capacity.

>>9941702
>Because on the macroscopic scale we have clear rules/laws for both time directions.
any examples?

>>9941711
v=a*t comes to mind as one of the easiest examples.

>>9941711
Look up time symmetry - or block universe - this is basic shit. In more colloquial terms, causality - everything happens as a result of something preceding it, back to the beginning of time. Thus every event is ultimately determined by the events that happened before, and inevitable, be it rocks falling or people fucking.

>>9941709
>Wikipedia's entry on determinism, I suppose. In addition to, well, everyone who makes the claim that determinism negates free will - which tends to be what these stupid threads are built on.
i don't see at all how this is an argument that free will requires indeterministic freedom instead of sapiens freedom
explain?
>You're not disputing them, you're just redefining terms.
"redefining" implies changing an already existing definition, but the question of what free will is is precisely a perennial center of the controversy
so in no way am i redefining anything, i'm suggesting my own controversial definition against other people's controversial definitions

>>9941720
Well if definitions are all you're arguing about than so be it, but you can't argue with someone holding the other definition (which is, perhaps unfortunately, the one more often used in this particular debate). Ultimately, it just avoids the question without confronting it.

>>9941671
>>9941682
>>9941686
>>9941704

any takers?

>>9941715
it's not clear that that equation involves the kind of determinism that free will skeptics refer to, specifically it doesn't describe events necessarily following one another but only necessary identities of quantities

either way, let's say it does involve the right kind of determinism.
in that case, one particular phenomenon behaves deterministically.
this gives no reason to think any other phenomena do, much less that causation (or natural law, or time) itself is inherently deterministic.

>>9941719
laws =/= causality
i noted earlier that most contemporary theories of causality are non-deterministic (or at least neutral on determinism)
the principle of causation is obviously controversial too

>>9941729
>you can't argue with someone holding the other definition
if i define a "car" as a "flowering plant that grows in temperate climates," do you think it's impossible for anyone to argue with that obviously incorrect definition?
anyway forget the word "definition," it's irrelevant, i'm just making claims about what free will is or what it involves, and so is anyone else who claims that free will involves indeterministic freedom--i'm denying that claim and claiming that what free will involves is sapiens freedom instead

>>9941730
*sigh* Fine... But don't spread your posts out like this next time, that's largely why they are being ignored.

>how do determinism and nondeterminism have anything to do with free will?
The standard argument is that if your decisions are inevitable via determinism, than you have no freedom of will to make other decisions - you just think you do.

>maybe nondeterminism was in effect yesterday, but for the rest of eternity, reality is deterministic. so if i had "free will" yesterday, then what exactly am i "responsible" for in the deterministic future?
Everything followed by nothing. Though I suppose it kinda depends on how this "nondeterminism" works. In an entirely non deterministic universe, you can't predict anything, therefore you can't make decisions to be held responsible for.

>why even assume determinism or free will are immutable conditions in the first place?
Determinitism of some degree is non-debatable on a science board, as science is about prediction. Free will, well, most people just kinda like to believe they have it, since that's what they are experiencing. Though I don't think anyone believes it is absolutely immutable. Dead men tell no tales and all.

>every idea of "justice" that depends on free will can be reduced to an absurdity.
If justice is retribution, then no. If justice is compensation, then no. If justice is equalization, then no.

But even if the motivation behind justice is normally free will, the practical application would look much the same in a society that didn't believe in free will. Ya still gotta have behavioral deterrents, remove dangerous individuals, and with or without free will, you have motivation to change their ways and convert them into productive citizens, and still have to deal with the emotional wellbeing of your society as a whole, including the victims, who, should they be productive citizens, may take priority.

>>9941745
Which amounts to avoiding the argument. Question is, how would you argue with their point of view, on their terms?

>>9941738
>i noted earlier that most contemporary theories of causality are non-deterministic (or at least neutral on determinism)
Name one.

Don't give me that quantum woo crap - it doesn't avoid the consequence of block universe. It also doesn't help the cause, as you have even less control over how quantum waves are gonna resolve than you do over your decision making process.

>>9941760
not avoiding the argument, in fact i made it easier by disambiguating "freedom" here >>9941672
now if you'd answer the question you avoided:
>the question is: which sense of "freedom" is "free will" about?
>i claim that it's sapiens freedom. you claim that it's indeterministic freedom.
>what's your argument?

>>9941768
There's no argument to be had, if you can't agree on terms. (And I already answered that by pointing to the definitions terms commonly used in this debate.)

Though, personally, I'd prefer a less anthropocentric definition of "freedom". Animals seem to make decisions, after all. If you're going to argue for free will, seems it should include all instances of will being exercised, regardless of complexity.

>>9941762
probabilistic theories, mechanism theories, process theories, interventionist theories
can you name one that is deterministic?

>>9941777
>There's no argument to be had, if you can't agree on terms
you seriously think it's impossible to argue about what free will is?

>>9941754
>But even if the motivation behind justice is normally free will, the practical application would look much the same in a society that didn't believe in free will. Ya still gotta have behavioral deterrents, remove dangerous individuals, and with or without free will, you have motivation to change their ways and convert them into productive citizens, and still have to deal with the emotional wellbeing of your society as a whole, including the victims, who, should they be productive citizens, may take priority.

why invoke the idea of free will at all when we speak about justice?

>>9941781
Probabilistic theories obey time symmetry, and thus are deterministic. The rest are psychological theories that don't trace root physical causes, but would presumably be time symmetric if they did.

All physics theories I can name are deterministic (newtonian, relativity, etc.), save maybe QM and some variants of string, and even there, there's generally time symmetry, and it tends to be more "indeterminable" than "undetermined", and still doesn't argue against b-time, which basically says everything that was or will be has been determined, you've just yet to experience it.

>>9941754
>Everything followed by nothing.

so you would only be responsible for decisions you made while nondeterminism was in effect?

>>9941786
Not him, but what would it say about the human, if the combination of his genes and his experience wouldn't absolutely determine what he does in a situation?
That would be rather odd, wouldn't it?

>>9941788
Personally, I wish we didn't... But it goes to motivation and likelihood to repeat, as well as agency. Circumstances where the cause of events are not chained to the violator sometimes lead to what, on the surface, would be criminal acts - such as harm committed in self defense, or being unwittingly drugged, or otherwise tricked into the act.

Result is the same whether you believe in free will or not though. If the otherwise criminal decision was the result of something other than their behavioral pattern in their normal potential range (eg. defective brakes causing an accident), you've no motive to remove/punish/rehabilitate them for the violation, as it doesn't address the problem. Those who believe in free will would say the subject is "blameless", those who do not would say much the same, "subject was not the cause of the incident".

>>9941802
what do you mean mechanism, process, and interventionist theories are "psychological"?
probabilistic theories are literally the paradigm case of a non-necessitarian theory of causation and became popular precisely because of the decline of determinism-- again, what do you mean?
anyway i learned today that newtonian physics actually embraces some possible indeterminacies (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#StaDetPhyThe)), but anyway we were talking about contemporary theories because the point is determinism declined since the beginning of the 20th century

>>9941808
hume said free will requires determinism because without it a person's character can't determine their acts

>>9941805
Well, from the perspective of someone who believes determinism violates free will, you would only be, ultimately, responsible under those circumstances (though you could still be held responsible for your decisions simply because the chain events flowed through you, based on your ability to cause a similar chain of negative events, and whether altering your course would prevent them). That is, provided there was some mechanism to allow you to exist, and make decisions, in a non deterministic universe. (Both of which are null in void in an entirely non deterministic universe - save maybe when it comes to boltzmann brains, which will just hold whatever belief they are configured to in the instant they exist.)

>>9941825
>hume
Thanks for dropping that name.
Seems like an interesting Scotsman to look into.

>>9941822
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_theory
https://psychologydictionary.org/mechanistic-theory/

Can't have probabilities without some level of determinism, again, quantum woo.

Missed it, but I've never heard of a process theory that breaks time symmetry. (Not that I've not heard of other, theoretical, things that have.)

In any case, until someone gets a working theory of quantum gravity that breaks block universe, yer kinda stuck with this problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks
...and you might still be stuck with that problem, depending on the nature of the theory.

Even with partial non-determinism, you could still have a situation where all your decisions are ultimately inevitable, from your birth on.

>>9941829

i think we're off track here. how do you define "free will"?


i stand by my original view that the idea of "free will", as it's presented by the church and other authority figures, is manipulation tactic and an instance of magical thinking

>>9941861
>i think we're off track here. how do you define "free will"?
Personally, I define it as the ability to make decisions with consequences with imperfect knowledge of the process and results and experience that process. This, however, conflicts with the determinist's requirement that one must also be able to make those decisions independently of causality, that those decisions not be inevitable. (To which I say, it may ultimately be a railroad, but it's one largely of your own design, so fuck it.)

>i stand by my original view that the idea of "free will"
As this is an anonymous image board, I've no idea what that may be.

>as it's presented by the church and other authority figures, is manipulation tactic and an instance of magical thinking
That definition varies quite a bit.

I suppose, the current Catholic idea, given that they are the largest group under that heading, is that God grants free will by censoring his knowledge of your future actions, granting you what they call a "soul". Not quite sure how this works, as he apparently still knows everything that's going to happen - though maybe he's given himself a fuzzy area, and just knows how it's ultimately going to resolve, regardless of what decisions His children may make to get into heaven or burn in eternal hellfire.

The secular authoritative definition is rather vague. It basically goes to whether you can be considered mentally competent. Basically, it just requires you be capable of making reasonable decisions. It doesn't much care as to whether or not those decisions are inevitable.

>>9941887
>To which I say, it may ultimately be a railroad, but it's one largely of your own design, so fuck it.
Guy supporting the deterministic world-view here. I agree.
Except, obviously, "own design" may be a little misleading. It's definitely (You) for all intents and purposes, though.
A video game's NPC also does things that are without doubt ultimately that NPC's doing. ("That fucking Goomba! How dare him to pop out of that pipe at that very moment! What a faggot!")

We all make "free" decisions based on who we are, what our environment is like and what we have experienced in our life.
It feels weird that all that may be pre-determined, but it doesn't make the decisions less "free".
The actual question at that point becomes responsibility. Can you blame a murderer for what he has done? Can you praise an athlete for winning the Olympics?
You obviously can, but is it justified?

>>9937565
go back to rebbbit

>>9943023
>You obviously can, but is it justified?
Dun think you have a choice, either way.

If someone murders someone else, ya gotta deal with that shit, otherwise other negative consequences arise.

It may not "ultimately" be the murderer's responsibility, but if he's the psycho serial killer sort, the chain of events that lead to him being so is liable to repeat. So said chain must be broken, and he's the primary nexus of those events.

Thus, again, I don't see "justice" in a society that does not believe in free will being much different from one that does.

scopamine is a drug that can strip a persons free will away. If it's possible to strip away someones free will with drugs, could you give a person MORE free will with drugs?

setting aside the moral implication that free will may just be the direct result of a chemical in the brain, would it even be metaphysically possible to overdose on free will?

>>9943914
could argue things like stimulants or psychedelics may give you more free will by some definitions.

someone here said free will is flexibility to the make decisions of the will. but is it free will if those decisions are irrational?

i.e. you are not acting optimally as to look mentally retarded to others even though your decision repertoire is greater.

>>9943447
>Dun think you have a choice, either way.
There is still a distinction to be made:

Is the penalty meant to punish the criminal for what he has done, because he is a bad guy that does not deserve to live freely,
or is it meant to deter potential criminals from committing a crime?
In a deterministic world-view it can only be the latter.
It also has implications in regard to the state of prisons.

>>9944618
>It also has implications in regard to the state of prisons.
You're still apt to punish the criminal for sake of vengeance (cathartic release for the surviving victims and their families who may still be productive citizens) and detturence, so no, not really.

(And, in the US, you're also still apt to have a multi-trillion private "prison services" and bail bond industry that has every motive to make prison as miserable as possible, due to greed.)