How does this shit prove anything?

[Anonymous No.11678599]

Of course your brain is going to process decisions and give off signals, you'd have to be a completely impulsive brainlet for this not to happen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h47dzJ1IHxk&feature=emb_title

[Anonymous No.11678698]

The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

[Anonymous No.11678781]

>>11678698
I doubt that. Free will doesn’t even make sense as a concept. If it’s true that there’s no such thing as a soul and that is almost certainly the case, the mind is just a series of physical systems obeying causality. Given this I doubt any legitimate scientists believe in nonsense like free will.

[Anonymous No.11678796]

>>11678599
It doesn't prove much at all. Also, the interpretation of this experiment has been called into question recently. The results might simply be an artifact of noise averaging. See here:
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/E2904

[Anonymous No.11678803]

>>11678781
How so you explain consciousness after heart has stopped on operating tables

[Anonymous No.11678818]

>>11678803
If your heart stops, your brain can still keep going for a little bit.

[Anonymous No.11678829]

>>11678698
This won't become true even if you spam it in every thread

[Anonymous No.11678852]

>>11678781
The brain is a quantum-based system. Quantum physics don't follow causality they follow probability

[Anonymous No.11678856]

>>11678852
>The brain is a quantum-based system.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.11678857]

>>11678829
It's true regardless of if it's spammed or not

[Anonymous No.11678874]

>>11678856
"Bundles of Brain Microtubules Generate Electrical Oscillations"

"Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ‘Orch OR‘ model of consciousness"

"Direct observation shows superposition and large scale flexibility within cytoplasmic dynein motors moving along microtubules"

I would post the DOI but this shitty stupid fucking shit fucking board thinks that it's spam so it would let me.

[Anonymous No.11678882]

>>11678599
This proves it's not your conscious/cognitive brain parts making the decision. Since those are what correlates to your conscious experience, or what you call "you", or what is effectively "you" for all purposes, "you" do not have free will.
Something else inside your brain is making decisions for "you".

This experiment proves that quite beautifully, really. You could try to cope by saying "that unconscious part is still me, even if I'm not controlling it", but to me that would be like a car saying the driver is part of the car.

[Anonymous No.11678885]

>>11678803
Blood doesn't evaporate when the heart stops. Your blood still has a little bit of oxygen in it, and your brain doesn't give out all in one go either. It's sort of like holding your breath or getting choked. If done long enough of course these would kill you, but it's not instant.

[Anonymous No.11678892]

>>11678874
The first one has literally nothing to do with quantum effects.

The second one is a proposed model, not an empirical paper, and has been widely criticized.

The third one shows that motor proteins display superposition.

None of this shows that "the brain is quantum based", as you would need to show quantum effects at the macro scale.

[Anonymous No.11678896]

>>11678874
I never understood this microtubule meme.
It's like biologists first quantum mechanics.
Plenty of things have quantum effects happening at the microscopic level, but at the macroscopic level (and yes a cell is already macroscopic by quantum standards) these things cancel out.

Someone please explain to me how quantum microtubules are supposed to affect the entire functioning of the brain

[Anonymous No.11678906]

>>11678896
>It's like biologists first quantum mechanics
Kinda ironic since it's actually Roger Penrose who stared this shit.

[Anonymous No.11678910]

>>11678781
Free will does exist

Things like decision making have zero mathematical relationship to physics

Many causal behaviors have ZERO origin in physics

For example, try modeling irrational behavior in terms of physics? You can't, you have to use psychological models

[Anonymous No.11678926]

>>11678892
Microtubules use quantum tunneling and superposition to compute. This happens in every living cell.

[Anonymous No.11678931]

>>11678910
lol, no. You can model decisions very well using dynamical systems theory and use it to produce circuits that display realistic neural dynamics as well as capture behavior. For example:
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/4/1314.short
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959438812001390
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627308008362

[Anonymous No.11678933]

>>11678926
You're just repeating this nonsense, that doesn't mean it's true

[Anonymous No.11678934]

>>11678856
That's what neurons are essentially, cells that fire signals depending on quantum events

[Anonymous No.11678937]

>>11678933
It's been experimentally verified in numerous studies, the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.11678943]

>>11678934
Bullshit, neurotransmitters are large molecules and so are ion channels. Their dynamics all play out on the large scale, and you don't need quantum effects to account for them. Stop shitposting.

[Anonymous No.11678946]

>>11678937
You haven't posted any, retard.

[Anonymous No.11678960]

>>11678943
it's another wacky quantum theory based on a fundamental misinterpretation, I wonder why we aren't progressing

[Anonymous No.11678968]

>>11678910
there is a project on github about simulating an entire worm

[Anonymous No.11679199]

>>11678960
But we're progressing just fine, just not based on nonsense hypotheses that everyone ignores anyway

[Anonymous No.11679258]

>>11678931
>>11678968
Correlation causation fallacy

It's like looking at a software's behavior and trying to describe it in terms of computing technology

Of course software follows the laws of physics and has underlying behavior. However physics is not an adequate causal for the software's existence, and behavior in terms of the end user.

The satisfying and logical solution is not to describe software in terms of the underlying physics, but in terms of how it was designed and how it's being used.

In the same way, living organisms arise and evolves somewhat randomly from the physics, but once they are alive hunger and need satisfaction is not best described by the underlying physics, but by the psychological model of the animal

[Anonymous No.11679403]

>>11679258
This is simply wrong. You can model whatever process you want at various analytical levels of description, and one level is not more correct that the other so long as the model makes testable predictions. Dynamical systems models make valid and non-trivial predictions, which is why they are used. People don't develop these models just for shits and giggles. You should have read the papers anon.

[Anonymous No.11679425]

>>11679258
>physics is not an adequate causal for the software's existence
What the fuck else would it be? God?

[Anonymous No.11679594]

>>11679403
correlation causation fallacy is not wrong
alternative theories as you mention are not neccesarily more or less correct than each other

thus being hungry and eating because a near infinite number of math equations work out that way, and being hungry and eating because you decide to because you have self awareness and decision power aren't mutually exclusive. THere's tremendous value in understanding neurology, but there's no reason to throw out common sense (that will exists.)

>>11679425
I'm too lazy, but you need to take seriously the many theories of causation. Like all things scientific you need to systematically examine the phenomena

[Anonymous No.11679630]

>>11679594
>correlation causation fallacy is not wrong
While I agree that inferring causation from correlation is a fallacy, it is wrong in the sense that it has no relevance for the argument.

>common sense
The problem with that is is often used as an excuse to not properly define terms. Everyone has their own folk psychological notion of what constitutes freedom of will. Some see it as the ability to arbitrate between choice alternatives, others see it as conscious control over their desires. Whether it exists or not depends on what definition you adopt, and apppeal to common sense prevents clarity on the exact definition.

[Anonymous No.11679638]

>>11678781
>the mind is just a series of physical systems obeying causality
>causality
Your ignorance is staggering.

[Anonymous No.11679691]

>>11679630
what i mean by correlation causation is that

X,Y,Z phenomena happen during the process of thinking
that doesn't necessarily imply X,Y,Z are the causes of thinking

I might be stretching the typical usage a bit.

>common sense
I would agree that the argument is very messy and causally throwing around overused concepts isn't too helpful.

However everyday observation throws us a lot of experimental evidence. There are apparent conscious, self aware beings who make decisions based on physical and mental states. Split hairs any which way, something resembling the rough concept of free will exists.

I am arguing against tossing out this evidence for no reason, and assuming the most basic physical laws as they are explain everything.

It's possible someone could find that all possible behaviors stem from pure math, but I won't be holding my breath.

[Anonymous No.11679849]

>>11679691
>It's possible someone could find that all possible behaviors stem from pure math, but I won't be holding my breath.
What, then, would they stem from? By what definition does random equate to free?

[Anonymous No.11680069]

>>11679849
mathematics is pretty harmonious with the nature of phenomena. It doesn't seem necessary to say that all phenomena is just an illusion because it has an underlying mathematical description,

besides that, even if we just assumed everything was mathematical in nature, you can't really exclude "yourself" from the initial conditions of your decisions, meaning you cannot skip over giving credit for decision making to"yourself" to the underlying math or physiology-it's equivalent to "you."

[Anonymous No.11680076]

>>11678698
oh, then there must be a scientific experiment to demonstrate your scientific claim

[Anonymous No.11681611]

>>11680069
>It doesn't seem necessary to say that all phenomena is just an illusion because it has an underlying mathematical description,
I agree that only by virtue of the fact that there might be a mathematical description we should discard the phenomenon altogether and that this argument is often used on 4chan. But that is not the argument that I am making.

By the same token you could argue that just because you perceive it, it doesn't mean it has a basis in reality (i.e. 'exisis'). The majority of your precepts have no basis in physical reality. I don't think anyone denies that we perceive, and that out perceptions are real, but what's very much up for debate is whether our perceptions depart from the causal chain of events in nature (i.e. 'free').

[Anonymous No.11681613]

>>11681611
>we should
should not*

[Anonymous No.11682073]

>>11679691
>X,Y,Z phenomena happen during the process of thinking
>that doesn't necessarily imply X,Y,Z are the causes of thinking
This is not typically how people draw conclusions about the implementation of cognitive constructs. Your example overlooks the fact that if disrupting X,Y,Z, prevents thinking from taking place then you can in fact infer that X,Y,Z is casually responsible for the process of thinking.

[Anonymous No.11682124]

>I doubt that. Free will doesn’t even make sense as a concept. If it’s true that there’s no such thing as a soul and that is almost certainly the case, the mind is just a series of physical systems obeying causality. Given this I doubt any legitimate scientists believe in nonsense like free will.

[Anonymous No.11682904]

>>11678698
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.11682921]

>consciousness is a force that just exhibits itself only through the proper mediums
The medium just happens to be, at least here on earth, a brain. When you "die" you return to the collective "consciousness."

We experience things differently due to the limitations and experiences of the physical medium.

[Anonymous No.11682946]

>>11682921
I came from /x/ to /sci/ just now precisely to get away from these kind of posts

[Anonymous No.11682965]

>>11682946
Explain why some of the people with the highest iq's out there believe in the soul/god.

They know that it's shortsighted to believe something as simple as "lol just chemical reactions xD"

[Anonymous No.11682969]

>>11678926
Somebody just watched Hameroff youtube video wooooo your IQ has been increased 100 points and still negative

[Anonymous No.11682983]

>>11678698
>The scientific consensus is that people are magic.

[Anonymous No.11683008]

>>11679258
>It's like looking at a software's behavior and trying to describe it in terms of computing technology
We do things like that all the time, we call it "science." Software is written in a certain language, with rules, compiled into various layers of abstraction beneath, until it's eventually in machine languages and mapped on to logic gates. Why is this not "adequate." It's like saying we shouldn't do research into quantum physics, we should just stop at atoms, since that is easier to understand thus more "satisfying." What a dumb post.

[Anonymous No.11683020]

>>11682965
I'm not the anon you responded to
I've wasted too much time writing this response so it's going to be shit, because i dont care enough to refine it

A useful method of modelling the world is using formal logic.
An oversimplified example is, if A, B, C ... Then D

You take several premises and reach a conclusion

It is possible for contradictory premises to lead to the same conclusions, for example:
- creationism and god lead to the world we see
- big bang/eternal cosmic inflation and evolution lead to the world we see

--

To answer your question about high IQ people believing in souls/god

believing (Y) or not believing (N) in a soul/god does not seem to allow us to derive conclusions that:
-differ between Y and N
-are mutually exclusive, ie only Y or only N has the correct conclusion
- are demonstrably and irrefutably and unquestionably true

There are "proofs" of the soul and/or god, but these tend to be flawed in that they make arbitrary choices regarding premises (as an example), such as descartes trademark argument

Regardless, the unprovability does not mean falsity

It seems high IQ individuals don't study philosophy sufficiently, or just stick with whatever belief system they were raised with or is most comfortable to them

[Anonymous No.11683120]

>>11683020
I'm playing doubles advocate. I'm somewhat meme'ing. The fact is though, yes, we can model things using human observation, logic, and perception. Until we can make AI that can think outside of human thinking we are basically stuck with that. I'm pretty sure that super high iq individuals understand this and that's why a lot of their "theories" involve some sort of spiritual aspect. An unknown variable that acts on the "world" and the "world" acts on it. Arguing 100% both ways with all the unknowns is stupid. Our observations can definitely fit within the unknown, clearly what we observe with formal logic works on our scale. We can observe and manipulate, so it's possible that we can also be "observed" interacted with and manipulated.

[Anonymous No.11683161]

>>11683120
Your post has zero substance

[Anonymous No.11683163]

>>11682983
Free will is not magic, as it exists

[Anonymous No.11683179]

>>11683161
It's not supposed to lmao. What I said is pretty common sense.

[Anonymous No.11683200]

>>11683179
>common sense
kys retard

[Anonymous No.11683216]

>>11683200
>we can't make conclusions based on solely what we can observe/perceive
>we don't understand fully even half the stuff we can observe
Pretty common sense there brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11683241]

>>11678698
This is cope.

[Anonymous No.11683405]

>>11678781
wtf is almost certainty. in non-atheist-speak plx

[Anonymous No.11683413]

Nobody can even provide a rigorous definition of free will.

[Anonymous No.11683431]

>>11683413
>if a concept can't be described in language with other words rigorously, it doesn't exist
Just assume it's will that is free. I don't think either of us understands what you mean.

[Anonymous No.11683435]

>>11683431
If it cannot be rigorously defined, how can you prove it exists? Why are we discussing it on /sci/?

[Anonymous No.11683479]

>>11683405
why would you believe living things have magic ghosts inside of them? it’s retarded. We evolved. Organisms are entirely material.

[Anonymous No.11683514]

>>11683479
A soul is just an intangible form of energy

[Anonymous No.11683578]

Just cause most of you have never observed a vagina doesn't mean it doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11683595]

>>11683578
who hurt you

[Anonymous No.11683606]

>>11683595
You haven't enough yet, try harder

[Anonymous No.11684499]

>>11683431
This is probably one of the most retarded posts I've seen on 4chan, ever.

[Anonymous No.11684508]

>>11678698
I don't believe this and I am, litterally, fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.11684664]

>>11678882
There is no driver in this car, it's a self driving car.

[Anonymous No.11686090]

>>11678960
>>11679199
Quantum mechanics have been posited and proven to be utilised in a number of biological creatures' metabolic, signalling, neural and perceptive processes including microtubules in humans, photosynthesis, the quatum structure of butterfly wings to manipulate photons below the wavelength of light, and magnetic sensing in birds. This last one has been challenged but the fact that biomagnets have been found inside the beaks of birds, I think that it is case closed.

Whenever, I hear people dispute the idea of quantum biological traits, I get the feeling that they are Darwinian Evolutionists, who percieve it as a threat to their worldview and therefore always react in a violent and/or unpleasant manner, towards the new information. This is just another example of how dogmatic evolutionists hold back scientific innovation and research.

4chan thinks that the sources are spam, so here they are converted into Base64:

aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmF0dXJlLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlcy9zNDE1NjUtMDE4LTAyOTQtOT9wcm9vZj10cnVlJnBsYXRmb3JtPW9zY2FyJmRyYWZ0PWNvbGxlY3Rpb24=

aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucGJzLm9yZy93Z2JoL25vdmEvYXJ0aWNsZS9iaXJkcy1xdWFudHVtLWVudGFuZ2xlbWVudC8=

Cmh0dHBzOi8vYXJ4aXYub3JnL2Z0cC9hcnhpdi9wYXBlcnMvMTMwOC8xMzA4LjA2NjgucGRm