https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY That's it, she's gone full schizo now. I thought she was smart....

File: 1.03 MB, 1199x849, 2020-10-10_14-21-54.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:22:38 No.12214900 [Reply] [Original]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY
That's it, she's gone full schizo now. I thought she was smart....

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:25:06 No.12214904 >>12214900 >materialism, determinism This is middle school tier shit. Still wanna motorboat those mommy tiddys though.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:25:13 No.12214905 >>12214900 Except she's right. Imagine being so ingrained in mob mentality that you are convinced that you have free will. Don't worry anon, it's actually not your fault, blame your parents and your mentors before you.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:28:52 No.12214910
File: 28 KB, 410x461, 67a86f04a706bf46f6d60b0fa89e566e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214905
But her arguments are middle school tier, as anon above you said. I used to believe the exact same shit as her when I was a teenager, until I actually thought for myself and after a deep philosophical investigation I realized that I do in fact have free will. All of her arguments I have already repeatedly refuted on several boards here on 4chan.
And don't use the term mob mentality on me lmao. If anyone is behaving in a mob like way, it's the people who think there's no free will. Just search for free will on youtube and nearly all of the videos claim to explain scientifically why there's no free will. Nearly everyone on sci believes there's no free will, although none of you have any good arguments against it.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:30:54 No.12214913 >>12214900 >>12214905 You do have free will retard, read argument 5 https://crossexamined.org/5-arguments-existence-free-will/

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:33:18 No.12214920 >>12214910 >>12214913 the absolute state

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:33:40 No.12214921

>>12214910
>Nearly everyone on sci believes there's no free will
These retards dont even realize that if there isnt "free will" science doesnt make sense as everything known in science was determined by atoms coliding on each other, not by thinking individuals differentiating true from false, their beliefs would only have been pushed to them and they wpuldnt be able to tell it it was true or not

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:34:06 No.12214924
File: 55 KB, 290x370, 20140524_EUD001_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

she is German. her mind can't comprehend anything that isn't systematic and organized and work. that's why they have no sense of humor. the top grossing games for several years in Germany were farming, bus driver and forklift simulator. you mention anything related to spirit and soul in front of a German and he/she would turn red and start telling you that there is no such thing scientifically. if you can't explain it with numbers and hard logic doesn't exist for them

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:45:45 No.12214950
File: 300 KB, 543x300, Uncool Love.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214905
She literally starts from the standpoint of materialism and then shows in that circumstance science can solve the problem of free will in the negative. Problem is, science isn't meant to investigate things that are metaphysical (literally "above physics"), it creates a model of the real world according to the best available data. Her starting point of materialism is what kneecaps her argument: you can easily bring this up and say that science literally cannot answer these types of questions because assuming that there is a non-physical metaphysical reality, scientific methodology couldn't test it. Free will is one of those questions that's more metaphysical than it is physical. Sure there is a physical aspect to it, but we are talking about the will of human beings which is something that you can't prove exists using any scientific methodology. That's why I thing it's such a dumb thing to investigate using scientific methods: it's using the wrong tools for basically. I'm not even trying answer to the affirmative or negative. I'm just trying to make a point that today's scientists are very philosophically challenged compared to those even 100 years ago like Hilbert, Einstein, Bohr, etc. It's why String Theory is taken seriously instead of just being treated like the non-falsifiable mathematical theory is.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:46:05 No.12214951

>>12214924
>she is German. her mind can't comprehend anything that isn't systematic and organized and work. that's why they have no sense of humor. the top grossing games for several years in Germany were farming, bus driver and forklift simulator. you mention anything related to spirit and soul in front of a German and he/she would turn red and start telling you that there is no such thing scientifically. if you can't explain it with numbers and hard logic doesn't exist for them
Explain Goethe

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:48:07 No.12214956 >>12214910 explain your version of free will plz

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 09:53:31 No.12214967

>>12214956
I wrote it up here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9323/i-came-up-with-an-argument-in-favor-of-free-will-please-critique
I attempted to show that one does not need to look for mechanisms of free will in order for it to be rational to believe in it, and that all the common objections against free will don't work.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:00:38 No.12214987

>>12214910
>a deep philosophical investigation I realized

LOL do you realize how stupid that sounds? That's honestly not even middle school. How about you do a deep philosophical investigation and realize how EVERY SINGLE religion has has some deep realization that their religion is the truth? I mean are you literally retarded here? Your dumb ass response is evidence enough for me that out of all people, if free will did exist, you certainly wouldn't have any.

Honestly..."deep philosophical investigation"...jesus christ dude, do you realize you aren't the only person on Earth? Why should I give two shits about what you think? Okay here listen to this:

Through deeper philosophical investigation I realized that we do not, in fact, have free will.

Convinced? I thought not. Stop being retarded.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:04:22 No.12215000

>>12214950
Idk if you're the same guy I replied to, but this post is stupid as well. You literally HAVE to start with a materialistic view because that's all we have. What the fuck are you supposed to start at, a soul?

From your argument here, we should just start believing in anything metaphysical because science cannot confirm or deny it. Good, I now believe you're going to hell for your beliefs. Don't believe me? Too bad, you can't confirm or deny it with science, so the default is to believe what I say. What the fuck is this dumb shit about how materialism isn't the way to think about the universe, yet metaphysics is? What age do people grow out of this?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:05:20 No.12215004

>>12214987
if people dont have free will your beliefs were predetermined for you and others, you would never be able to change others beliefs nor reason if theyre correct or not as any line of thinking you or others had would have been determined by randomness or whatever physics law
in short, if you dont believe in free will, or more specifically, the existence of the possibility of choice, whoever limited that pool is, you wouldnt be arguing against free will
since you are arguing against it, it shows to me that you do believe in free will subconsciously

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:07:20 No.12215013 >>12214950 Prove that you can't prove it.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:07:49 No.12215014

>>12215000
>From your argument here, we should just start believing in anything metaphysical because science cannot confirm or deny it.
Things exist because they were possible beforehand
You will die before science proves this simple metaphysical truth
Even better, use the scientific method to prove the scientific methods works, scientism moron

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:09:08 No.12215020 >>12215004 >If I don't believe in free will, I don't believe in choice Nice strawman. >I believe in free will subconsciously Nice gaslighting I'm not even replying to your posts anymore, you don't even argue with evidence or logic, just fallacies.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:09:18 No.12215021

>>12214900
Smart person, but she's always been extremely basic philosophical.

It's pretty easy to poke holes in her arguments

>"nothing you do influences quantum mechanics"
>but I'm not a neurologist
Boom, unqualified statement

>"will doesn't exist"
But everyone observes that it *apparently exists*, and yet she argues against denying basic evidence. Clearly biased and nonsensicial.

>"Doesn't matter that it was dominated by internal processes as compared to external processes"
>The brain is a calculator
>Demonstrates that the outcome of math equation is based on their non material definition, and nothing to do with the external physical world

If anything, this is the strongest argument I've ever seen in FAVOR of free will. The brain is a calculator of mind dominated by internal processes rather than external processes, and actualizes internal mental ideas and psychological processes into physical phenomenon

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:14:57 No.12215033 >>12215004 >if people dont have free will your beliefs were predetermined for you and others, you would never be able to change others beliefs you don't understand, they are predetermined to change beliefs

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:16:43 No.12215036

>>12215020
>you don't even argue with evidence or logic, just fallacies.
Logic doesnt exist to people that dont believe in free will, your just like an npc in a videogame, if you disagree yoire a hypocrite that doesnt understandthe implications of what youre saying

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:17:29 No.12215039 >>12215000 you don't have to believe in metaphysics, but materialism is basically retarded, its an absolute statement about our universe which we don't know shit about

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:17:58 No.12215040 File: 29 KB, 1175x249, 2020-10-10_15-17-19.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] LOL she honestly thinks that with this video she BTFO'd centuries worth of philosophy.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:18:47 No.12215044

>>12215033
>you don't understand, they are predetermined to change beliefs
Which is non refutable, therefore not scientific
And even if they were predetermined to change their beliefs, that fact is still that they could not dwtermined if their new beliefs were more right than the previous

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:18:58 No.12215045 >>12215039 >source: my ass

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:20:18 No.12215048 >>12215040 >i have no argument

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:20:56 No.12215049 >>12215040 scientism has already become the new idol for idiots, they substituted their inteligence scientism so that they dont have to think i wonder what these folk would say if I asked them to scientifically prove they exist

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:20:57 No.12215050 >>12215039 what do you need source about? that we dont know shit about the universe?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:22:21 No.12215054 >>12215050 ups >>12215045

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:23:52 No.12215058

>>12215048
there is no point giving arguments to you free will deniers as anything you believe was externally imposed to you
its the same as trying to argue with a machine that randomly generates dialogues
if any retard that believes free will doesnt exist was coherent wih that, he would simply live in a vegetable state awaiting for "orders"

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:24:39 No.12215061 >>12215048 It's pretty absurd and edgy teen tier to think you can outwit a millenium of thought with a 10 minute youtube video It's a good video, but to state she obviously debunked freewill is nutty

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:25:26 No.12215063
File: 1020 KB, 896x906, 1588114349221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215039
I think it's perfectly consistent to have a materialist notion of consciousness and free will while still believing it and not being a determinist. Keep in mind that materialism does not imply determinism, nor does it say that consciousness is an illusion. It merely states that consciousness supervenes on the physical, i.e. for changes in consciousness to occur the physical must change.
And that seems consistent with our experience. We know that drinking alcohol, doing drugs or having a brain injury can significantly alter your consciousness, that it's closely related to the physical. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it's an illusion of some sort.
There's a lot of strong evidence for materialism in many areas of life, in that a lot of experiences and phenomena that were thought to have nothing to do with the physical later turned out to be mostly physical or closely related to the physical. Think about all the magic tricks that were later figured out, or natural phenomena such as rain and thunder which we used to think have mystical nonphysical cause.
The problem is that there is also a lot of good evidence that there exist nonphyiscal things, and things that don't supervene on the physical. Mathematics comes to mind. This also might suggest that consciousness is not purely physical, since we are able to access the world of mathematics which has nothing to do with the physical, though it's obviously not a hard proof of anything.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:26:28 No.12215066

>>12215050
dont argue with materialists and scientism worshippers, theyre staring at a wall
lets argue about free will vs will, i dont believe free will exists, but will does, that is, you cant really choose to do anything, because what you will choose is limited to the set of options that you know, still that does not make you a robot, you still have to decide

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:29:17 No.12215076
File: 587 KB, 936x936, 80890943_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215066
I don't think that's a good argument against free will. Obviously there will always be limitations. We can't do anything at all, we can do only things which we can conceive of and our minds are highly limited.
I'm sure you don't think that our inability to jump to the moon means we don't have free will, so why does our inability to make choices outside of what we can conceive of mean we don't have free will.
The way I understand it, free will merely means that there's SOME choices you can make. That doesn't mean that everything that happens to you is your choice or that you can do anything, just that you can choose something, some of the time.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:30:07 No.12215077

>>12215063
>materialism does not imply determinism
it does

>It merely states that consciousness supervenes on the physical, i.e. for changes in consciousness to occur the physical must change
And the physical is determined by known or unkown laws which would imply determinism

>We know that drinking alcohol, doing drugs or having a brain injury can significantly alter your consciousness
It doesnt, thats akin to saying a broken radio alters the waves that are being transmited to it

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:30:50 No.12215079 >>12215076 >>12215066 only drones like rationalists think that arguments, which are mere mental masturbation, are about reality

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:31:58 No.12215080

>>12215063
>There's a lot of strong evidence for materialism in many areas of life, in that a lot of experiences and phenomena that were thought to have nothing to do with the physical later turned out to be mostly physical or closely related to the physical.
There are a lot of strong evidence for the opposite, with people in coma telling things they saw and heard outside anything it would be possible if conscience was created by the brain, theres a good book about it but i will have to find its name again

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:33:13 No.12215085

>>12215063
>Keep in mind that materialism does not imply determinism
i think it does, if you are materalist you have to believe that EVERYTHING in this universe is just matter, and nothing more, so if thats the case why would the human brain work differently?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:34:06 No.12215088
File: 829 KB, 858x1200, 81438606_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215077
>it does
How?
>And the physical is determined by known or unkown laws which would imply determinism
As far as I can see, nothing precludes conscious macroscopic agents making decisions as a "law" or an explanation in materialism.
>It doesnt, thats akin to saying a broken radio alters the waves that are being transmited to it
How so? It seems like we have differing understandings of what consciousness is. To me it's just the state of being aware and all the qualities that come with it. Drinking alcohol or doing drugs obviously significantly alters this state. What is consciousness, according to you, if not this state?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:36:07 No.12215092

>>12215076
then youre arguing semantics

>>12215079
>only drones like rationalists think that arguments, which are mere mental masturbation, are about reality
Since what you said is an argument, it has nothing to do with reality, but just mental masturbation
Arguments are based on words and words represent things in physical or non physical reality, you can argue to arrive at truths

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:37:41 No.12215095 >>12215088 >how? i don't know what you don't understand, for a materialist everything is matter that obeys to natural laws -> its calculable and predictable

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:39:14 No.12215099
File: 1.04 MB, 1200x901, 80910717_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215085
I'm not a hard materialist, I think platonic reality of mathematics exist as a transcendental nonmaterial object. However, when it comes to consciousness and free will I believe they are material and real. By material I don't mean they are just atoms, clearly there are some higher order structures involved. I'm merely saying that they supervene on the material. I don't think they can exist without the material.
>so if thats the case why would the human brain work differently
Well it obviously works very differently from other objects. It gives rise to consciousness and free will. I don't think rocks are conscious or have free will. Materialism does not mean that everything that is material is exactly the same, it merely states that everything supervenes on the material.
>>12215080
I'm not entirely convinced by these arguments. I don't think there's any way to verify, either internally or externally, whether these experiences really happened during the time when the brain was dead or whatever. It seems possible that those experiences were had just before the brain died or just after the brain came alive.
Do you know a good argument in favor of them?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:41:21 No.12215104 >>12215099 i think there is a huge mess in your head, you literary believe things that contradicts each other

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:42:24 No.12215105
File: 390 KB, 758x1200, 80757504_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215092
>then youre arguing semantics
Yes, genius, that's literally what the argument is about. It's about the meaning of free will vs what you just call will. My argument is that such a distinction is unwarranted.
>>12215095
The fact that everything supervenes on the material does not imply the latter part of your proposition. I'm a materialist when it comes to consciousness and free will and yet I could not believe in free will if I thought everything material is calculable and predictable. I believe it's not. Similarly, I doubt natural laws as currently understood in physics can provide a complete account of reality.
>>12215104
What is it that I believe that is contradictory? Explain how it's contradictory.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:44:28 No.12215108
File: 913 KB, 1222x3222, PART 2 THE ESP RESEARCH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215099
>I'm not entirely convinced by these arguments. I don't think there's any way to verify, either internally or externally, whether these experiences really happened during the time when the brain was dead or whatever

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:45:34 No.12215110 File: 591 KB, 777x2777, PART 1 THE DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215099

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:50:34 No.12215114

>>12215105
first, i don't see why material and immaterial parts of the universe would not influence each other, because of that you can't think about anything just materialistically, separating the immaterial.
secondly, if you are materialist on the human mind, you think it's just matter, i don't see why you wouldn't be able to predict every decision

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:56:39 No.12215126 >>12215114 >i don't see why you wouldn't be able to predict every decision not him but the issue isnt being able to predict per se, if its a random process that generates thoughts, it is still deterministic even if its not predictable

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 10:58:05 No.12215129
File: 977 KB, 1200x997, 80913484_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215114
For your first point, I already agreed that I'm not a hard materialist. I think there are nonmaterial things that somehow we can interact with, so I agree with you.
For the second point, there's simply no reason to think everything material can be predicted. There's no obvious implication that materialism implies predictability. And I don't think you honestly believe that everything material can be predicted, since our decisions manifest themselves in the material so you must also believe that all our physical actions can be predicted, which seems to contradict free will (which I think you believe in).

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:00:09 No.12215134 >>12215129 >I think there are nonmaterial things source badly needed bucko inb4 you think virtual particles are nonmaterial

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:01:10 No.12215139
File: 413 KB, 900x588, 81089162_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215126
>it is still deterministic even if its not predictable
How do you know? How do you distinguish random as in unpredictable even though there's an underlying pattern which we cannot observe from completely random as in no pattern whatsoever? I don't think this is possible to do.
That's why there's no reason to think our thoughts are deterministic.
Strict order and mathematical predictability is strong evidence for determinism, randomness is not.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:02:12 No.12215141
File: 654 KB, 850x1200, 81062747_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215134
I already explained that I think some mathematical objects are real and do not supervene on the material, i.e. are independent of the material world. A good example is the set of natural numbers, which I think is a real thing.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:05:39 No.12215145

>>12215139
>How do you know?
Because youre not the random process, therefore something external to "you" is determining your will

>How do you distinguish random as in unpredictable even though there's an underlying pattern which we cannot observe from completely random as in no pattern whatsoever?
Thats a good point, there must be some order underlying the random that determines how it should be, i just assumed random things exist because thats a common argument i hear (that randomness removes determinism of the picture, and they post some quantum physics pop science article of particles appearing from nothing)

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:05:56 No.12215146 >>12214913 >>12214910 >>12214905 lmao, I was ready to have my mind changed. Then I read the link poasted. xd.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:07:37 No.12215150 >>12215126 >it is still deterministic even if its not predictable explain to me plz how something can be deterministic and not predictable

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:09:18 No.12215152
File: 793 KB, 845x1200, 81011768_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215145
>Because youre not the random process, therefore something external to "you" is determining your will
This doesn't follow. I'm not random but there are decisions which are determined by me and not anything else.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:09:25 No.12215154 >>12215150 >how something can be deterministic and not predictable >>12215145 >Because youre not the random process, therefore something external to "you" is determining your will

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:11:48 No.12215160 >>12215152 im not arguing in that post that you cant make decisions, im arguing randomness still implies determinism

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:12:24 No.12215163
File: 1.36 MB, 722x1200, 81011808_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215150
Perhaps he means that there's a function that's uncomputable and indescribable but still a function that takes the physical state of the universe at any time and can return the complete state of the universe at all other times.
Then the universe would be deterministic and not predictable (assuming some cause prevents us from knowing what the function f is, not even theoretically).
However, there's no reason to think such a function exist. I don't even know how one would attempt to argue that it exists, as in an unpredictable universe there seems to be no empirical difference between determinism and indeterminism.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:13:28 No.12215166
File: 41 KB, 450x600, 26bc49d722fca8d4b89f53551b20c590.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215160
>im arguing randomness still implies determinism
But it doesn't. You gave no argument that it does. Randomness just means it's not intelligible to us.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:13:41 No.12215167

>>12215129
>There's no obvious implication that materialism implies predictability
for me common sense implies that. if matter is controlled by deterministic natural laws its predictable if you know these laws. of course humans will never be able to do it, because of its complexity

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:14:37 No.12215171 >>12215141 >I think, I think, I explained none of these are sources. Instead of saving thousands of pictures of anime girls, save sources. Who else agrees with you on this and if nobody, then where's your research?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:14:56 No.12215174 >>12215163 >he means that there's a function that's uncomputable and indescribable doesn't sound very deterministic for me

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:18:59 No.12215182
File: 39 KB, 564x640, 35d073caf3e2ce0877749790e607ea16.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215167
>if matter is controlled by deterministic natural laws
I don't think it is. There's no evidence that such laws exist, to the contrary quantum mechanics seems to indicate we may never find such laws. I think a lot of material is largely controlled by my consciousness which is indeterministic.
>>12215171
I am explaining my point, retard. I'm giving you arguments. Use your brain to parse them.
>>12215174
Well that's how I understand determinism (physical kind), that the state of the universe at one time completely determines the state of the universe at all further times. This translates to there being such a function. It does not have to be computable or describable, it just needs to exist.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:24:36 No.12215197

>>12215000
>You literally HAVE to start with a materialistic view because that's all we have. What the fuck are you supposed to start at, a soul?
Wow. People arrive at knowledge through observation. That's nothing new. That's basically what you do in mathematics in proof making.

>From your argument here, we should just start believing in anything metaphysical because science cannot confirm or deny it.

Whether an electron is a wave or a particle is a metaphysical question, just like the question of free will. However, unlike the question of free will, it can be tested and modeled within the scope of the scientific method. If you can't test a fucking theory within the scope of the scientific method, then it's not a scientific question nor should you pretend it is such. This is what I don't get about people like you and these other retarded scientism faggots: just because a question has a physical aspect to it doesn't make it scientific. It's only a scientific question if you can model it within the scope of the scientific method. Some woman with a dumb hot take on the nature of free will doesn't count as scientific nor will it ever be one. For fuck's sake, even the scientific method is mostly an epistemological consideration and not something you can actually say can be tested by the scientific method. This is why you retards are laughed at on /lit/: you are so blinded by your cult-like fanaticism towards "SCIENCE" that you can't actually use it fucking properly.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:26:02 No.12215203 >>12215197 I also wanted to add to the first response that even Aristotle understood that we reach knowledge of higher things through empirical observation. It's literally how he came up with most of his philosophy.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:28:17 No.12215211
File: 505 KB, 812x1100, 81074654_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215146
If you're talking about the christian link, I agree, it's pretty much completely irrelevant to someone who isn't already a christian (I'm not).
>>12215197
There's a large number of redditors on /sci/. The smart people on this board know what's up.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:34:51 No.12215228

>>12215182
You are truly a dumb individual. I'm retarded because I'm asking for sources? Your explanations so far have literally been
>I thought
>I think
>I believe
It's truly baffling how you can't see your own bias. I'm glad you aren't in any research, your thoughts are utter garbage and you aren't even willing to consider that you're wrong. You're a poison on this world, not even for the content of your thoughts, just on the fact that you think you're right while giving ZERO evidence.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:36:03 No.12215233 >>12215061 >my argument: calendars summertime fag

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:38:24 No.12215243

>>12214900
literally cringe

anyway obsessing over proving or disproving "free will" through scientific or philosophical means is already stupid enough as i'm not anyones slave, and it literally doesn't change a thing if my thoughts were determined by the initial conditions of the universe. there is no choosing "not to experience life". there is no auto-pilot. this video is useful for nothing.
also no idea why they try to equate "free will" to the concept of the "soul", and other superstitious nonsense, because this shit is literally like praying to Jesus to help with your homework. it is religious retards (and certain species of leftoids) that come with this bullshit that someone else wrote my script. that life just IS and that you must accept your fate, or just collect oppression points while consciously choosing not to do anything to better yourself because you find that to be more convenient.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:40:12 No.12215248

>>12215197
What are you on about this "scientism" shit? Are all your arguments memes? If an electron is a wave or a particle is not metaphysical at all and you would know that if you studied quantum mechanics AT ALL but of course with a little introspection and experimental evidence, you've figured it all out, haven't you buddy?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:46:01 No.12215256

>>12215248
>If an electron is a wave or a particle is not metaphysical at all
You are literally asking about the nature of the electron when you ask that question. That is very much a metaphysical question, you brainlet. One which is also scientific, but you would have to be retarded or philosophically unread to not see it also as a metaphysical one as well. Do yourself a favor and read a philosophy book to If an electron is a wave or a particle is not metaphysical at all If an electron is a wave or a particle is not metaphysical at all actually expand your mind somewhat and be well read.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 11:46:38 No.12215259
File: 75 KB, 564x564, 4adec2c22bbbe24ece29199b1816888e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215228
You're genuinely retarded. The lowest IQ poster I've interacted with all week.
You asked me for a source for why I believe there are immaterial objects (which is different from a source why immaterial objects exist).
I explained that I believe it because I believe mathematics is non material. You claimed that this is not a source like an utter moron. Do you want me to publish a scientific paper of what I believe to be convinced that I actually believe mathematics is nonmaterial? Why can't you just take my word for what I believe?
Or did you want to know why I think maths is nonmaterial? But you want a source. What kind of source do you expect? Whether maths is material or not is a metaphysical problem, science can't settle it. So scientific papers won't do. Do you want a philosophy paper? There are such papers, but why do you restrict yourself to them? Why do you refuse to listen to what I have to say about it and evaluate on your own whether what I'm saying is logical or not?
To conclude
>You are truly a dumb individual
Source?
>Your explanations so far have literally been
>>I thought
>>I think
>>I believe
Please provide a source for that claim.
>It's truly baffling how you can't see your own bias.
Source?
>you think you're right while giving ZERO evidence
Yeah I'm gonna need a source for that claim.
Also please provide a source that you're not a retarded low IQ gorilla.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:14:26 No.12215347 >>12214951 he is an outlier. also he was taught other languages from a young age so maybe that broke the curse

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:23:19 No.12215379 >>12214910 >repeatedly refuted on several boards here on 4chan. Lmao. Take your meds, schizo.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:31:39 No.12215400

>>12214900
If you guys ever ascend from brainletism even briefly, and think about how you think, to keep track of how thoughts in your mind emerge and the exact moment of impulse when you make decisions, you'll realize you're riding on rails. You can't even have control over this realization, it just has to happen to you.

You think about what you encounter externally, or things that are related to what you're thinking about internally. You have no control of what you think about, like how you're not thinking about a pink elephant right now. When you make decisions, the importance of factors is already weighed, and you pull the trigger based on what's in focus.

Try to have free will. Try to take a cold shower right now with your clothes on. It won't matter. You're either doing it to prove you have free will or not doing it because it's uncomfortable.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:37:40 No.12215421 >>12215400 You don't feel like you have free will, and that's ok. The worlds needs NPCs as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:40:03 No.12215424 >>12215421 >You don't feel like you have free will, and that's ok. Of course it's ok. Because ideas are something that happen to me and not my free choice.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:43:11 No.12215433 >>12215421 The hallmark of an NPC is being easily fooled by illusions

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:47:14 No.12215445 >>12215424 Yeah, because you don't have free choice because you're an NPC. >>12215433 Dude I know it's hard to imagine how others can feel they have free will when you don't have it yourself. It's ok, as I said, the world needs NPCs as well.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:50:20 No.12215454

She's a literal idiot that believes in unrelenting determinism and that quantum mechanics is wrong. Literally, the most successful physical theory in human existence, by the sheer number of theoretical predictions that were later confirmed by experience.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:51:34 No.12215457

>>12215400
The thing is, as a conscious feedback loop you absolutely do have decision making power. It's silly to claim that you yourself are not the key decision making factor, and pretend that humans don't completely dominant all external factors. You are the rails.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:57:42 No.12215474 File: 284 KB, 2048x1434, MICROTUBULE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214900 This bitch needs to learn about MicroTubules from my boy Hameroff. Its the link between consciousness and deterministic biology.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:59:17 No.12215483 >>12215474 I remember I saw written somewhere that the hypothesis about the microtubules experiencing quantuum effects is bogus because the scale isn't even small enough for the wave function effects to be noticeable.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 12:59:39 No.12215484

>>12215445
>Yeah, because you don't have free choice because you're an NPC.
>It's ok, as I said, the world needs NPCs as well.

Says the one repeating himself lmao

>Dude I know it's hard to imagine how others can feel they have free will when you don't have it yourself.

I felt I had free will for 30 years of my life. I had an emotional repulsion to determinism just like you, unable to face the logic, unable to examine myself in a dispassionate way.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:00:42 No.12215489 >>12215457 feedback loops make decisions, care to explain that?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:02:25 No.12215493 >>12215474 The quantum world is deterministic with hidden variables. Indefinite states are just a cope because scientists don't want to admit that at some point nature will be a black box and you can't look inside to see how it works.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:03:20 No.12215495 >>12215493 Hidden variables has been disproven for decades, retard. Nature is random.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:09:21 No.12215507

>>12215484
I dispassionately examined determinism and realized that it's false and that I do have free will. I used to think my free will was an illusion but ultimately realized the arguments against it held no water, and the more carefully I examine my perception of free will the more convinced I become that it's real.

Now you, on the other hand, were just pretending to feel like you have it because others had it and you wanted to fit in. Now you finally realized you're a NPC, and that's ok. Glad you finally feel at peace.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:10:31 No.12215510 >>12215493 Hidden variables is one of the most retarded copes I have ever heard. Neck now.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:11:04 No.12215511 >>12215495 What do you think hidden means retard, you can't disprove it

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:13:05 No.12215514

>>12215259
I'm struggling to believe someone as stupid as you exists. If you make a claim, you MUST back it up with evidence you fucking imbecile! You aren't giving me an opinion on some movies you are putting forth a hypothesis about the real world. What in the actual fuck do you not understand about this concept? How God damn dense can you possibly be? You want my evidence about your claims? GO FUCKING LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE YOU IDIOT! My source on how you are dumb individual? Because after this whole fucking time you still can't grasp how IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS YOU MUST SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.

HOW CAN YOU BE SO FUCKING DUMB? Yes, I am very mad so go ahead and say it. Oh, and go ahead and respond to this post without evidence AGAIN like you have this entire time. I sincerely hope you die soon, you're a waste of life.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:14:09 No.12215519 >>12215511 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory Even fucking Wikipedia can elucidate you on this, you idiot.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:15:36 No.12215522
File: 58 KB, 564x1002, 4b21e94fec8323a750ecc3ebfe9b76a8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215514
>If you make a claim, you MUST back it up with evidence you fucking imbecile!
Provide source, you fucking imbecile!
>! You aren't giving me an opinion on some movies
Please give evidence for this claim.
>IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS YOU MUST SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.
Please give a source for this claim.
>Yes, I am very mad
Who cares about your opinion? Give a source that you're mad. Your subjective musings don't count.
>like you have this entire time
Uhhhm I'm gonna need a source for this claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:15:56 No.12215524 >>12215507 Interesting, because with "free will" all you can type is the opposite story presented in my sentences, fooled into believing it was your own.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:17:15 No.12215528 >>12215483 I remember I saw it written somewhere that you were a gigantic lying faggot

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:17:58 No.12215530

>>12215510
How is it a cope? It's the most dismal answer. The idea that there are more answers but you can't measure them and the complete explanation will forever be a mystery.

Meanwhile you have "particles have indefinite properties because they just do" lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:18:17 No.12215532 >>12215524 Not the opposite, it's analogous, just the outcomes are different. I was completely honest. You through your investigation realized that you're an NPC and I realized I have free will.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:19:18 No.12215534 File: 90 KB, 564x864, 176c0d9b730b737d9a934aa10817f21f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215530 You're right. You're arguing with a moron. I wouldn't waste my time.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:19:25 No.12215535 >>12215519 >m.wikipedia

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:20:46 No.12215538 >>12215532 >it's analogous Exactly. Exhibit something free, not just a facsimile of what I'm inputing into you

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:22:31 No.12215543 >>12215530 At some point in scientific advancement we might find what look like hidden variables. But we aren't there yet. Not even close. That's why it is a cope. Check back in 200 years and your gay little theory might have some merit then.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:23:39 No.12215545 >>12215534 fuck you berry

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:24:11 No.12215546

>>12215538
There's obviously no way I can convince you I have free will through text. In your own worlview, where you're a NPC, it's natural for you to assume that everyone else is a NPC as well and whatever I say you will view it as consistent with me being a NPC, no matter how actually original or unexpected my thoughts are.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:24:57 No.12215549 >>12215528 https://doi.org/10.1116/1.5135170 Found this by googling. Let's read it and discuss?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:25:18 No.12215550 >>12215543 >But we aren't there yet. Not even close. That's why it is a cope. I suppose naturalistic explanations were a cope in the ages of creationism, sorcery, and miracles then

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:27:05 No.12215554 >>12215530 >>12215534 Hidden variables was ligeralt developed as a copr mechanism by physicists that just couldn't cope with the fact that a theory that predicts stochasticity in matter provided results that matched experiment.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:32:22 No.12215566

>>12215554
>just couldn't cope with the fact that a theory that predicts stochasticity in matter provided results that matched experiment.

Wow, a thing that you can't predict behaves like something you can't predict in experiments.

All that means is you can't predict it. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation, even if you can never see the explanation.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:38:27 No.12215585

>>12215549
Did you read the paper? It didn't prove or disprove anything.

From the conclusion:
>The field of neurophysics already attests to the fact that the study of the brain borrows from ideas across the spectrum of physics: electricity and magnetism, mechanics, thermodynamics, and optics.30 It is perhaps not completely surprising that quantum physics might contribute too. While this review outlines working theories as to how quantum effects might be implicated in neural processes, the research remains largely theoretical. Although some experimental evidence
points to the validity of certain of these theories, conflicting results mean it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions. However, many of the authors cited in this review suggest ways in which their theories might be put to the test experimentally. As already suggested by
Craddock et al. advances in experimental techniques such as twodimensional electronic
pectroscopy, which has been successfully
applied to understanding the quantum nature of photosynthesis, might yield similar success in the context of energy transfer processes that impact neural signaling

>A clearer understanding of these processes, however, could also elucidate to what extent quantum physics is involved in the emergence of cognition from neural activity.23 Should it turn
out that experimental evidence supports hypotheses of quantum enhanced neural processing we might turn this knowledge toward thinking about how we think

Also, with each passing year we are forcing larger and warmer systems to experience quantum effects. Maybe nature already figured that out.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:39:29 No.12215587 >>12215550 Your thinking is so stupid and so backwards that I'm just going to call you a faggot lmao.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:44:15 No.12215607

>>12215585
I posted it because I admitted I didn't know enough about the subject. My previous claim was from some fuzzy memory.

But the paper basically talks about trying to include models that make use of quantum effects to explain some biological phenomena, it doesn't even touch on the microtubules.
Basically, biology is still a fucking mess and no one still knows anything.
I just wanted a clearer statement about the size of microtubules. If it's not in the order of nm's it likely won't experience quantum effects.

My intuition tells me that our body must certainly make use of quantum effects, but it's just my intuition. I was trying to see how Penrose's conjecture on microtubules was seen today, because it might be the case that it's just wrong (which doesn't invalidate quantum effects in biological systems).

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:44:53 No.12215608 >>12214924 >bus driver and forklift simulator Y I K E S I K E S

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:46:47 No.12215614 >>12215489 system thinking. It makes a lot of sense to think of yourself as a system your decisions are affected by actions you have taken and your perception of the outcomes

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:46:52 No.12215615 >>12215166 >You gave no argument that it does. I did, the randomness isnt you therefore itsnnit you determing your choices

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:47:00 No.12215617 >>12215587 I think you're just confusing the purview of science with reality You can't test for a hidden variable yet, if ever. But just pretending that something that mystifies you is the end of the line is amazingly arrogant.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:48:17 No.12215622 >>12215474 >MicroTubules [...] Its the link between consciousness and deterministic biology. There is no evidence for their role in consciousness at all. Penrose is an old fool.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:48:30 No.12215624 >>12215614 Not him, but if I am a system working on stochastic foundations, whatever arisesnin my mind due to those random outcomes is still mine.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:49:01 No.12215627
File: 1022 KB, 1785x1004, Tubulin_Infographic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215607
It's not just about the size of one node of one microtubule. It's also about whether organizing them in massive symmetric lattice structures may induce to quantum effects.

Picture here about the size.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:49:56 No.12215633 >>12215614 Not him, but if I am a system working on stochastic foundations, whatever arisesnin my mind due to those random outcomes is still mine. >>12215617 You can test for local hidden variables. Guess what, they can't exist.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:50:05 No.12215634

>>12215614
I asked the wrong question

Of course a decision was "made". I should have asked how a feedback loop is free.

>your decisions are affected by actions you have taken and your perception of the outcomes

This leans towards determinism, because it addresses it as cause and effect

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:51:26 No.12215637 >>12215211 >If you're talking about the christian link, I agree, it's pretty much completely irrelevant to someone who isn't already a christian (I'm not). i specifically said to read the 5th argument in the link, do you people not know how to read?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:51:45 No.12215639 >>12215633 >You can test for local hidden variables. Good thing there can be non-local hidden variables

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:51:58 No.12215640 >>12215627 Those are way too big to feel quantum effects, imo. The lattices in condensed matter have sides on the order of nm's...

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:53:55 No.12215644

>>12215624
>Not him, but if I am a system working on stochastic foundations, whatever arisesnin my mind due to those random outcomes is still mine.

Honestly, the debate should be free will vs randomness vs determinism

No, randomness is not free will because you don't freely choose randomness.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:54:06 No.12215645 >>12215640 Look in the bottom right. The lattice is 25nm wide. A single node is ~5-8nm wide. Also are you saying we haven't induced quantum effects in anything larger than 25nm? That is simply wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:54:23 No.12215647 >>12215259 damn this post was an ass raping

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:54:37 No.12215648 File: 283 KB, 1000x639, 1578690652719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215021 this post needs moar recognition. LOOK AT THIS FUCKING POST YOU FUCKING RETARDS. NOW.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:56:19 No.12215650

>>12215639
Might as well postulate the existence of god. As of now, there's nothing that points to it being a good explanation, because no theory has been developed with it that produces experimental results more accurate than QM. Following that logic you could also advocate for the brainlet ideas of wolfram regarding the universe being dicrete and made of graphs. It's just plain nonsense to fixate on a concept because the ALREADY TESTED AND FANTASTIC alternative doesn't suit your fancy. The universe doesn't care about our mental constructions.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:56:31 No.12215651 >>12215400 read the entire thread brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:56:40 No.12215652 >>12215639 Non-local hidden variables are philosophical cope. It is a pathetic argument from ignorance. Yall are like the retards trying to keep people staring at plato's 2d shadow cave wall if you know what i mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:57:12 No.12215654 >>12214910 You again? Holy fuck, you don't stop ever trying? Ever fucking free will thread on came to say the same shit, holy shit, get your med, schizo.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:58:15 No.12215657

>>12215424
>Because ideas are something that happen to me and not my free choice.
Therefore rationality is impossible and knowledge doesnt exist
The mere fact youre trying to argue against will shows youre either a hypocrate that dont believe in what youre saying or an automated bot saying things for no reason

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:58:20 No.12215659 File: 63 KB, 564x564, 5b9762117f3fc7d0cc23b51cb88baf1e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215654 u n r e f u t e d

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:58:49 No.12215661 >>12215645 Those dimensions seem more plausible. What has been the tested macro limit for quantum effects? Disregarding entanglement, obviously.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 13:59:56 No.12215664 >>12215474 >Its the link between consciousness and deterministic biology. so consciousness is something beyond the body and is linked through tese tubules?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:01:01 No.12215666

>>12215650
>As of now, there's nothing that points to it being a good explanation

Again, purview of science vs reality. I'm fine with that. I don't accept hidden variables, it's just a possibility.

What's cope is pretending a non-explanation like stochasticity is the explanation. If we assumed every system that appeared stochastic was really stochastic, we would be no where now.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:02:24 No.12215668 >>12215657 >Therefore rationality is impossible and knowledge doesnt exist No, doesn't logically follow. That's my rational deterministic assessment.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:02:27 No.12215669

>>12215644
It seems to be a rather unfruitful debate to be had, honestly. If our thoughts arise first on quantum phenomena, that's free will enough for me, since I am conscious of them and I decide or not to act upon them, and to formulate their counter thoughts as well.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:02:52 No.12215671

>>12215484
>I felt I had free will for 30 years of my life. I had an emotional repulsion to determinism just like you, unable to face the logic, unable to examine myself in a dispassionate way.
I feel like this stupidity of denying free will is just a hard cope to avoid facing your decisions in life and its consequences
And the moron even says he used logic to arrive at it, how the fuck do you use logic if all your thoughts were imposed to you?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:04:28 No.12215674 >>12215495 >Nature is random and that randomness will still be used by some known not random law which makes it a deterministic system a more pressing question is what creates that randomness?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:05:17 No.12215675

>>12215661
>Those dimensions seem more plausible.
Yes. And if you know anything about materials science, you should understand that nodes packed into lattice structures with specific symmetries over large scales can induce unexpected emergent properties. Superconductivity. Etc.

>Disregarding entanglement, obviously.
I was going to post about entanglement in large scale systems. A huge number of symmetric entanglements across a lattice structure may induce other quantum effects. To be investigated further....

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:05:25 No.12215676 >>12215669 >that's free will enough for me I think determinism is free will enough for me. It's a useless philosophical debate, you don't change your behavior whether you believe your mind is deterministic or free.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:05:32 No.12215677

>>12215666
The same can be said for assuming it's deterministic.
Quantum theory is based on stochastic principles. As of now, it's the most successful thing we have ever developed. The natural intuitive conclusion for me is to be inclined to believe that stochastic may in fact be a part of reality. Models are just models, but when some models work a lot better than others, you start basing your mental constructions on their axioms.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:06:55 No.12215680 File: 24 KB, 320x306, CQdNkzBWIAAr0IJ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215666

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:06:56 No.12215681 File: 1.75 MB, 331x197, 2a8dfed92badb838bea2ffb31106066e.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215522 >IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS YOU MUST SUPPORT THAT CLAIM. >Please give a source for this claim.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:07:37 No.12215684

>>12215674
No, it doesn't make it a deterministic system.
Any system with a stochastic component is, by construction, stochastic. Doesn't matter if it's only at a very specific and contained stage.

Regarding your ladt question, it's too ambitious for me.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:07:57 No.12215685

>>12215671
>denying free will is just a hard cope to avoid facing your decisions in life and its consequences

Actually no, you don't understand determinism at all. I have to face decisions and consequences whether they were free or not. I just hope my path doesn't contain a lot of suffering. And that other's paths tend to reduce suffering compared to other likely outcomes.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:10:53 No.12215695 >>12215664 I wish I knew, brother. This video is decent. He shows how anesthetics effect these microtubules, which mysteriously snuff out consciousness for the duration of the interaction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6018zvWyAs0

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:10:58 No.12215696 >Posters: 22 >Replies: 145 Autism.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:11:01 No.12215697 >>12215685 Under determinism there are no other paths.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:11:24 No.12215698

>>12215634
In this chain I never said will was free- I just said that the individual is the primary factor. I think there is something special here and "100% NPC people" and "100% metaphysical free will" are just not not very descriptions of what is going on

It's very cop out to me to completely write of all systems level behavior that arises from feedback loops, and say "oh thats just determined by the laws of physics."

You take a look at a precision piece of electromachinery like an automobile, which is a borderline miracle, and if we some where to say "oh thats just determined by the laws of physics. nothing special there", it's 100% a cop out.

Same thing if you were to look at a human. Obviously there is some phenomenon that is deterministic at certain scales (newtonin) and possibly probabilistic at some scales, but conscious activity only really makes sense at the level of the brain where a super duper neural network is getting cause and effect as an input

So, I think most thinking on the subject is just oversimplified to useless levels

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:11:26 No.12215699

>>12215675
>first paragraph
I wasn't brilliant at consended matter, but I did my part. And I said it seemed plausible exactly because of what you describe. Anyone with a (decent) degree in physics has had to go through the computations to show superconductivity regimes.

>second paragraph
Not very convincing for me, since entanglement is kind of "non local" and can be seen as a previously induced correlation. But I'll take your word on the fact that the scales on microtubules seem plausible, just for me after you pointed out that corner in the image I changed.my mind about the conjecture.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:12:28 No.12215704 >>12215676 I agree, except for the first sentence, since I'm more inclined to assume stochasticity.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:13:31 No.12215707 >>12215696 Under determinism these numbers are meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:13:46 No.12215709 >>12215668 >doesn't logically follow. That's my rational deterministic assessment If your thoughts are imposed it logically follows that you cant compare two thoughts to arrive at an answer, which is the basis of logic

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:14:00 No.12215711 File: 22 KB, 804x743, 1599592248929.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215696 >the quality of a discussion is determined by the number of intervenients >you cannot engage on back-and-forth conversation

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:14:32 No.12215714

>>12215677
>Quantum theory is based on stochastic principles. As of now, it's the most successful thing we have ever developed.

That's a meaningless statement though. There's no difference in predictive power between assuming something is truely stochastic and suspecting that it's not stochastic but you can't tell anyway. Only until you can tell would the non-stochastic explanation have revolutionary power. I just don't want that that mystification to go on any longer than it needs to.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:16:43 No.12215719 >>12215697 Yes. But what's your point? I'm not sitting around and telling myself It's ok to make bad decisions and fail at life because of determinism. That's not how it works. Me trying to not fail is also determinism.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:18:29 No.12215723

>>12215714
The deterministic alternative to QM is the pilot wave interpretation, and it's not as good as QM. But maybe because it wasn't worked on by enough peoplw, but for now it's not as good. So I believe that there is merit is the axiom of stochasticity.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:19:00 No.12215724

>>12215676
>you don't change your behavior whether you believe your mind is deterministic or free.
You actually do funnily enough
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201903/do-you-believe-in-free-will%3famp

I think believing in a god, more specifically the christian God, makes you different as well, i say this because the greatest mathematicians and scientists were devout christians (euler, leibniz, etc.)
https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

What is sure about atheists is that they have a warped capacity of understanding cause and effect

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:19:58 No.12215727

>>12215347
If what you're proposing were the case then he wouldn't have been famous.
Germany is literally the musical capital of the world, all the best composers and conservatories are from Germany (sans mozart) how the fuck would a soulless country develop such grand and beautiful music?
You're just ignorant and your opinion of germany is based on meme stereotypes and misguided perceptions. You're an imbecile and you should kill yourself.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:20:06 No.12215728

>>12215709
A computer is completely deterministic. They are rational and contain information, if that information is an accurate model of reality, they contain knowledge

TLDR: Thoughts can be deterministic and correct, no shit. Why are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:21:48 No.12215733 >>12215727 That was centuries ago. Music evolved past that. Current german society isn't romantic anymore.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:22:06 No.12215735

>>12215684
>No, it doesn't make it a deterministic system.
>Any system with a stochastic component is, by construction, stochastic. Doesn't matter if it's only at a very specific and contained stage.
I just looked up the definition of determinism in English and it seems its different from my native language
Forget determinism, i was trying to say that randomness still implies fatalism, though you have been able to understand that by my supporting posts

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:23:23 No.12215740 >>12215696 nigger

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:23:29 No.12215741

>>12215724
Well yeah, my statement was wrong

What I really mean is you shouldn't change your behavior based on your belief in determinism vs free will.

A lot of people think determinism means we don't hold ourselves or others responsible or we don't punish people etc. But responsibility improves decision outcomes even in a deterministic system.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:23:52 No.12215743 >>12215735 If you are already aware of your starting point and aren't going to face anymore stochastic steps throughout the way, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:24:50 No.12215747 >>12215728 Computers are not rational. Any information or knowledge they have only exist through our interaction with them. The knowledge is not intrinsic to the computer.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:27:46 No.12215752 >>12215728 >Thoughts can be deterministic and correct If theyre deterministic how can you prove theyre correct without admiting you do have a free will to judge them and have your own thoughts you fucking idiot?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:28:39 No.12215756 >>12215733 Current german society has produced many pop hits and still harbours the most prestigious conservatories and orchestras in the world.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:30:21 No.12215758

>>12215741
>What I really mean is you shouldn't change your behavior based on your belief in determinism vs free will.
If determinism was correct you would have no choice on how you behaved therefore saying what you just saidmakes no sense if you truly believed in naturalistic determinism

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:31:21 No.12215762

>>12215747
>Computers are not rational.

Computers don't make logical mistakes normally. Even if free will was true they make way less mistakes than you. They have to be informed or commanded incorrectly, get hit with a cosmic ray, electron tunneling happens etc. This doesn't even matter it's just an obvious example of a rational system that can have knowledge that's deterministic. You don't even need one. It was true before computers were invented.

>Any information or knowledge they have only exist through our interaction with them.
>The knowledge is not intrinsic to the computer.
What does this have to do with anything. This is the same for you if you were a completely sensory deprived fetus, free will or deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:31:21 No.12215763 >>12215741 >What I really mean is you shouldn't change your behavior based on your belief in determinism vs free will. but that "change" is not a change at all

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:33:02 No.12215768

>>12214904
>spiritualism, indeterminism
you're a spontaneous faggot
>middle school
it's amazing that middle schoolers can understand simple concepts that you're too stupid to accept.
>>12214905
how does it matter though?
if you are a type of function then the input of hearing you have no free will is predetermined.
you wouldn't be abel to tell the difference because what you've imagined was free will was determinism all along. You'd never know what it's like to have free will, in fact such a concept is purely human.
The people shitting on the video probably didn't watch it.
>>12214910
>my coping mechanisms reacting to information is free will bro
cool story bro.
we all have arguments against it, what's your argument for free will?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:33:10 No.12215770 >>12215762 >it's just an obvious example of a rational system that can have knowledge that's deterministic knowledge by definition is a justified belief the computer cant justify anything, it just takes your inputs and does what you tell it to do

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:34:08 No.12215772

Cringe video
Cringe YouTube comments
Cringe thread

There are science vs philosophy discussions which seem to mischaracterize both the science and the philosophy. Strawmen everywhere.

This is what happens when you learn about stuff from silly videos on the internet. At least do the very basic minimum reading on the topic before typing about it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:34:51 No.12215776

>>12215758
>If determinism was correct you would have no choice on how you behaved therefore saying what you just saidmakes no sense if you truly believed in naturalistic determinism

Nope, I have choices, I just don't have a "free" decisions.

The guys who get a degree, make breakthroughs in their field, fuck a revolving door of models, swim in money, etc are all deterministic systems just like me. I can only behave normally and hope my path is half as lucky.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:34:54 No.12215777 File: 1.25 MB, 1200x1031, 84526707_p0_master1200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215772 But I did read it.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:37:00 No.12215787 >>12215770 Ok so you mean epistemological knowledge instead of what is literally true Never thought about it, so I don't have an opinion. But I'll entertain that determinism means there is no epistemological knowledge. Now what?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:37:41 No.12215790 >>12215777 Then you're probably not the one making retarded posts characterising philosophers as scientifically illiterate morons or scientists as philosophically naive drones.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:38:32 No.12215794 >>12215776 no, you don't have choices, thats not how it works

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:46:30 No.12215832

>>12215794
Let's not mince terms here or it's just going to get worse

When I say choice, I mean options.
When I say decision, I mean the option one will choose or has chosen.

Whether your decisions are "free", or deterministic (completely caused by what happened before it) doesn't matter. If you accept that, how would I modify my behavior to accommodate my belief that it's deterministic? What should I do differently as a determinist that I wouldn't do if I thought I had free will?

Give me an answer that's not the misunderstanding that deterministic systems don't make decisions, because they do. Those decisions are just cause and effect.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:51:53 No.12215846 >>12215832 Good job killing the thread with your paradoxical questions

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:52:11 No.12215849
File: 58 KB, 564x759, 85812d5828d615b74cb8413b23a2b497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215768
>what's your argument for free will
I believe it's impossible to give a universal argument for existence of free will, because I don't think anything can convince a person who does not feel he has free will, who feels that he's an NPC, that someone else has free will.
All I can offer is an argument for why it's rational for me to believe in free will.
The argument is that
1. I immediately perceive my own free will without any justification. The perception is basic in that sense.
2. It's rational to trust your own perceptions when there are no good reasons to doubt them.
3. I know of no good reasons to doubt that I have free will.
4. Therefore it's rational for me to trust my perception that I have free will.
I'm prepared to call my perception into doubt when I encounter a good argument against free will (like I thought I did when I was younger). So far, I'm not aware of any good arguments against it.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:55:35 No.12215871

>>12215776
>Nope, I have choices, I just don't have a "free" decisions.
>The guys who get a degree, make breakthroughs in their field, fuck a revolving door of models, swim in money, etc are all deterministic systems just like me. I can only behave normally and hope my path is half as lucky.
I can see youre deep, deep in what you believe is determinism to cope with reality, i will leave you alone to your own insanity, but first i have no idea if this would help you at your stage of coping but you should try listening yo this recording to get out of your delusion while you still can
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzPojYOijQ
Some day when youre old you will realize I was right about free will, and you will enter such a stage of despair that could even culminate in suicide, good luck when that happens mate

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:55:55 No.12215874

>>12215832
no, you don't get it, you don't even have options, the universe has one path that was determined at the big bang,you also have one path,the other paths are nonexistent,so whenever you think you have 2 options you just have 1, the other one is an illusion

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:56:08 No.12215875 kek this thread is great thanks Sabine

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:56:19 No.12215876
File: 79 KB, 563x797, 21185829c5ed9283f45997b144088ef0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215832
>When I say decision, I mean the option one will choose or has chosen.
Under determinism you cannot make decisions or choose options because the actions that you call your decisions have been predetermined before you, and actually before any life has existed. It the actions were determined before you existed, they cannot be your choice. It makes no sense to assign the decision to you, you had nothing to do with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 14:59:00 No.12215892 >>12214900 >The idea of free will is both incompatible with the laws of nature and entirely meaningless How can something which has no meaning whatsoever be incompatible with the laws of nature? Can someone explain?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:01:46 No.12215905

>>12215874
>>12215876
Yes the "decisions" and "options" are just constructs, I thought I had to use those terms to explain it to a free will libertarian. Maybe that's not a good idea.

But my question has to be answered, what should a determinist do differently to be logically consistent with determinism?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:08:39 No.12215940 File: 29 KB, 324x400, 12138906543898231.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214910 >and after a deep philosophical investigation I realized that I do in fact have free will.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:10:43 No.12215954

>>12215905
Another way to explain this is let's say you were playing a game with a computer, a deterministic system.

The computer "makes decisions" among multiple "options" in the game, but it's not literally true. It's just as deterministic as how a ball bounces. That's all I meant.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:10:58 No.12215957
File: 53 KB, 563x623, 42301d09bd6a659d2e19d49e3a6def45.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215905
>what should a determinist do differently to be logically consistent with determinism
He should give up any notion of choice and control over his life, since everything has already been predetermined long before he was born and so in reality he has no choice.
He should never suggest anything to other people since he knows they have no choice over what they do. He should not make any plans since these are meaningless, everything he is going to do was already planned for him a long time before he even existed.
He should give up the notion of truth itself, since feelings of truth or falsity are just predetermined chemical reactions in the brain that have no metaphysical significance, and so all search for truth is pointless since search implies conscious decision, which is impossible under determinism.
He should realize that everything is pointless, that since he has no control over anything, he might as well be dead than pretend to enjoy being a puppet.
That's only what a logically consistent determinist would do. Good thing most determinists are not logically consistent with their beliefs, that's why they don't kill themselves.
Also good thing that there's literally 0 reason to believe determinism is true and plenty of reasons to believe it's not!

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:14:02 No.12215968

>>12215849
So you have no argument?
if it's all personal and self intuition then why did you bother posting here at all?
is it for a rise?
The objective isn't you convince your dogmatism, it's to define it nearly using universal components.
why did you even post?
You had no argument against her. you had no rebuttal.
>1.
what is the cause of your perception? and why do you interpret what you think is free will as free will? what does that? what mechanism?
>2.
you're convinced to believe your perceptions because you find no value in arguing them. That is different from investigating truth. Just because it's convenient not to argue with your intuition doesn't make it right.
>3.
a lack of reason to doubt is not reason to believe there is no doubt.
>4.
rationality is based on reason and logic.
you admitted to having no reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:14:53 No.12215972 >>12214910 > All of her arguments I have already repeatedly refuted on several boards here on 4chan. hahahaha. schizo posters should be banned but fuck me if you aren't hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:16:29 No.12215978 >>12215876 correct. >>12215957 >he should make a choice yikes I don't think you're getting it.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:22:09 No.12216011 >>12215756 Playing music written AT LEAST 100 years ago. Also, german pop is laughable is you criteria is popularity (since pop music is trash).

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:24:23 No.12216026

>>12215957
>He should give up any notion of choice and control over his life, since everything has already been predetermined long before he was born and so in reality he has no choice.
In a literal sense, this is true

>He should never suggest anything to other people since he knows they have no choice over what they do.
Absolutely false. Deterministic systems can change deterministic systems.
> He should not make any plans since these are meaningless, everything he is going to do was already planned for him a long time before he even existed.
He's going to because that's the determined plan for the universe. People will invariably do something, even if its sit still and stop breathing.
>He should give up the notion of truth itself, since feelings of truth or falsity are just predetermined chemical reactions in the brain that have no metaphysical significance, and so all search for truth is pointless since search implies conscious decision, which is impossible under determinism.
Reality is real even if is deterministic, beliefs can be false. The determinist can only hope that his predetermined beliefs will sufficiently align with reality.
>He should realize that everything is pointless, that since he has no control over anything, he might as well be dead than pretend to enjoy being a puppet.
Pleasure is still pleasurable in a deterministic system. It is not as well to be dead.

You don't understand determinism. You're like a theist who thinks all atheists should be nihilists and if they aren't they are being inconsistent, because you've never given the axiom serious consideration.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:27:51 No.12216050
File: 56 KB, 564x797, 6c11ecc8d70dc6183dd5fa17159c03e6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12215968
>So you have no argument?
I literally just gave an argument for why I believe in free will.
>if it's all personal and self intuition then why did you bother posting here at all?
Because it's a good argument that can convince other people.
>is it for a rise?
Sure, in part.
>The objective isn't you convince your dogmatism, it's to define it nearly using universal components.
Objective of what? If you're asking for an argument in favor of free will, the assumption is that you already agree that free will is a meaningful phrase and you want to know why I think I have it.
I explained my reasons in an argument.
>You had no argument against her. you had no rebuttal.
Because this was not a rebuttal of her points, retard. This is a separate argument for why I believe in free will.
>what is the cause of your perception? and why do you interpret what you think is free will as free will? what does that? what mechanism?
None of that matters. What matters is that I think I have free will, that it obviously seems true to me. I may deny that I have free will, I may say that it's just an illusion, but I can't deny that I feel like I have free will.
>you're convinced to believe your perceptions because you find no value in arguing them
But I do argue about them. That is the whole point of the argument.
>a lack of reason to doubt is not reason to believe there is no doubt.
Lack of reason to doubt is a reason to trust, when it comes to immediate perceptions. In replying to me you're trusting your perceptions to tell you correctly what it is that I typed when you read it. You don't have reasons to doubt your perception of what I wrote, but to be consistent you must that's no reason to trust what I wrote. Same with everything else. According to you then, you should doubt everything you see then, since everything that you understand ultimately comes through perception.
>>12215978
He asked " what should a determinist do differently". I explained.
>>12215972
Glad you're amused.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:34:17 No.12216101
File: 59 KB, 564x795, 3354da16cbce789095b613f069f2e559.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12216026
>Deterministic systems can change deterministic systems
Think about this carefully. Change in the sense of deterministic systems changing other deterministic systems is impossible under determinism. You cannot change anything. Determinism implies a completely static universe in which time is an illusion at best.
The world is already made. The future is already determined. What there is is a completed 4d universe and we're just experiencing 3d slices of it (relativity issues aside), we can do nothing to change anything, all we can do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:41:03 No.12216143 >>12216101 Fine, substitute change for effect and it's correct

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:47:34 No.12216182
File: 47 KB, 564x705, 5ab769cdd3a872e57b9a44980a76f9ce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12216143
Your question of what a determinist SHOULD do in order to be logically consistent makes no sense in the first place under determinism, since the word should implies it could be otherwise. But it can't. You're going to do and believe what the universe had decided many years ago before you even existed.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:54:07 No.12216220
File: 49 KB, 564x663, 84fe34bcfa3d78f88e497d870f53bc0f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12216143
What do you mean by effect? The notion of cause and effect is meaningless under determinism. Nothing can cause anything else, since event X causing Y implies that X explains why Y happened. But Y was determined to happen way before X even existed. So the only meaningful cause of all events is the complete state of the universe at some given point in time.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 15:55:49 No.12216227 >>12216182 I didn't mean should in a predictive sense, but a rational sense, hense "to be logically consistent" But I've also heard rationality doesn't exist under determinism either.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 16:11:51 No.12216294 >>12215957 this post should have ended the thread it didnt, and this proves npcs really exist

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 16:19:50 No.12216322

>>12215957
>everything he is going to do was already planned for him
>planned
>and so all search for truth is pointless since search implies conscious decision
it literally doesnt retard
>Also good thing that there's literally 0 reason to believe determinism is true and plenty of reasons to believe it's not!
cope

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 16:25:43 No.12216343 File: 50 KB, 396x396, 1596132945953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What happens if we don't have free will?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 16:31:40 No.12216366 >>12216343 What happens if 2+2=5?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:15:46 No.12216542 >>12216322 cope

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:17:27 No.12216553 >>12216294 >determinism means you commit suicide bro We weren't done without your opinion brainlet

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:19:40 No.12216565 >>12216343 The same thing, you do what you were going to do anyway, what you think of as "wanting" to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:32:02 No.12216610 >>12216322 >and so all search for truth is pointless since search implies conscious decision >it literally doesnt retard how do you verify whats true or not if anything and everything you can think of wasn't determined by your deliberate thinking?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:37:35 No.12216630
File: 199 KB, 1920x1080, 1602213910925.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12216610
>how do you verify whats true or not if anything and everything you can think of wasn't determined by your deliberate thinking?
>how do you do a thing when you were programmed to do that thing, and you're not doing it of your own free will
so i guess computers dont work huh

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:37:46 No.12216632

>>12215013
>Prove that you can't prove it (with scientific methods).
Easy.
Science can study empirical realities that can be tested within the confines of the scientific method.

The existence of free will is not a empirical question let alone one that is within the confines of the scientific method.

Ergo, free will cannot be proven by scientific methods.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:38:48 No.12216638 >>12216632 *proven or disproven by scientific methods

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:41:58 No.12216656 >>12216632 Determinism can possibly be proven using scientific methods (although not currently) and that would disprove free will.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:46:18 No.12216676 >>12216610 Not that non, but define what a point is in the context of "the search for truth" Knowing the truth at the minimum satisfies my curiosity, and permits the inventions of luxuries and reduction of scarcity

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:49:38 No.12216686

>>12216656
So far science has reduced the options to determinism and more popularly, randomness. Neither of those are free will.

Unless you "chose" what state your particles in, you don't have free will and have to do what their random wave function collapse leads to.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 17:53:19 No.12216705

there is a notion of computational irreducibility, but this would only give the illusion of free will since for the same parameters there is no reason that things wouldn't run the same. so the world must be deterministic insofar as the convergent observable geometries. even if there is pure randomness in the quantum scales certainly all of them converge to the rigorous structures that we're all familiar with and certainly so in the scale of a human lifetime.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:04:12 No.12216745

>>12216656
>Determinism can possibly be proven using scientific methods (although not currently)
How? Determinism is a claim about causality and that is squarely in the realm of metaphysics. The scientific method on the observation that causality exists in some manner, and as an axiom of an epistemological claim, there's no way science could test it.

Plus, the Stoics, Thomas Aquinas and his fellow Scholastics, Schopenhauer and Hobbes all believed in some form of compatibalism, where free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive. Even if you could prove determinism, that doesn't necessarily disprove free will existing.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:09:21 No.12216769
File: 48 KB, 449x651, 306c7aea24156c6d02a1cee2b65bff34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12216745
Science can and often does give us insight into metaphysics.
The success of classical physics has made it more plausible that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, because people expected that deterministic laws could be given to provide a complete description of our universe.
Now with quantum mechanics this project has obviously failed. We can no longer infer determinism from physics.
>Plus, the Stoics, Thomas Aquinas and his fellow Scholastics, Schopenhauer and Hobbes all believed in some form of compatibalism, where free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive
It's worth noting here that there are 2 non equivalent concepts of determinism. One is that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Another is the statement that the complete state of the universe at some point in time is enough to determine the state of the universe at all other points in time. Physics is not really relevant to the first one, which is much more a priori, but very relevant to the second notion.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:09:39 No.12216771

>>12216630
>how do you do a thing when you were programmed to do that thing, and you're not doing it of your own free will
So you were programmed to have deliberate thinking to verify arguments and opinions you get in contact? Do you realize youre basically saying that a God programmed you to have free will?

>so i guess computers dont work huh
Can computers choose what they will consider true or not or is it a programmer that determines that, that is, a rational being that is capable of deliberate thinking?

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:14:46 No.12216790

>>12216676
that doesnt answer the question, if determinist retards are right, all things are causally determined, then that includes all thoughts and beliefs. If our thoughts and beliefs are forced upon us, and we could not have chosen better beliefs, then we are simply left assuming that our determined beliefs are good (let alone true). Therefore, we could never rationally affirm that our beliefs are the inference to the best explanation – we can only assume it

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:16:41 No.12216799 File: 57 KB, 700x586, eyJrZXkiOiJ1cGxvYWRzL21lZGl1bS9hc3NldC8xMTYwL2R1bm5pbmcta3J1Z2VyX2VmZmVjdC5qcGVnIiwiYnVja2V0Ijoib3Nsby1wcm9kdWN0aW9uIn0=.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12216050

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:18:44 No.12216807 >>12216686 >Unless you "chose" what state your particles in, you don't have free will conscience is immaterial so this argument is irrelevant

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:20:18 No.12216810

>>12216771
>Do you realize youre basically saying that a God programmed you to have free will?
thats not what im saying, im saying evolution selected for the ability to predict outcomes, aka thinking
still has jack shit to do with free will

>Can computers choose what they will consider true or not or is it a programmer that determines that, that is, a rational being that is capable of deliberate thinking?
no its the computers that decide it, youre shit at making analogies
ML doesnt have an active programmer, its just a function finding its minima
but youre still assuming from the get go that humans have free will to say that "computers dont cuz humans magically absorb their thinking"

>>12216807
>conscience is immaterial
if its immaterial it couldnt influence the real world, so it couldnt determine any action

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:21:28 No.12216816 File: 69 KB, 690x586, 1602368201572.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12216799

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:22:31 No.12216821 >>12216807 >conscience is immaterial so this argument is irrelevant Feel free to talk about that, off our science board

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:23:29 No.12216826 >>12215014 >use the scientific method to prove the scientific methods works godel proved this is impossible for axiomatic systems

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:38:30 No.12216888

>>12216810
>if its immaterial it couldnt influence the real world, so it couldnt determine any action

Physical interactions which ultimately determine actions are governed by mathematical laws and equations, which are immaterial.

>>12216826
That's the point.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:40:50 No.12216895 >>12216888 >Physical interactions which ultimately determine actions are governed by mathematical laws and equations no, mathematical laws and equations are just human made descriptions for reality

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:41:13 No.12216898

>>12216810
>if its immaterial it couldnt influence the real world, so it couldnt determine any action
unless it did? the immaterial can influence the material directly or indirectly

>the ability to predict outcomes, aka thinking
thinking isnt predicting outcomes, and since youre a determinist you should be coherent and say the outcomes have been decided already, there is nothing to predict, the action of thinking about predictions would also already be determined beforehand. Actually the entire time i refered to dialetics, to deliberately compare informations of your own choosing to arrive at some truth, yet you simply swept that under the rug because you know that determinism would render impossible the comparison of any information resulting in some truth as any belief would have been imposed

>no its the computers that decide it,
The computers decided their own weights beforehand? They decided what the goal of their program was? A computer does not choose what to compute, it simply obeys imposed instructions it has no business questioning because it cant

You have a really hard time understanding metaphysical arguments, cause and effect relations and the meaning of the words
These two posts alone should be enough to show how absurd determinism is
>>12216790
>>12215957

If you don't know what naturalistic determinism means, go search for it, read word per word each post 10 times until you get it

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:43:11 No.12216904

>>12215080
if you've ever had a lucid dream you'd know first hand how powerful the brain is in creating imagery in the state of REM sleep, not even in a fucking coma. i've seen perfect geometrical structures and textures being generated in real time as i fucking fly across a procedural mesh of places from different locations being seamlessly meshed into a new location.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:43:54 No.12216907 >>12216553 determinism implies if you suicide you didnt choose it, if you dont suicide you didnt choose it its just non refutability spouted by science idolaters that are deathly afraid of recognizing naturalism is false

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:46:56 No.12216915 >>12216826 >godel proved this is impossible for axiomatic systems So the scientific method, which morons here say is the only way to get anything remotely true, doesnt have a "scientiric source" for its validity amazing really

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:48:11 No.12216920 >>12216915 >what are axioms

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:48:27 No.12216921 >>12216895 >mathematical laws and equations are just human made descriptions for reality so immaterial things describe reality with more and more precision over time? i wonder if that reality of yours is really just material

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:49:43 No.12216924

>>12216895
>mathematical laws and equations are just human made descriptions for reality
Except that's not fucking true. Sure the symbols used to describe mathematics are manmade, but the actual essence of mathematical objects are objectively real seeing that they are true independent of whether humans agree with them or not and can be proven as such due to many a non-intuitive proof being true despite humans not being able to visualize it or even if they could, believe it (like the Tarski-Banach theorem).

Plus, like >>12216921 pointed out, you just undermined your own previous point in a spectacular fashion.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:53:13 No.12216930 >>12215150 possible computational irreducibility

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:53:24 No.12216931 >>12216920 >what are axioms Scientifically unproven things apparently

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:55:13 No.12216941 >>12215163 >However, there's no reason to think such a function exist. I don't even know how one would attempt to argue that it exists wolfram has made good arguments for a hypothetical automatonesque graph structure underlying all of reality

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 18:58:50 No.12216949 >>12216931 based retard

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:01:29 No.12216957 >>12214921 >everything known in science was determined by atoms coliding on each other anon discovers the concept of convergent geometries, bonus points godel's incompleteness theorems also suggest that vaguely

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:04:10 No.12216966 Why does she tell me not to worry? As if I have a choice.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:04:46 No.12216968 >>12214967 >just think about what a definition entails. It defines a concept in terms of other concepts stopped reading, axioms should not and are not derived from other axioms.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:09:08 No.12216979 >>12215044 just because something is hard to predict or even computationally irreducible doesn't mean it can't be expressed as a function

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:11:01 No.12216980 >>12215036 so you believe consciousness is a prerequisite for intelligent? you're honestly the dumbest poster itt

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:11:02 No.12216981
File: 161 KB, 747x1120, 1502673108078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

this thread is literally philosophy tier. I am not convinced that the notion of free will is well defined, or can even be defined in terms of notions which are themselves well defined. It is a word game in which we get lost, a puzzle constructed out of pure language with no consequential referents to pin down. No substance at all to this discourse. You're all pathetic brainlets, log off sci you pathetic niggers.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:15:14 No.12216992 >>12215849 >It's rational to trust your own perceptions when there are no good reasons to doubt them schizos should be gassed

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:22:35 No.12217012

>>12215021
>>"will doesn't exist"
>But everyone observes that it *apparently exists*
the universe is literally like a big magician trick where you think you're doing something that can't be predicted or determined by the trickster but at the end he guesses your card and you're like "omg i definitely felt in control in picking my card, there can't possibly be any non-obvious structure by which my choice could have been predicted!!"

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:22:42 No.12217013

>>12216921
>so immaterial things describe reality with more and more precision over time?
yes, how is that a problem, we can play the approximation game as many times as we want
obviously it will get better and better if we select for better

>>12216924
>but the actual essence of mathematical objects are objectively real
no
>seeing that they are true
they are not, they are only "true" in the system of math that we use, they are true in ZFC+TA, not in the real world, which doesnt take any mathematical axioms

>>12216898
>unless it did? the immaterial can influence the material directly or indirectly
no, only material things can influence material things, if something could influence a material object, it would necessarily be material itself
>and since youre a determinist you should be coherent and say the outcomes have been decided already
why should i even mention it? that has literally nothing to do with the problem of predicting

>The computers decided their own weights beforehand? They decided what the goal of their program was? A computer does not choose what to compute, it simply obeys imposed instructions it has no business questioning because it cant
what the fuck does any of that has to do with what we were talking about?
>A computer does not choose what to compute
neither do you retard

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:26:03 No.12217023 >>12215049 >scientifically prove they exist actually godel proved that some things can't be proven via axiomatic systems, can you prove that this is not one such case?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:27:08 No.12217028 File: 438 KB, 1125x1403, DBFB9264-A343-4A59-9085-C601D42BFFA9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12215493 >He believes hidden variables can go faster than light Oh no no no no

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:27:12 No.12217029 File: 31 KB, 869x353, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12216981 >this thread is literally philosophy tier

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:27:17 No.12217030 >>12215061 >appeals to time of all things like clockwork :^)

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:28:36 No.12217037 >>12217028 >He believes hidden variables can go faster than light >Oh no no no no You mean like the universe itself? thats why they had to invent dark energy ad hoc

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:31:06 No.12217049 >>12217013 >what the fuck does any of that has to do with what we were talking about? Are you functionally illiterate mate?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:31:24 No.12217050 >>12217037 Hidden Variables are a Non-Observable, and hence I don’t care for them.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:31:36 No.12217053

>>12215182
>quantum mechanics seems to indicate we may never find such laws
even with the purest of randomness in the quantum scales the structures that we model the world by are absolutely convergent and rigorous enough to be able to create equations for, and certainly rigorous enough in the time scale of a human lifetime. randomness on the quantum scale is a non-factor

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:35:15 No.12217063
File: 73 KB, 563x851, e44a7d9e5490a58f3b6e015086f5f338.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12217053
This is simply not true. Consider an experiment. It's possible in quantum mechanics to make a measurement of the spin of a particle with 50% chance of outcome A and 50% chance of outcome B. There is currently no known laws of physics that could deterministically predict the outcome of the experiment. Now suppose before performing the experiment you decide to go on a killing spree if the outcome of the experiment is A, and sit and home and do nothing if it's B. Suppose physics could predict such large scale behavior as what you're going to do. In that case, physics would be able to predict whether or not you went on a killing spree or stayed home, as going on a killing spree is obviously a large scale phenomenon. But if it were able to do that, it means it would have been able to predict the outcome of the experiment, contrary to our assumption that it's not possible. Thus we have a contradiction.

You might object by saying that still the machine could predict with 50% certainty what I'm going to do and that's good enough. But this objection won't do. Imagine instead of two choices you select 2^20=1048576 different locations on earth sufficiently far away that you can travel to in a day. Now imagine performing 20 such quantum experiments, and having the sequence of outcomes determine where the location where you will go. Now the objection that "knowing the probabilities is good enough" clearly looks ridiculous. The information that probabilities give you about where you are going to be are so low as to be negligible. Such a prediction has no right to be called a prediction. I might as well say I can predict what you're going to say next by assigning to to each combination of characters 2000 long or less an equal probability. Nothing about this is deterministic.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:35:29 No.12217064

>>12214900
This was literally me in my first year of uni after a fewdrinks, except not as eloquent.

Good talk, but this is just the start. Staying there is only for mentally strong individuals, or individuals who would be using it as a coping mechanism and excuse to be/remain/become human garbage. But then again, they'd be taken out by evolution, so maybe not that bad all in all.

Trying to determine her origin. Surname and accent early on made me think German at first, but she seems eastern Russian by features (slavic/caucasoid with mongoloid mixed in). Going with japanese robot on this one.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:36:05 No.12217066

>>12217013
>no
Not an argument
>they are not, they are only "true" in the system of math that we use, they are true in ZFC+TA
Also not an argument really. There are statements that are true (or at least have their truth values) independent of whether you assume.

>not in the real world, which doesnt take any mathematical axioms
Except that wouldn't make any sense. If the word didn't take any mathematical axioms, then mathematical models wouldn't work in the first place let alone natural laws being governed by mathematical equations. This is clearly the case so to some degree, that's true.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:37:17 No.12217069
File: 96 KB, 564x781, 2a3215c43e7ac879018eceb9ea3156d8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12217063
>>12217053
You might also object that such an experiment is an extremely specific and rare thing. In reality people do not perform quantum experiments and so quantum effects have little to no influence over our behavior. But I see no reason to believe this. Indeed, if we adopt purely materialistic, deterministic point of view, there is no reason to think that the moments when I'm performing quantum experiments are in any way special to other moments, as consciousness and experiment are not physical things. Otherwise there simply seems to be no good reason to think quantum effects have no influence over the daily life. The burden on proof would be on the determinist to demonstrate that they don't have any influence and that a (theoretical) deterministic machine/Laplace's demon can indeed be built for all cases where no one around is performing any quantum experiments.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:38:43 No.12217074 >>12216966 she had no choice either :( although, having a choice isn't the same as having free will. you have a choice to cut your own dick off at any moment, so why do you never choose it?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:39:13 No.12217077 >>12215532 >your investigation realized that you're an NPC and I realized I have free will so how does that work by the way? how come 1 homosapiens absolutely has free will but another has none? you sound very emotional

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:41:28 No.12217081 >>12215657 you're implying that consciousness is a prerequisite to intelligence. it's not. notable examples are machine learning, AI etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:42:41 No.12217084 >>12215709 algorithmically there is no reason for this to be impossible. it's just like any binary operator fucntion

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:44:40 No.12217089 >>12215752 you just need a model to compare them to, a non conscious AI could do it for you

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:48:24 No.12217102

>>12215614
>your decisions are affected by actions you have taken and your perception of the outcomes
there is a definite recursion depth, so no. at the end of the recursive call are the most mechanistic processes in your brain that will return true/false/etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:52:57 No.12217123 >>12215724 it doesn't actually matter how agents who believe or disbelieve the freedom of will do, it doesn't it's still consistent in both models. you're essentially comparing two discreet objects

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 19:55:57 No.12217130

>>12215758
no, because you're implying that a deterministic system couldn't be sufficiently complex to fool a human to believe they have free will, when in reality most normies get fool by simple magic tricks. much less a galaxy with 10^10000000 discrete particles interacting constantly

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:04:17 No.12217154

>>12215957
>He should give up any notion of choice and control over his life, since everything has already been predetermined long before he was born and so in reality he has no choice
non-sequitor, when you start thinking how to act in a deterministic system you get in a recursive thought process which outcome is determined by the bottom of the recursion function. and we know this recursive function has a recursion depth because in a lifetime you can only go through a finite number of thought cicles, and that's enough to prove that such a model is consistent in a deterministic system

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:06:17 No.12217160 >>12216294 see >>12217154

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:08:55 No.12217169 >>12216610 >how do you verify everything you can think of wasn't determined by your deliberate thinking? see >>12217154

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:12:42 No.12217180

>>12216898
>determinism would render impossible the comparison of any information resulting in some truth as any belief would have been imposed
no, it's enough to be able to be written as a function such that executed with e same parameters it produces the same result, that's literally it

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:13:38 No.12217182 >>12216907 ok, neat >>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:17:22 No.12217193 >>12217028 >he believes hidden variables are signals and travel through space lmao

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:27:44 No.12217216

>>12217081
>you're implying that consciousness is a prerequisite to intelligence
Yes, intelligence is the capacity to aprehend the truth
Intelligence does not even consist of thinking. When we think, but our thinking does not exactly capture what is true in what we think, then what is at work in that thinking is not exactly intelligence but only the frustrated desire to intellect or even the pure automatism of an unintelligent thinking. Thinking and understanding are completely different activities. The proof of this is that you often think and don't intellect anything and other times you intellect without having thought, in a sudden intuitive flash.
Intelligence is like an organ that only serves this purpose: to capture the truth. Sometimes it operates through thought, sometimes through imagination or feeling, and sometimes it comes directly, in an intellective, or intuitive, instantaneous act, in which you capture something without preparation and without a particular representative form that would serve as a channel for intellection.
Intelligence is in the realization of the purpose, not in the nature of the means employed. And if the purpose of the means of knowledge is to know, and if knowledge is only knowledge in the full sense if you know the truth, then the definition of intelligence is: the power to know the truth by any means.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:35:49 No.12217241 >>12216343 see >>12217154

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:44:30 No.12217266

>>12217081
>notable examples are machine learning, AI
when it comes to "artificial intelligence", it would be more accurate to say artificial thinking, because a certain sequence of thoughts, a set of operations of the mind, can be imitated in several ways.
It is imitated, for example, in writing. Writing is a graphic imitation of sounds, which in turn imitate ideas, which in turn imitate forms, functions and relations of things. Writing was the first form of artificial thinking. Any form of registration that man uses is already a type of artificial thinking, since it implies a code of conversions and permutations, and in this sense a computer program is not much different, for example, from a game'a rule: as in the game of chess, where a sequence of operations with many alternatives is conceived, crystallized in a certain scheme that can be imitated, repeated or varied according to a basic algorithm. There are many forms of artificial thinking, but intelligence itself cannot be artificial. Artificial thinking is essentially an imitation of acts of thought according to the formula of their sequences and combinations. In the same way we can imitate imagination and memory, if instead of using a two-way correspondence between sign and meaning, we resort to a network of analogical correspondences. It is the same: in both cases, it is a matter of imitating an algorithm, the formula of a sequence or network of combinations, which in turn imitate the real operations of the mind.
It turns out that intelligence is not an operation of the mind; it is a certain quality of the result of these operations, regardless of the faculty that performed them or the code used. It is legitimate to say that an individual has intellected something only when he has grasped the truth of that thing, whether through reasoning, imagination or by other means

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:50:06 No.12217278

>>12217063
>There is currently no known laws of physics that could deterministically predict the outcome of the experiment
exactly so what's your point here? before you go on your tangents, first we don't even know if quantum mechanics contain a stochastic element or if it's another deterministic model not yet understood, but yes if you could prove that indeed such pure 50/50 event exists and you could predict its outcome that would mean the universe is non-deterministic
>>12217069
>there simply seems to be no good reason to think quantum effects have no influence over the daily life
there are certainly effects it's just that these effect are convergent to rigorous structures, and in the span of a human lifetime they might as well be deterministic even if they aren't. you fail to understand that even your hypothetical scenario would only prove that the universe is non-deterministic in principle, whether a function given the same parameters returns 1.0 or 1.0001 doesn't mean shit if in the span of a human lifetime the intermediate value is a constant

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:52:27 No.12217286

>>12217089
>ai
You could object saying that when an act of artificial thinking reaches a true result, for example when a computer assures us that 2 + 2 = 4, this is an act of intelligence, since it gives us a truth.
The difference is as follows: the computer does not intellect that 2 + 2 = 4, but only performs the operations that result in 4, according to a pre-established program or algorithm.
If it is programmed according to the rule that 2 + 2 = 5, it will not only always give this result, but will still generalize it to all similar cases, according to rule 2a + 2a = 5a.
Intelligence does not consist only in arriving at a true result, but in admitting that result as true.
To admit means, first, to be free to prefer a false result (a computer can be programmed to prefer false results on a number of occasions, but always according to a pre-established pattern).
Secondly, it means believing in that result, that is, taking personal responsibility for its affirmation and the consequences that derive from it.
In this sense, intelligence is only possible in free and responsible beings, and the first free and responsible being I know on the scale of the living is man: no being below him has intelligence.
Intelligence is the relationship that is established between man and truth, a relationship that only man has with the truth, and that he has only when he understands and admits the truth, since he can become unintelligent in the instant when he forgets or denies it.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 20:55:16 No.12217297

>>12217089
>AI
In this sense, the result of the 2+2 calculation that appears on the computer screen is a truth, but a truth that is in the object and not yet in the intelligence; this truth is on the screen as the true mineralogical structure of a stone is in the stone or as the true physiology of the animal is in the animal: they are latent truths, which lie in the obscurity of the objective world waiting for the moment when they will be updated in human intelligence.
In the same way, we can think of a true idea without realizing that it is true; in this case, the truth is in thought as the truth of the stone is in the stone: the act of intelligence is only fulfilled the moment we perceive and admit this truth as truth.

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:08:11 No.12217322 File: 121 KB, 1200x1000, 1586649280098.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Lmao'ing right now at all the anons ITT putting this much stock in what some midwit woman said.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:15:05 No.12217340

>>12217169
>>12217160
>>12217154
>>12217130
>>12217123
>>12217102
>>12217089
>>12217084
>>12217081
>>12217077
>>12217241
SEE
>>12217216
>>12217266
>>12217286
>>12217297

science idiots (or educated idiots as i call them) dont have a grasp of the general language, so they substitute their intelligence with a specialized language of their science field, and they will only be able to reason in the terms of that specialized language, and whenever you coincidentally use a term that is present in their specialized language they will think youre talking about that and will reason in terms of their technical scientific knowledge
the result is that they wont understand anything and will end up thinking they dominated the discussion

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:19:35 No.12217350

>>12217322
That pic is so sad but so true. On tinder every dozen swipes or so you'll see a girl with a paypal link first thing on their bio. Recently an ex-girlfriend of mine started and onlyfans. Being a woman in the 21st century has to be a nightmare because your brain basically has no protection from propaganda and exploitation. You pretty much just become what society tells you to become and then you become... this shit.

All of these women are cursed to either die young in a tragic manner, or rot without a family until they just rope.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:23:44 No.12217364

What's the mechanism of free will? Which of the forces causes it and how? What happens to free will when you die? Does it "cast a shadow"? Can you create a being that can solve detailed problems and engage in any degree of metacognition without free will? Could a machine have free will? how would we tell if it did or did not have free will?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:33:03 No.12217390 >>12217350 their life is still tutorial mode difficulty.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:38:57 No.12217408
File: 102 KB, 241x280, 1601434073493.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214900
I want her to cradle my head in her lap so I can feel both thighs and tummy, and explain the heat and wave equations. If I ask dumb question she can lean forwards and smother me from above.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:40:01 No.12217412
File: 469 KB, 478x572, 1595182242483.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12217350
>Being a woman in the 21st century has to be a nightmare

just lol at even thinking women are living anything remotely close to a Nightmare since the 20th century. Amazing at how brainwashed some people can be just how you point out society's overconditioning and deprovisioning.

Underaged foreigner or bluepilled yuropoor you have a lot to learn

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:43:58 No.12217424 File: 37 KB, 694x585, D-K.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12216816

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:44:52 No.12217429 >>12217364 I would really appreciate answers to these questions.

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:53:15 No.12217460

>>12217429
>>12217364
>What's the mechanism of free will? Which of the forces causes it and how? What happens to free will when you die? Does it "cast a shadow"? Can you create a being that can solve detailed problems and engage in any degree of metacognition without free will? Could a machine have free will? how would we tell if it did or did not have free will?
You will have to go to philosophy to get these answers, but not before you read a fuck ton of excellent literatute and history
In all fields you will have to start with the greeks, /lit/ has some basic guides for both philosphy and literature but i can give you a study programs for the 3

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 21:55:52 No.12217470 File: 141 KB, 1200x828, Coomer+gf_e2ffea_7517483.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12214900 sabine x tooker r34 when?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 22:02:33 No.12217490 >>12217460 You can't give me even brief answers to any of these? Here,focus on this pair of question-Could a machine have free will? how would we tell if it did or did not have free will?

>>	Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 22:18:39 No.12217533 >>12215040 centuries worth of philosophy is just as worthless as math based on faulty axioms like 2+2=5 because 2+2=4 is racist

Anonymous Sat, Oct 10, 2020 22:34:33 No.12217578

>>12217460
Let me show you something-

If someone asked me how nuclear fusion worked, I would tell them that there's a state of matter called plasma that's typically created here on earth by energizing a gas until its constituent atoms lose their electrons and become ionized. If you can get the electronless atomic cores of protons and neutrons to collide right, perhaps by using magnetic fields to compress the energetic plasma, they will merge into new types of atoms and release a lot of energy. I would make it clear that this was a massive oversimplification,but I could give them a roughly correct overview of how fusion worked.

Can you do that about free will? Can you create a short,concise answer to any of these questions about free will in the same way that I gave a short, concise answer about fusion?

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 00:01:48 No.12217782

>>12217049
im not fluent in schizo you retard, obviously i couldnt follow you

>>12217066
>Not an argument
yeah, because you didnt put forth an argument either
>There are statements that are true (or at least have their truth values) independent of whether you assume.
you only need to prove it for that to be true

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 01:05:23 No.12217959 >>12217424 seethe 2 scoops, 2 terms, 3 justices.

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 01:12:23 No.12217968

>>12217782
>yeah, because you didnt put forth an argument either
Except you are the one that said mathematics is not independent of human reality and haven't even bothered to argue why it isn't because you are an intellectual retard that reads pop-sci instead of actual philosophy.

>you only need to prove it for that to be true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent_of_ZFC

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 01:14:16 No.12217970 >>12217193 >He believes Hidden Variables are Spaceless, and therefore Timeless, and therefore can’t interact at all Way to go. You just defined Hidden Variables out of existence.

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 01:22:29 No.12217981 >>12214900 Depends on the interpretation of QM, which interpretation she subscribes to?

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 01:24:57 No.12217985 >>12214900 >you dont have free will >i cant even define a line, but i can define what will is, what freedom is, and what role physics plays in this k Is becoming a crackpot the fate of all physicists?

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 01:52:24 No.12218043

>>12217968
>There are statements that are true (or at least have their truth values) independent of whether you assume.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent_of_ZFC
anything independent of ZFC is not an example of a statement with a determined truth value
say A is independent of ZFC, then its truth value is True in the system where i assume A, and is False in the system where i assume -A
independent has two different independent uses here

>Except you are the one that said mathematics is not independent of human reality and haven't even bothered to argue why it isn't
mathematics is dependent on humans since it is a human invention, is that good enough?
besides, thats not how the null hypothesis or the burden of proof works
if you've become the first person in all of reality to prove platonism, then you are the one who needs to release the proof
otherwise everyone will continue to ignore platonism as the bunk dead-end that it is

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 02:29:02 No.12218136

>>12218043
>mathematics is dependent on humans since it is a human invention, is that good enough?
Again, how is it a human invention? Human inventions in the realm of the abstract world (like game theory, sociology and economics) have definite use cases, outside of which it is extremely easy to prove their falsity. A human invention can't describe external physical realities like those of e those of the natural world and of mathematical realm to any reasonably well degree. Plus, you act as if certain concepts like that of things naturally having cardinal values like 1 apple or 20,000 bees are due to humans inventing them. I'm only willing to accept that humans created the nomenclature but it's readily apparent that such things would exist whether or not humans had the proper words describe them. The human mind can only discover connections in reality, not create them. pi is and always will be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to is diameter, e^(i*pi) will always be -1. There are mathematical truths that are always true under any interpretation and it's a fact that nature follows mathematical laws, independent of whether humans knew it or not

>otherwise everyone will continue to ignore platonism as the bunk dead-end that it is
Mathematical Platonism is literally them most accepted school of philosophy by mathematicians precisely because they recognize the objectiveness of the tools they are working with.

Again, you haven't actually given me evidence for why I shouldn't believe in Mathematical Platonism, despite me using the universality and objectiveness of mathematics as a good reason to accept it. All you are saying is that there are different interpretations of mathematics that don't use certain axioms, which is nothing new. You can deny the 5th postulate of Euclid's and still come up with a logically coherent geometric system, just like you can do with the ZFC. It just means the ZFC axioms aren't as fundamental as we think they are.

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 02:30:05 No.12218140 >>12218136 (first part cont.) Unless you are trying to say that nature magically didn't do this in ancient times, when we had no access to the mathematics necessary to derive these truths.

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 02:39:29 No.12218161 >>12214900 She is a woman.

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 03:19:56 No.12218246 >>12214910 >All of her arguments I have already repeatedly refuted on several boards here on 4chan. wooooaaah you must be a real intellectual

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 03:22:15 No.12218252 >>12215004 you are pathetic. i pity you for being so incapable of systematical thought

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 03:24:17 No.12218255 >>12214910 >>12218043 >>12218136 not the schizo free will poster again. not you again. no no noooo. noooooooo. not again.

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 03:29:05 No.12218262 File: 111 KB, 1584x780, Screenshot_2020-10-11_03-28-34.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12218255 When did this board become reddit? It's so full of Dunning-Kreuger tier redditors it shows.

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 03:30:26 No.12218263
File: 100 KB, 490x586, 1600776172157.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12214900
>Sabine is brutal in how she gives "certain" types of philosophers, who keep on insisting that their Ph.D. in philosophy makes them some sort of universal scientific authority, a painful wedgie. I love it!
Swear to fucking god if I see one more person try to commentate on philosophy with their physics degree I'm going to go on a rampage. Pic related is probably the face that retard was making as he typed this garbage

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 04:27:17 No.12218393 >>12214910 >I used to believe the exact same shit as her when I was a teenager, until I actually thought for myself and after a deep philosophical investigation I realized that I do in fact have free will. Take your meds, schizo.

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 04:50:11 No.12218450

>>12214900
Differential equation?

Imagine reimans integral, on which you make difference between steps of exact d'd around and then just substract two of this steps and you have differential, orders is how many times you attributed some difference per value.

It can be infinite. It's that easy, no need to watch whole lecture again, but necessary to solve some with non continous function, so you can really get where bugs in universes are.

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 05:42:55 No.12218589

>>12217216
>Thinking and understanding are completely different activities
not necessarily the only distinction is what model you use in your thought process, some we agree to be universally correct, but as godel's incompleteness theorems proved that we can't actually say that they are consistent axiomatically.
>The proof of this is that you often think and don't intellect anything
you're using a faulty mental model for the problem
>other times you intellect without having thought, in a sudden intuitive flash
whether it's sudden or not doesn't change it, it's still a thought.
>the definition of intelligence is: the power to know the truth by any means
says (you)

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 05:50:53 No.12218605 >>12217266 >intelligence itself cannot be artificial you use your retard tier definitions to come about that my argument "cannot" be true. guess what retard you can prove anything with arbitrary definitions

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 05:56:24 No.12218611

>>12217286
>if i change the definition of intelligence i can prove him wrong
absolutely retarded philosophy nigger. intelligence is the ability to solve a problem, whether it's to return 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 the difference is which model is more useful. anyway wtf is even this tangential autism diatribe from (you), this was not the aim of the discussion
>ill just change definitions and go on a tangent
retard

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 05:59:50 No.12218621

>>12217297
guess what retard none of this is relevant, even if the universe is non-deterministic, all observable structures follow "constant" laws that are purely mechanistic from the layer of abstraction that human congnition is at. any and all randomness will be convergent to rigorous structures at this abstraction layer, certainly so in 99.999999% of the time. even if randomness were a bigger force it's still not (you) who caused it, because by definition it must be purely random, else it's deterministic. the concept of free will is the biggest cope ever

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 08:49:38 No.12219049 >>12215259 Based Also your side makes a lot of sense considering the current state of QM.

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 11:37:35 No.12219330 >>12216980 define intelligence

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 12:20:15 No.12219425 >>12219330 the accurate application of an abstract model, mind that this is a very loose definition and i'm not too invested in it

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 13:11:05 No.12219561 >>12219425 it's just as loose as your shit leaking asshole you call your brain go invest in diapers

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 13:26:39 No.12219608 File: 83 KB, 603x695, 1597697548584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12219561 cope

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 13:34:10 No.12219632 File: 76 KB, 509x280, cringe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anonymous 10/11/20(Sun)18:26:39 No.12219608 1597697548584.jpg (83 KB, 603x695) google yandex iqdb wait 83 KB >>12219561 (You) cope

>>	Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 13:38:31 No.12219641 >>12219425 (me) >>12219561 actually i'd also add to the definiton not only application but also consturction and recognition of such models

Anonymous Sun, Oct 11, 2020 14:47:49 No.12219818

>>12218136
>Plus, you act as if certain concepts like that of things naturally having cardinal values like 1 apple or 20,000 bees are due to humans inventing them.
youve used the human definition of bees to count 20,000 different entities as belonging to the same arbitrary category
you're appealing to human intuition to try and prove that math isnt dependent on humans, you really need to rethink your arguments

>pi is and always will be the ratio of the circumference of a circle to is diameter,
circles dont exist

>e^(i*pi) will always be -1
yes, since humans defined e^z for complex z to be the extension of the power series

>independent of whether humans knew it or not
these examples are all dependent on humans

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math