[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 102 KB, 600x600, 1662367713069061.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14969602 No.14969602 [Reply] [Original]

>Your brain evokes an ERP 0.35 seconds before you consciously decide to move!
>Your movements may occur up to 4 seconds in advance!
>You initiate movements unconsciously, therefore free will does not exist!
But it's still my brain

It's still my unconscious too

>> No.14969606

>>14969602
>You initiate movements unconsciously, therefore free will does not exist!
Determinists seem to forget to explain why that electric current starts, it's random? Then they need to prove it's random.

>> No.14969616

>>14969602
It's not even that. You don't initiate. You don't act. You're merely reacting to your animal instincts programmed by evolution. Your agency is determined by your ancestors and their environment, which means that it's not even yours anymore than its theirs.

>> No.14969617

>>14969606
Well, they argue it's evoked, and thus constrained by environmental stimuli. Still, I have the conscious choice to veto actions, or direct my attention where I desire

This all seems like a mereological fallacy to me

>> No.14969623
File: 66 KB, 743x525, 1665584193512761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14969623

>>14969616
But that's inevitable. Any smart person would have figured this out sooner or later, why does knowing the rules of the game imply lack of free will? Just because there are determinate laws and constraints doesn't mean I have any less of a choice

>> No.14969626

>>14969617
You don't veto anything. It's your instincts taking priority. Fear over sex. Or this fear over that fear. Fear of getting HIV over sexual pleasure, etc over and over again with every decision that you seem to take. This is such a simple explanation that I don't get how people convince themselves they are in control.

>> No.14969629

>>14969626
Incorrect. Epistemic akrasia and contradicting beliefs exist, but one can still exercise self-control in the face of paradox

>> No.14969633

>>14969617
>Well, they argue it's evoked
Evoked because?

>and thus constrained by environmental stimuli
If it is the enviroment that determines an action in the brain, including thoughts, then everything the determinists say, including their sciencing, is also a stimuli to the enviroment. That being the case, they cannot be verified indepedently as every attempt to do so would just be a black box of stimuli and the reaction to them. Just saying such nonsense shows it's a wrong idea, since a priori reasoning exists, which can reveal the truth about things before any stimuli from those things are present.

>> No.14969638

>>14969626
>You don't veto anything. It's your instincts taking priority. Fear over sex. Or this fear over that fear. Fear of getting HIV over sexual pleasure, etc over and over again with every decision that you seem to take. This is such a simple explanation that I don't get how people convince themselves they are in control.
Faith is a counter-example to that, where fear isn't really involved, but I guess a kind of hope? Not like you determinists would ever experience such a thing, so I'm probably talking about a foreign concept

>> No.14969639

>>14969623
Knowing doesn't change anything because humans aren't rational actors. You can know that you are going to jail and still choose to commit a crime. In this case knowledge is limited or superceded by a stronger instinct. Our actions don't always follow from our beliefs.

>> No.14969642

>>14969633
>evoked because?
Certain alphabet agencies would probably say "any sort of stimuli", whether behavioral, learned patterns, etc..

>then everything the determinists say is also stimuli to the environment
That's how I see it, yeah. But I don't understand why they argue lack of free will. Knowing how evolution works, or studying environmental interaction with genes shouldn't negate free will either

>> No.14969646

>>14969639
>humans aren't rational actors
Most people aren't, no. But I'd wager people like us can predict their behavior with somewhat reliable probabilities, right?

>> No.14969649

>>14969638
Faith is just exercising fear in the face of extreme uncertainty. You choose or rather your mind resorts to giving up control to these ancient set of belief systems that seemed to work for your ancestors.

>> No.14969651

>>14969629
Lol give me an example of exercising control.

>> No.14969656

>>14969651
Simple. Say you go on a diet, and you're given the option to choose between chocolate cake or a salad. You can be nudged into preferring one option(say if I gave you two pieces of cake), but you still have the self-control to choose the salad instead. This can work with contradicting beliefs where an agent believes P and not-P at the same time but that's usually reserved for odd cases

>> No.14969664

>>14969656
You don't choose the salad. Your fear and greed battle for priority based on your past experiences.

>> No.14969668

>>14969664
This is silly. I'm not going to entertain someone unfamiliar with the science behind it

If you want to argue about emotion evoked by a stimulus, then talk about that. Not your vague edgy nonsense

>> No.14969669

>>14969646
We can barely predict our own behavior anon. Everyone is irrational by definition. We strive towards rationality like a curve approaching an asymptote but never really get there.

>> No.14969674

>>14969668
Lol. Did you choose to be angry just now? Wow you have so much self control.

>> No.14969675

>>14969669
>we can barely predict our own behavior
I would disagree, our lives are fairly determined to an extent, give or take some environmental factors. You can argue freak accidents and random chance happens, sure I would agree. But it's not entirely random, most of it can be predicted

>> No.14969676

>>14969649
>Faith is just exercising fear by not using fear
Why do I even waste time on you people?

>> No.14969678

>>14969674
I could have been trolling you this entire time and faking sincerity just to foil your plans at this very moment. Luckily, I don't waste time trolling in bad faith on 4chan

>> No.14969682

>>14969675
No we can't. We just seem to in hindsight. You look at past actions and tell yourself that you could have predicted that but don't really realize that you're using current info to talk about the past.

>> No.14969684

>>14969682
Well yes, hindsight bias and rosy-retrospection are known cognitive errors. But probabilistically we can still predict tomorrow will be another work day and the weekend won't be WW3 with flying pink unicorns, right? I mean it's not that random

>> No.14969685

>>14969678
>still pissed and desperately trying to save face
I believe you anon.

>> No.14969687
File: 58 KB, 200x212, 38e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14969687

>>14969685
I made this entire thread just for you buddy

>> No.14969688

>>14969684
Yeah that's called induction. Read about it. It's a very interesting philosophical problem that's still unsolved.

>> No.14969701

>>14969676
No you do feel fear of the unknown. You react to it by choosing faith. Exercising it as you naively put it doesn't mean that it's never there.

>> No.14969703

>>14969688
Hume's skepticism on induction is a good place to start.

>> No.14969720

>>14969675
>most of it can be predicted
Then go make bank at wall street big boy, talk is cheap, show your results