[ 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: 51 KB, 485x485, 8a28a4223299f2a133e3c392604cd939.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15278114 No.15278114 [Reply] [Original]

I have to write a paper on determinism VS compatibilism and where I land among the argument. I'm just curious about what yall think.

>> No.15278123

Behave as if free will exists, and you will find it exists. Behave as if it doesn't and you will find it doesn't exist. The question of free will is moot.

>> No.15278130

>>15278123
That take sucks when you mention that people get brain tumors and become pedos when they otherwise aren't. In those instances, they can act like/have free will but then make decisions they normally wouldn't in objective reality.

>> No.15278132

>>15278114
As a proponent of idealism, I find myself leaning towards a more compatibilist view when it comes to the debate between determinism and compatibilism. While it is true that determinism suggests that every event, including human actions, are predetermined by prior causes, I believe that this determinism can be reconciled with free will.

I find myself agreeing with William James' idea of "soft determinism," which suggests that determinism and free will can coexist. According to James, individuals have the ability to choose from a limited range of options determined by their circumstances, but within that range, they have free will. This view is compatible with my idealist perspective, which holds that the external world is not entirely objective, but is rather constructed by the mind.

While James' view may seem to contradict determinism, I believe that it does not. The limited range of options available to an individual can be seen as the result of the deterministic nature of the external world. However, within that limited range, individuals can exercise their free will.

It is important to note that my view is not an endorsement of fatalism or resignation. Rather, it acknowledges the influence of external factors on human behavior while also recognizing the role of free will.

In conclusion, my idealist perspective leads me to a compatibilist view when it comes to the debate between determinism and free will. While I do not believe that determinism is an objective feature of the external world, I do acknowledge the influence of external factors on human behavior. However, within the limited range of options available to individuals, free will can be exercised. While this view may seem controversial, I believe that it has important implications for our understanding of human behavior, including our response to the COVID pandemic.

>> No.15278148

>>15278132

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your well-thought take. It seems the only thing you didn't mention were internal factors such as Epigenetics. I am a Cognitive Sci Student with a specialization in Neuroscience so I am very much so Deterministic.

I am wondering about the COIVD comment at the end. What were you hinting at?

>> No.15278151 [DELETED] 

>its another tranny consciousness thread

>> No.15278155

>>15278151
Idk what you are talking about, don't fill my thread with tranny shit tho there is an entire board called /b for that.

>> No.15278158

>>15278114
Its just semantics, words are cheap.

>> No.15278159

>>15278130
1) Perhaps the brain tumor could be avoided
2) You are suggesting they're forced to make those decisions. I tend to believe otherwise. Every action we make is chosen. It may not seem that way, but we are the ones consciously pulling the trigger each time.

>> No.15278161

>>15278155
There is an entire board for semantics, take your wordcel thread to >>>/lit/.

>> No.15278163

>>15278159
What choice did you make that allows you to metabolize meat, but not plastic?

>> No.15278170

>>15278161
low IQ cant realize physics/biology/neuroscience/genealogy go into free will.

>> No.15278176

>>15278163
I don't think being anti-determinism means "Nothing is determined", it just means "Not everything is determined". Our freedom consists not in all conceivable outcomes but in all rationally conceivable outcomes.

>> No.15278177

>>15278170
More word games I see, >>>/lit/ is that way, but >>>/x/ actually seems more your speed.

>> No.15278181

>>15278176
>Every action we make is chosen
Then why not choose to act in a way that metabolizes plastic so something doesn't have to die for you to eat unless of course you were clearly lying and every action isn't chosen even something as simple as beating your heart and breathing is largely involuntary?

>> No.15278194

>>15278181
This is dumb. I said rational, you know, in the domain of things that are well understood to be possible. Anti-determinism does not equate to "Hurr anything is possible!" lol

>> No.15278201

>>15278194
I agree, it was dumb when you said every action made is chosen even if it doesn't seem that way and since your argument almost entirely depended on that being true, we both know your argument is dumb now.

>> No.15278204

>>15278123
It is impossible to behave as anything other than yourself, you will always be yourself, you are trapped in you and you can never will your way out of yourself.

>> No.15278208

>>15278201
Why do materialists argue in the most Jewish possible way every time? People would like you more if you were honest.

>> No.15278216

>>15278208
You are the one clearly using pilpul and trying to argue that every action doesn't actually mean EVERY action since you misspoke earlier and need to make something retarded you said appear to only be dumb.

>> No.15278222

>>15278216
I'm not that anon, I just think you're being Jewish and evasive.

>> No.15278223

>>15278194
It is possible to metabolize plastic, there are numerous microorganisms that do just that, metabolizing plastic instead of meat is not impossible, you apparently just choose not to do it because you would prefer to kill something for unnecessary meat instead of turning trash into energy directly.

>> No.15278227

>>15278222
I am not evading anything, that other anon was clearly demonstrably wrong about every action being chosen and you and him are the ones trying to evade the fact that the other anon was very obviously wrong since he can't even choose an action as basic as the rhythm of his heart.

>> No.15278229

>>15278227
You're intentionally misreading a very clear post in order to have a "gotcha" to strawman him with.

>> No.15278232

>>15278229
Nope you are wrong which is why your post lacks substance beyond ad hominem, he very clearly said every action is chosen when most human actions are involuntary and out of your control and often even beyond your awareness since you have no idea what your heart rhythm is without measuring it with instruments.

>> No.15278253

>>15278114
Quantum effects in the brain collapse into consciousness <=> free will. Hyperturing quantum computing (thinking) is non-deterministic, or probabilistic. Determinism is contradicted by Bell's theorem.

>> No.15278257

>>15278204
Just self-reflect. You can find things that you're not. Then you'll behave differently.

>> No.15278262

>>15278257
Yea behaving differently was never the issue, but no matter how similar or differently you behave from one moment to the next you will never not be yourself, you will always behave as yourself whether it is out of character or not.

>> No.15278263

Quantum uncertainty makes a deterministic Universe completely impossible.

Next question.

>> No.15278266

>>15278262
That's a "50/50 it either happens or it doesn't" trollpost almost.

>> No.15278268

>>15278263
How exactly can you be certain of uncertainty when your admitted uncertainty completely undermines any conclusion you could possibly draw from it?

>> No.15278270

>>15278266
Just be yourself and it will all work out how you want it to in the end because will is free.

>> No.15278327

There is no free will. People will always choose the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is made up of the environment they were exposed to growing up. Imagine if you were walking down a road and see a pothole. you can step in it and twist your ankle or walk around it. The path of least resistance is to walk around it and avoid injury, but if you heard this argument beforehand you'd want to prove it wrong and step in the pothole. In this moment the thought of proving this argument wrong pumped more feel good chemicals into your brain than just avoiding the pothole, so stepping in it became the path of least resistance. Same thing can be applied with literally any other situation that can exist

>> No.15278335

>>15278327
>pumped more feel good chemicals into your brain than just avoiding the pothole, so stepping in it became the path of least resistance
That isn't a path of least resistance, it is a path of maximizing pleasure.

>> No.15278337

>>15278335
your brain will always choose the path of maximum pleasure, which is the path of least resistance

>> No.15278345

>>15278337
No, those are not the same thing, going far out of your way to satisfy your fetish, sometimes to the point your life is actively endangered, is not least resistance.

>> No.15278349
File: 72 KB, 1024x967, 1641557157494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15278349

>its another tranny consciousness spam thread

>> No.15278363

>>15278345
Extremism is born from unfulfillment. If someone starts small and pursues a fetish, it is either because they believe it will make them more fulfilled or it's the easiest option for them at the moment (both are the path of least resistance).

The fetish doesn't fix the unfulfillment, so they still feel empty inside. They resort to what they know makes them feel something and keep doing it until it no longer brings in enough pleasure, to which they then go on a downwards degenerate spiral until they commit actions that are far more difficult than what it would take to just turn their lives around. The reason why they continue down this path is because they don't know fulfillment, and will choose the only path that has brought them any sort of ease to the pain, which just fucks them up further. This is also the path of least resistance

>> No.15278376

>>15278363
>either because they believe it will make them more fulfilled or it's the easiest option
Exactly, human actions are also about maximizing pleasure, not solely following the path of least resistance, maximizing fulfillment is not the path of least resistance, it is a path of extra unnecessary resistance in exchange for intermittent rewards.

>The fetish doesn't fix the unfulfillment, so they still feel empty inside.
For many it does, but the emptiness returns when they aren't actively engaging their fetish which is why they are willing to take on additional resistance in exchange for fulfillment.

>they don't know fulfillment
Ignorance is not a path of least resistance, it is a path of least introspection.

>> No.15278593

>>15278114
determinism is a fact, free will (i could have done otherwise) doesn't exist.

>> No.15278596

>>15278263
quantum mechanics is isn't fundamental, so no. but even jf it were, it wouldn't admit of free will, since randomness doesn't do that for you.

>> No.15278600

>>15278253
>Quantum effects in the brain collapse into consciousness <=> free will.
what rubbish, lol
>Determinism is contradicted by Bell's theorem.
wrong. bells theorem doesn't immediately prove anything wrong, we have three assumptions and it doesn't tell us which is wrong, only that one or more is wrong.

>> No.15278606

>>15278132
incorrect. there is no 'soft determinism", that's bullshit. it's a true dichotomy, there is either complete determinism or complete indeterminism. the past state uniquely maps onto a single future state, or it doesn't. neither will give you free will though. sorry to burst your woo bubble.

>> No.15278608

>>15278123
>the truth is decided by you
nonsensical tripe.

>> No.15278609

>>15278114
It's a philosophy question since all empirical evidence is contradicting itself and there are no proof that either one conclusion is correct.

>> No.15278612

>>15278263
Anon, quantum uncertainty doesn't exist for the observer. You are the observer. It doesn't make sense for you, the nuclear fuel decays, black holes emit Hawkin radiation for you. You can't deny reality just because for other observers there are no such reality.

>> No.15278613

>>15278263
They make free will impossible too since you can never know if anything is the result of your choice or some quantum fluctuation.

>> No.15278630

>>15278114
>What does /sci think of Free will?
They have many many many many opinions on free will. But if you bring up any other unfalsifiable topic they will tell you you're an idiot and will refuse to talk about it

>> No.15278646

>>15278630
apparently you didn't read the thread

>> No.15278691

>>15278114
>/sci
Go back to >>>/r/eddit.

>> No.15278922

>>15278327
You've never done something difficult or withheld pleasure from yourself for future benefit?

>> No.15278925

>>15278232
what is the human action here? "beat your own heart"?

>> No.15278929
File: 44 KB, 635x665, 1640637438688.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15278929

>>15278114
This discussion has no genuine intellectual content. Humans will continue to argue in favor of free will and NPCs will continue to argue against it regardless of any objective points in favor of one or the other, assuming such points exist at all.

>> No.15279001

>>15278132
Midwit GPT

>> No.15279010

>>15278929
>the whole debate is dumb
>but i believe free will exists! haha!

>> No.15279012

>>15279010
Suppose I do. What's the issue with that? You sound literally retarded.

>> No.15279014

>>15279012
you're taking a side, so claiming to be above this debate is quite silly.

>> No.15279018

>>15279014
>you're taking a side
That's your schizophrenia talking. I'm not arguing for any side in this debate, which I openly reject.

>> No.15279020

>>15279018
>if you accept free will you're human, if you reject free will you're an NPC
>but i'm not taking a side! haha!

>> No.15279022

>>15279020
Again, are you literally retarded? If you mean "taking a side" as in "having an opinion", then there is no contradiction whatsoever between my rejecting this worthless debate and my believing whatever I believe. If you mean "taking a side" as in participating in this debate on behalf of a side, that's your schizophrenia hitting again.

>> No.15279024

>>15279022
>i'm not taking a side i swearrrrr!
lol

>> No.15279026

>>15279024
You're deranged and seething but my point stands completely unchallenged: this "debate" has no real intellectual substance. It's just people trying to rationalize their intuitions. Drones like you will die on the hill that they are lumps of matter puppeteered by physics no matter what, because that's what you desperately want to be.

>> No.15279028

I don't see how people can reject determinism. If time suddenly began looping the same day over and over again, do you honestly believe that things would ever play out differently? A trillion iterations and each would be identical, surely. It doesn't make any sense for deviations to occur.

It doesn't really matter though, because we feel as if we have free will.

>> No.15279030

>>15279026
>heh, this debate is soooo lame, i reject it
>but i love me free will, simple as

>> No.15279031
File: 32 KB, 600x668, 5324244.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15279031

>>15279028
>I don't see how people can reject determinism.
Ok. Good job discrediting anything you shit out.

>> No.15279032

>>15279030
See >>15279026. "People" like you should be physically removed and made an example of, not debated.

>> No.15279033

>>15279028
>because we feel as if we have free will
we don't.

>> No.15279241
File: 35 KB, 600x600, 1678986294900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15279241

>>15278253
>>15278263
Based and quantum pilled.

There's two types of /sci/ posters. Those who understand quantum mechanics and those who still believe in determinism.