/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16003426]

Why it's so hard to people to understand?
Yes, world is deterministic.
There is no "free will".
But it still feels like there is.
So it doesn't really change anything as far as your feelings are concerned.

[Barkon No.16003429]

May I do yet?

[Anonymous No.16003444]

>>16003426
Free will is genetic. This will be canonically trivial by 3000 (or earlier).

[Anonymous No.16003447]

>>16003426
Brainlets cope over what is inevitable

[Anonymous No.16003453]

>>16003426
Your picrel is either bait or you're the dumbest determinist out there. No smart determinist wants to be represented by your picrel.

[Barkon No.16003455]

>>16003453
Smart post.

[Anonymous No.16003468]

>>16003426
No, it doesn't feel like there's free will. My father had early onset Alzheimer's and went HAM strangling me when I was 4 for absolutely no reason. He would've killed me but my sister intervened. He then made up with me and we went back to getting along because I was grateful for him. He then lost his personality and later died. It gave me a lesson early on that no one is to blame for anything.

[Anonymous No.16003469]

>>16003426
Bell's Theorem tho

[Anonymous No.16003476]

Quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.16003479]

>>16003444
Ok.
Prove it.
Prove you have influenced the evolution of the state of the universe by your "free will" (whatever it is).
And that it wasn't simply your brain - a biological machine reacting to stimuli it received from the world and your body itself in predictable, deterministic matter.

[Anonymous No.16003480]

>>16003453
>Determinist
>Smart

[Anonymous No.16003483]

>>16003479
The onus is on you my little phantasm. For you don't even exist outside these little sensations of mine. Imagine a whole backstory was made up for your little gay faggot twink ass, because my mind is just so great and amuses me to no end. Seriously. You can't even prove yesterday happened,. and you think reality should bend to the delusion? lmao even.

[Barkon No.16003484]

>>16003480
-farts on you- I unno. Maybe

[Anonymous No.16003486]

>>16003483
Retard

[Anonymous No.16003488]

>>16003479
I’m appealing to 31st century authority, you retard. Why would I do that if we already had a proof that would satisfy the freewill-disabled? Fat tail on the timeline would be if this brain implant shit accidentally proves it between now and then.

[Barkon No.16003489]

>>16003484
Yes, if true. I thought 'this' at the time. The procedure was sleight/strange. I was well prepared.

[Barkon No.16003491]

>>16003488
-desperately forces a fart unto you whilst having a squished rude facial expression-

[Anonymous No.16003493]

>>16003491
>>16003486

[Anonymous No.16003541]

>>16003426
There's been at least some studies that show a belief in free will encourages moral behavior, so if you want to say free will isn't real, you need a good reason for it.

I think it's socially responsible to talk about it using made-up terms that aren't "free will" so journalists and attentionwhores don't butcher what you say, and so that people don't get demoralized by things they misunderstand. So instead of saying "free will isn't real," say "counterfactual choices aren't real" or "acausal decisionmaking isn't real" or whatever it is you actually mean. Just use something that isn't a literal unironic cognitohazard for dumb people.

[Anonymous No.16003551]

>>16003480
The hidden knowledge that only a select few anons understand is this: you can not be free without first understanding that you're determined. The next step is to see that you don't even want to be free: it's so unbearable that you will feel lost and begin to long for bondage by maps, roads and destinations again. Finally you realize that any idea about freedom and bondage is paradoxical. The christian, the buddhist, the atheist, the optimist and the pessimist will sooner or later all arive at the same conclusion with different semantics: they must choose to surrender.

[Anonymous No.16003555]

>>16003426
>free will debate
Fuck off philosophyfag. Not science or math.

[Anonymous No.16003574]

>>16003426
No,
every intelligenz system has an mathermatical eventhorizon of space time and size, and this is where determinism ends.
the number of dysonspheres your line doesnt matter can be 1000 a million a billion a gozillion a googlplexplex... it doesnt mater.

[Anonymous No.16003579]

>>16003551
>t.islamist westerner mindfucked by pornhub

[Anonymous No.16003586]

>>16003426
>There is no "free will".
Define "free will"
What is is that you are claiming doesn't exist?
What claim do you understand the free willers to be making? Steel man the free willer argument.

[Anonymous No.16003589]

>>16003426
>Yes, world is deterministic.
Deterministic is not the same as predictable though. Just because there are physical laws in the material realm that ultimately govern the interactions of matter that constitutes, as best we know, our consciousness, doesn't mean that those interactions can be predicted in advance. As much as our behaviour is in some sense deterministic, it is also nonlinear and complex and chaotic. Just because you know what's making the water wheel turn, doesn't mean you can predict where it will be for an arbitrary duration.

[Anonymous No.16003595]

>>16003479
>predictable, deterministic
You keep using these words interchangeable, they are not. Weather is deterministic, but beyond a couple of days, it's inherently unpredictable when you beat down on the small details. And the variation in those small details isn't noise, it's not the shadow, it's the real thing. And you can't look at a system like weather or a human behaviour, a total snapshot, and predict with 100% certainty the confluence of factors that led it to that state.

[Anonymous No.16003622]

>>16003574
>>16003589
so if its not about predicability you want to know if 2 systems who cant infulence each other of the same kind would develop independend or not?

[Anonymous No.16003625]

>>16003574
>>16003589
>>16003622
idk maybe the stay the same but !!!!! a system, cant be independend.

[Anonymous No.16003629]

>>16003589
>>16003595
>hurricanes have free will

[Anonymous No.16003632]

>>16003625
can a intelligent system experience the world as deterministic? no
can it blieve that? yes
but it cant expirience it as such.

[Anonymous No.16003636]

>>16003632
does a color no one can see exist? its the same question basically.

[Anonymous No.16003639]

>>16003468
How is that an argument midwit? My dog farted when asleep, whoah, proves he never had free will! Say I moved a kid's hand against his face saying 'why are you hurting yourself ?' whoaaa duuude free will dont real lmao

[Anonymous No.16003644]

>>16003426
If it didn't change anything you wouldn't spam this popsci shit here.

[Anonymous No.16003684]

>>16003447
bet you felt smart typing this drivel kek

[Anonymous No.16003695]

>>16003426
People understand it completely, that's why we make fun of it.

But please go on about how your modal reasoning is totally still valid through this and all similar positions.

[Anonymous No.16004349]

>>16003426
to me, it doesn't feel like there is free will.

[Anonymous No.16004391]

>>16003636
Yes, transparency is the color that no one can actually see exists.

[Anonymous No.16004429]

>>16003426
People that don't believe in free will don't have it and they also have no claim to moral rights. Only those that believe in free will and have free will have moral rights

[Anonymous No.16004470]

>>16004429
>People that couldn't have done otherwise didn't have free will.
Fixed for you.
You can believe you are king of democracy all you want, doesn't make that true either.

[Anonymous No.16004476]

>>16003426
Let me translate:
>There is no "free will"
for everyone, it really means
>I dindu nuffin
and denying personal accountability and responsibility for one's own actions.

[Anonymous No.16004478]

>>16003426
>>16004476

[Anonymous No.16004479]

>>16004470
It works thusly:
>Someone claims free will doesn't exist
>they are marked as someone with no moral rights
>this affects nobody else
>they are treated as someone with no moral rights
Its a simple system really, quickly weeds out the husks

[Anonymous No.16004482]

>>16004470
do you think women can have penises

[Anonymous No.16004490]

>>16004479
No, the person who claims to have free will is the one who insists that they make up their own morality as they go which means that they don't deserve the rights of collective morality society has agreed upon because they have set themselves apart from the circumstances that necessitate morality where other people can hurt you without your consent or willpower playing any role at all.

[Anonymous No.16004492]

>>16004482
Only if they actually had true free will could they determine their own biology instead of nature doing that for them without their consent and despite their will to have some.

[Anonymous No.16004506]

>>16004478
How are measurements and narratives (un)related?

[Anonymous No.16004563]

>>16003426
>But it still feels like there is.
This is the problem with people having trouble coping with concepts like this. They feel like free will is real so determinism must be a jewish hoax.

[Anonymous No.16004608]

>>16003426
>EVERYTHING is deterministic
Evidently not.
>There is no "free will"
Rejecting observable reality does not make it true.
You autists made the critical mistake of thinking that just because you can predict "X"-->"Y" it automatically means "X" must have caused "Y".
This single axiomatic mistake is reponsible for all of scientism and this persistent retardness of rejecting self observable free-will.
You think just because you can predict the individual atoms and molecules that constitute the human body on their own, the person as a whole therefore must automatically be nothing more than an emergent product of these individual predictions.
That is a fallacy.
You have no clue regarding the true causes behind the observable universe. Whatever mechanics behind the curtain that is responsible for generating the consistent deterministic physics of inanimate particles could very well generate a different set of rules when said particles is combined in a specific way. Especially in the case of free-will since it is directly observable.

[Anonymous No.16004619]

>>16004608
>behind the curtain
If we can't know what's behind the curtain then why must we assume a curtain and something behind it in the first place? If we can know then show us.

[Anonymous No.16004631]

>>16004619
>If I can't know everything why must I assume there is something I don't know
You can very well assume you already know everything, you have the free will to do so.

[Anonymous No.16004658]

>>16004631
Then how do we discern between degrees to which a postulation is (un)reasonable / likely? I assume that you agree with me that last thursdayism is not equally likely as an older universe.

[Anonymous No.16004660]

>>16003426
Free will has nothing to do with physics, you moron. There are not demons in your head making you do bad things. You are respnsible.

[Anonymous No.16004673]

>>16004658
You can discern the degrees a postulation is (un)reasonable / likely though how science is done now, based on past observations. That is what science is for, making strategic decisions.
Science however do not ever determine what is possible/impossible. If something is observed that cannot be accounted for by current models, you don't automatically assume it "cannot exist", you assume it's something you don't know about yet and a subject for further studies.

[Anonymous No.16004706]

>>16004673
>Science however do not ever determine what is possible/impossible.
I assume that you agree that ''science'' is interchangeable with ''thought'' in your statement. That begs the rhetorical question: where do we get our thoughts from such as the appearance of continuity / regularity? Obviously our experience is as such and nothing in our experience tells us that tomorrow we might wake up in another universe. Instead our repetitive experience has conditioned us to strongly believe that tomorrow our experience will follow the same rules.

[Anonymous No.16004722]

>>16004608
It's beyond causality but I don't expect you to understand that. It's not even "X must have caused Y." It's
>X happened, and then Y happened, and this is the only sequence of events we know to exist, therefore only Y could ever have happened following X.

[Anonymous No.16004742]

>>16004706
Unless you are alluding to the schizo side of things that "thoughts" create the regularity of physics observed in reality, I'm not sure what "thoughts" would have to do with what is possible/impossible.
>>16004722
>this is the only sequence of events we know to exist, therefore only Y could ever have happened following X
You are right, I don't understand. This logic is absolutely retarded.
Unless you magically observed everything there is to observe in all of existence, you are in no logical position to claim this statement.

[Anonymous No.16004790]

>>16004742
>I'm not sure what "thoughts" would have to do with what is possible/impossible.
We agree that science and any sort of thought about reality do not determine reality. I'm pointing out however that science and any sort of thought are not just models of reality. Instead they are inherent to our experience and our experience is the only reality we know. Therefore repetition / rules / regularities are not just descriptions but how reality really is. In conclusion we can and do know the limitations of reality with more certainty than the belief that the known rules can be overruled.

[Anonymous No.16004868]

>>16004790
>I'm pointing out however that science and any sort of thought are not just models of reality
>are not just descriptions but how reality really is
See you say you are not going schzio on me but then you say stuff like this.
Like I said to the other anon, unless you have explored all of existence, you are in no position to claim to know the limitations of reality.
Known "rules" are merely the cumulated effects of both known and unknown of elements of existence that happened to be consistent thus far. Unless you have observed all the unknown elements with nothing left to explore in existence, you do not know what are reality's ultimate limits.
The problem with modern science is people acting like they have explored all the secrets of the universe when in reality they are apes that have been glued to this rock for the duration of a cosmic eye blink.

[Anonymous No.16004878]

>>16003479
It's magic, bitch, I don't gotta prove shit.

[Anonymous No.16004902]

>>16004868
I agree and that means: so far, in this place, during our lifetime, to the best of our limited knowledge, it seems like determinism is a more adequate description of our current condition than free will.

[Anonymous No.16004907]

>>16003629
>>hurricanes have free will
kek, I feel that's how most people's mind operate, "So you can't predict which slit the particle went will go through? That's because they have free will!"
Its really odd how people don't notice how free will is incompatible will everything else they tend to defend with tooth and nail (causality, thermodynamics, etc)

[Anonymous No.16004966]

>>16004907
>Its really odd
Even more odd is the argument: if dualism is true then consciousness has free will.

[Anonymous No.16005023]

>>16003426
>There is no "free will".
Incorrect. I have free will and use it daily. I

[Anonymous No.16005029]

>>16003426
Why it's so hard for people to understand?
Yes, world is deterministic.
Yes, there is free will.
No, these two are not in conflict with each other. Deterministic physics is part of how your free will works.

[Anonymous No.16005446]

>>16004902
>to the best of our limited knowledge
>it seems like determinism is a more adequate description of our current condition than free will
Is it? Are the schools built the bases that every student is determined by physics what grade they get rather than what choice they make? How about the justice system? Personal relationships?
To our limited knowledge, external options seems to be limited by known physics, which option to take is not.

[Anonymous No.16005906]

>>16004608
>Especially in the case of free-will since it is directly observable.
The only things that are directly observable regarding free will are that you can not ever do otherwise and (You) did not even get to choose to be (You) which don't bode well for free will.

[Anonymous No.16005925]

>>16005906
>you can not ever do otherwise
This is a retarded argument. It's got nothing to do with free-will and everything to do with time travel.
If water gets frozen it can not ever do otherwise than become ice.
If I get frozen I could choose to go inside or stay out and get a frostbite.
>b..but if you were placed back into that exact moment you would make the same decision again!
Again, time travel. You have a way to send me back to that exact moment and we'll see. Otherwise it's just unprovable hypotheticals.

[Anonymous No.16005932]

>>16005925
All I see is you impotently coping with the fact that time directly and observably dictates your choices much more than your will does proving your will is not free, but limited by time, among many other factors.

[Anonymous No.16005935]

>>16004660
>There are not demons in your head making you do bad things.
Neural networks and instincts are no different than daemons.

[Anonymous No.16005964]

>>16005932
>can't differentiate between choice and choosing
External factors such as time and circumstances dictate choices avaliable.
They do not automatically dictate what choice is picked.
Now that Musk Man have just successfully jammed his Neuralink into the somebody's skull, here is your chance. Design a model to predict conscious human actions in real time before mouthing off about "tHeRe iS nO fReE wIlL i cAn diVinE huMan choicEs wiTh my phYsics textboOk".

[Anonymous No.16005970]

>"Free will doesn't exist, the brain is purely chemicals"
This is like saying Doom is purely machine code. Complete failure to understand phenomenal existences.

[Anonymous No.16005975]

>>16005964
>External factors such as time and circumstances dictate choices avaliable.
Exactly, choices aren't made freely, they are a response to external factors.
>They do not automatically dictate what choice is picked.
They dictate what is possible and bind the will to a limited set of choices and circumstances rather than allowing for freely picked outcomes.

>Design a model to predict conscious human actions in real time
Its just a matter of seeing which signals go to which muscles and logging those signals before the neuralink client is consciously aware of choosing the action associated with the muscle movement which has already been accomplished with electrodes before neuralink ever even existed as a company.

[Anonymous No.16005976]

>>16005970
No, claiming you have free will is like claiming you can play doom without requiring the code that dictates the program.

[Anonymous No.16005993]

>>16005975
>Exactly, choices aren't made freely, they are a response to external factors.
They could be automatic response when you choose to be on autopilot.
When you are consciously chosing, they are not.
>bind the will to a limited set of choices
And free will gets to choose freely within that limited set of choices unbounded by prior physics.
>rather than allowing for freely picked outcomes
Outcome have nothing to do with free-will.
You are free to choose but not free from the consequences of your choice.
>Its just a matter of seeing which signals go to which muscles
Nobody here is talking about silly shit like predicting movement after brain fires a signal. I'm talking about picrel.
Either make a model to generate pre-crime minority reports or shut it about there is no free-will.

[Anonymous No.16005995]

>>16005975
>Exactly, choices aren't made freely, they are a response to external factors.
They could be automatic response when you choose to be on autopilot.
When you are consciously choosing, they are not.
>bind the will to a limited set of choices
And free will gets to choose freely within that limited set of choices unbounded by prior physics.
>rather than allowing for freely picked outcomes
Outcome have nothing to do with free-will.
You are free to choose but not free from the consequences of your choice.
>Its just a matter of seeing which signals go to which muscles
Nobody here is talking about silly shit like predicting movement after brain fires a signal. I'm talking about picrel.
Either generate pre-crime minority reports or shut it about there is no free-will.

[Anonymous No.16006011]

>>16005995
>When you are consciously choosing, they are not.
Wrong, actual actions are always a reaction to external forces rather than something you freely imagined, you said yourself they have to come from what you are conscious of rather than how you imagine it to be.
> freely within that limited set of choices
That is not freedom, its like saying a prisoner is free to be in the cage you put him in.
>Outcome have nothing to do with free-will.
Wrong, if you aren't even free enough to know where your choices will lead, they definitely were not made freely, but under constrained pressure.
>You are free to choose
You aren't even free enough to choose your choices, those are all dictated by external factors, you don't understand the word free.

>Nobody here is talking about silly shit like predicting movement after brain fires a signal.
People who understand that free will is an illusion and your choices have been made before you are even aware of choosing them do and you can't refute it, so you can only try to silence anyone who brings up the inconvenient truth that the your subjective stream of consciousness doesn't even make the choice.

That movie doesn't have anything to do with hooking up people making choices to anything like a neuralink interface to model their decision making process and check for free will, they had psychics with super powers in a magical milk bath who could predict the future, you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.16006024]

>>16006011
>That is not freedom, its like saying a prisoner is free to be in the cage you put him in.
He is free to make whatever choices can in the cage.
The cage simply limits his possible range of choices.
>if you aren't even free enough to know where your choices will lead, they definitely were not made freely
Non sequitur. Talking about science here not business laws.
>You aren't even free enough to choose your choices
Prove it, because observable evidence says otherwise.
>Minority reports were generated by schizo psychics
Fine, too many variables anyway.
Hook up a guy in a lab room with Neuralink and whatever other devices to get a complete bio-physical snapshot. If your model can then predict what he's going to do in that lab room in the next however long within statistical significance, then we can talk about how people might have no free will.
Predict or shut up, it's simple science.

[Anonymous No.16006030]

>>16006024
If I predict the digits of the next post I can write it down secretly or I can post it here
But if I post it here it will affect the outcome because some people will try to get the digits and some people will intentionally not post to prove me wrong
>>16006111
For example this post is my prediction. I know this post will be posted at some point by someone and it will say something
Now because it's here we cannot say it isn't affecting the chances of what's in the post
But my free will is making this post based off yours.
Or
Was I always going to post this?

[Anonymous No.16006033]

>>16006024
>He is free to make whatever choices can in the cage.
In other words, he isn't free, he is trapped in a cage and entirely limited to cage related activities.
>The cage simply limits his possible range of choices.
Limits are simply antithetical to being free.

>Non sequitur. Talking about science here not business laws.
It has nothing to do with business, it has to do with cause and effect not actually being bound by your will because of your inability to definitely know the effects your choices will cause.

>because observable evidence says otherwise.
No, observable evidence says that if you are confined to a human form factor, you must behave like a human because your form dictates your abilities and potential choices.

>f your model can then predict what he's going to do in that lab room in the next however long within statistical significance
I already explained how that was possible with electrodes, scientists didn't need neuralink to prove that you can present a stimulus and predict their choice before they themselves are even consciously aware of making it let alone carrying it out.

[Anonymous No.16006034]

>>16006030
>Was I always going to post this?
You did post it and that is always what the record will show, can you prove you could you have ever done otherwise?

[Anonymous No.16006036]

>>16006034
No
>>16006036
Neither can he

[Anonymous No.16006037]

>>16006033
>I already explained how that was possible with electrodes, scientists didn't need neuralink to prove that you can present a stimulus and predict their choice before they themselves are even consciously aware of making it let alone carrying it out.
Link the papers.

[Anonymous No.16006043]

>>16006037
https://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article-abstract/27/8/1492/28451/Preconscious-Prediction-of-a-Driver-s-Decision
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938418306723
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/ab39ce/meta
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2012/hash/21c52f533c0c585bab4f075bf08d7104-Abstract.html
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/36/12488.short
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmr.13.0564
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043351
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919309243
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1787-x

[Anonymous No.16006048]

>>16006052
As a further experiment I can post this and also tell you what it says beforehand. It is explaining the finer intricacies of psychology, possibly a long meandering explanation from a home schooled shut in.
If I'm right then free will obviously doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16006052]

>>16006048
oh

[Anonymous No.16006056]

>>16006052
>>16006051
Again I have created a deceit

[Anonymous No.16006059]

>>16006056
oh

[Anonymous No.16006062]

>>16006059
But are you a homeschooled shut in?

[Anonymous No.16006070]

>>16006062
I suppose that would explain some things.

[Anonymous No.16006076]

>>16006070
If free will is determined by whether or not one has the appropriate information then it isn't free will. Obviously I can say I predict one thing here and lie about it. Then that makes others more inclined to fuck with the results. Like you did.
But if I knew down the line at post 80 this would get resolved then I'd know this whole conversation doesn't matter.
In fact the illusion is such that it appears we are in control in this thread through our perspective means but we are only on 4chan because of a specific set of conditions that is obviously not universal.

Can it be called free will if you can't make the correct choice without all the information?

[Anonymous No.16006094]

>>16006076
>Can it be called free will if you can't make the correct choice without all the information?
You can say anything is anything you want because at the end of the day language is dynamic since you are just great apes grunting in response to your environment.

[Barkon No.16006097]

>>16006094
Derp. I'm a retard

[Anonymous No.16006099]

>>16006043
https://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article-abstract/27/8/1492/28451/Preconscious-Prediction-of-a-Driver-s-Decision
>50/50 choice, 5 sec leadtime
>82.4% accuracy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938418306723
>50/50 choice, no leadtime data
>63% accuracy
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/ab39ce/meta
>no prediction result in abstract
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2012/hash/21c52f533c0c585bab4f075bf08d7104-Abstract.html
>5 sec leadtime on a 50/50 choice
>83% accuracy
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/36/12488.short
>no prediction result in abstract
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmr.13.0564
>no prediction result in abstract
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043351
>50/50 choice, no leadtime data
>74% accuracy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811919309243
>50/50 choice, 1.2 sec lead time
>89% accuracy
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1787-x
>mice, not human

You predict with shitty accuracy on what a person is gonna pick on a 50/50 choice based on his exterior EEG brain scan ~5 sec prior, this is your idea of having no free will?
If there is a "soul" 5 seconds is probably what it takes to activate the neurons to identify brain's preference before choosing to pick said preference.
This is not even close to what I'm talking about.
No, you get a complete snapshot of a person, in a labroom. Your model predicts what he's gonna do in the next minutes (none of these 50/50 crap), sitting around, running, jumping, cartwheel, whatever.
You manage to do that then maybe there is no free will.

[Anonymous No.16006100]

>>16006097
Obviously, you are a namefag on an anonymous forum, you didn't need to say it, your retardation was implied as soon as you chose to post under a pseudonym on an anonymous board.

[Anonymous No.16006102]

>>16006094
Well the complicated part to me is realizing thousands of posts have taken place in between our responses which are unaccounted for here. It's been like this for thousands of years, maybe since existence itself.
As you say though it is only a meat man yapping on a rock at the end of the day. For whatever reason.

[Barkon No.16006107]

>>16006100
Jelly

[Anonymous No.16006108]

>>16006099
>this is your idea of having no free will?
The fact that will is limited rather than free proves there is no actual free will, but you don't use the actual definition, you said that your weak idea of free will is that you can consciously make a limited set of choices given the limited time (and physical) constraints imposed upon you, so proving that the choices are actually made before you are even consciously aware of them definitely disproves even your severely diminished concept of free will.

The 50/50 thing is a result of limited processing power, not a faulty model.

That is enough time for someone or some machine to nullify your choice and make your free will even more limited than you have already accepted it to be.

[Anonymous No.16006111]

>>16006108
But isn't that their free will being controlled too?

[Anonymous No.16006117]

>>16005446
>Is it? Are the schools etc.
Yes! The will of a student to (under)perform, the will of the (un)lawful, the will of (un)loving partners are not a spiritual quality outside the physical web of all things that constitute a human being at any particular place and time on Earth.

[Anonymous No.16006118]

>>16006111
Sure the freely acting thing that is completely beholden to external control mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.16006120]

>>16006118
Clearly.

[Anonymous No.16006130]

>>16006108
>so proving that the choices are actually made before you are even consciously aware
How did any of those studies prove that. At best it proved your EEG scans can detect with ~75% accuracy what 50/50 choice is made in the head, WHEN IT WAS MADE.
This whole series of study is extremely weak evidence for what you are trying to prove.
>No, you get a complete snapshot of a person, in a labroom. Your model predicts what he's gonna do in the next minutes (none of these 50/50 crap), sitting around, running, jumping, cartwheel, whatever.
You manage to do that then maybe there is no free will.
Again, this or bust.

[Anonymous No.16006136]

Did I know I was linking my own post beforehand? You'll never know.

[Anonymous No.16006138]

>>16006130
>How did any of those studies prove that.
By measuring people's reaction time and discovering that their decisions are made before they even had time to react.

>This whole series of study is extremely weak evidence for what you are trying to prove.
The evidence has to be weak to match your pathetic weakened definition of free will that ignores the part about it being free and accepts that your will is entirely bound by your circumstances and experiences.

>You manage to do that then maybe there is no free will.
Again, just because you don't understand exponential growth, the scale of neural activity, and the current processing limitations doesn't mean that those experiments haven't created significant amounts of evidence that show even your severely diminished definition of free will isn't actually a reality.

[Anonymous No.16006140]

>>16006136
Yes, /sci/ is a slow board, predicting the next post is pretty easy to do.
>>16006140

[Anonymous No.16006141]

>>16006140
But predicting the post 80 posts past that
I mean give it a shot

[Barkon No.16006143]

>>16006141
Test of intelligence: predict what post number will be in this thread in 40 posts time

[Anonymous No.16006144]

>>16006143
Yeah but it could have been in any thread
We're not the only people on /sci/ right now

[Anonymous No.16006145]

>>16006141
You never did that though and again, its a slow board, you would just have to wait until the 79th post appeared, maybe making a few extra posts yourself to speed up the process, then you could control what appeared in the 80th.

[Barkon No.16006146]

>>16006144
You're retarded bro.

[Anonymous No.16006147]

>>16006145
But I couldn't make you post up until that point
You had to choose to do that
What if all of us said fuck this thread
Would it still be my prediction post and then me being like hah got it
Or would it just link to some irrelevant topic

[Anonymous No.16006149]

>>16006146
Well you're just mad cause I used you for causality to prove a point

[Barkon No.16006150]

>>16006149

[Anonymous No.16006152]

>>16006150
He's evolving

[Anonymous No.16006153]

>>16006138
>Then: proving that the choices are actually made before you are even consciously aware
>Now: By measuring people's reaction time and discovering that their decisions are made before they even had time to react.
>Then: consciously aware
>Now: time to react
We backpeddling now are we.
>impotent seething
Tell you what, I'll give you a big time break. You neurofags do those EEG tests again, 50/50, but this time, test for TWO decisions instead of just the one, per ONE scan.
I'll bet my last cent the accuracy on that second 50/50 drops right back to ~50%.
You are reading what people decided to do in their head, not what they are going to decide, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.16006154]

>>16006147
Your scenario doesn't require me to post, it only requires that the post 80 posts ahead contains a specific message.

[Anonymous No.16006158]

>>16006154
Not to harp on it too much but I only posted because you did

[Anonymous No.16006164]

>>16006158
Yes you posted about a scenario that doesn't depend on me making any posts, just you monitoring 79 posts, then controlling the message of the 80th posts which is really easy to do on such a slow board.

[Anonymous No.16006167]

the world is deterministic + influenced by quantum jumps which is indeterministic but it still does not make up free will

[Anonymous No.16006174]

>>16006164
Let's see. I really have no idea what these are but they are the time stamps of the posts surrounding my own on separate threads.
>>16006110
>>16006112
If >>16006111 is close to their time stamp then I think that casts doubt on your premise.

[Anonymous No.16006178]

>>16006153
That isn't backpeddling, it is showing the standard is higher than what you are claiming, its not just in their head since the measurable decision occurs before they even have time to react to the stimulus whose reaction is being observed.

You are the one seething because you don't know our current position in the exponential growth of technology and don't even understand the concept or the processing limitation associated with the growth process.

You can use the process to predict every decision, not just one or two, but to do it quickly in near real time, you currently just have to choose simpler tasks with fewer neural connection because of current processing limitations, but the limitations deteriorating over time is exactly how we went from slower EEG analysis to nearly instantaneous neuralink implants in just a few years.

[Anonymous No.16006189]

>>16006167
Nice

[Anonymous No.16006194]

>>16006178
>You can use the process to predict every decision, not just one or two
Every paper you linked up there is single decision with shitty accuracy to boot.
Tell you what, you ever make it past just the ONE decision, I'll take you autists seriously.
You ever start predicting cartwheel in the labroom, I'll consider believing there is no free will.
Good luck anon.

[Anonymous No.16006207]

>>16006194
I don't care what you believe, your definition of free will is retarded and excludes both freedom and willpower.

[Anonymous No.16006463]

>>16003426
>is free will possible?
depends on who asks

[Anonymous No.16007491]

prove that you could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16008038]

>>16006138
>He believes in libet-like experiments despite all the literature against it, and presents studies that all have the same problems since 1985

Is john dylan hayne in here right now?

[Anonymous No.16008056]

>>16006153
>You are reading what people decided to do in their head, not what they are going to decide, plain and simple.

This. Read Free by Alfred Mele. And most literature by the Neurophilosophy of Free Will group. And the various studies that discount the efficacy and dubiousness of the presence of an BP before conscious intention.

[Anonymous No.16008058]

>>16007491
No, it doesn't. That's the dumbest take in the thread so far.

[Anonymous No.16008074]

>>16004478
Reality is falling apart under the shear forces of schizophrenic faith.

[Anonymous No.16008105]

>>16003480
>Determinism was developed by the Greek philosophers during the 7th and 6th centuries BCE by the Pre-socratic philosophers Heraclitus and Leucippus, later Plato and Aristotle, and mainly by the Stoics. Some of the main philosophers who have dealt with this issue are Marcus Aurelius, Omar Khayyam, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Baron d'Holbach (Paul Heinrich Dietrich), Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Ralph Waldo Emerson and, more recently, John Searle, Ted Honderich, and Daniel Dennett.

[Anonymous No.16008113]

>>16008074
Prime mover territory

[Anonymous No.16008552]

>>16008058
it undeniably does, though. think about it some more.

[Anonymous No.16008592]

>>16008074
do not doubt the power of one man blessed by God. The voices never lied

[Anonymous No.16008611]

YOU do not have free will, correct. However, I am free, and I will keep moving forward. OP is a phaggot

[Anonymous No.16008784]

>>16003426
I'd choose to understand and agree with you if I could, but determinism has ordained that I can not.

[Anonymous No.16008798]

>>16007491
prove the past exists.

[Anonymous No.16009051]

>>16008798
exists now? i can't. but determinism doesn't depend on the past still existing.

[Anonymous No.16009079]

>>16009051
If you can't show me the past, now, how do you expect me to prove to you I could have done otherwise in the past, now.

[Anonymous No.16009134]

>>16009051
>determinism doesn't depend on the past still existing.
WTF am I reading? How can anything happen, let alone causality or alternatively the consistent correlation of B occurring after A, if there is no past? You better not be like ''time is a human construct'' because then you still need to explain how movement occurs without comparing sense perception with memory.

>>16008798
>prove the past exists.
If it doesn't then what does that word refer to? If the past is but a fantasy then where do we get this fantasy from? I get it's strange to say: my traumatic childhood is making me drink the content of this bottle but it's true: the traumatic childhood is still present in the way our body functions now.

[Anonymous No.16009476]

>>16009079
>how do you expect me to prove to you I could have done otherwise in the past
you can't, that's the point.

[Anonymous No.16009478]

>>16009134
>WTF am I reading?
determinism simply means that nothing could have been different. it doesn't mean anything else besides that.

[Anonymous No.16009627]

>>16009478
Your thermostat is doing weather forecasts to adjust its set point. Now what?

[Anonymous No.16009760]

>>16009627
i don't know? what's your point?

[Anonymous No.16011491]

>>16003426

[Anonymous No.16012174]

>>16008798
Your timestamp proves that you posted your stupid demand from the past.

[Anonymous No.16012289]

If you want to actually 'feel' the absence of free will I recommend Sam Harris' book(s) on the topic, and also his app 'Waking Up'. Worked for me.

[Anonymous No.16012299]

>>16012289
>I MUST have free will because someone else told me so.

[Anonymous No.16012331]

>>16012299
Good reading comprehension. One sentence, impressive.

[Anonymous No.16012352]

>>16012331
Good job outsourcing your free will and its explanation to someone else.

[Anonymous No.16012353]

>>16003426
Brainlet take

[Anonymous No.16012375]

>>16009476
>please prove to me you could change my imaginary past or else your observable present phenomena do not exist
That is the point, this "prove to me you could have done otherwise or no free will" argument is retarded.
>>16009134
>If past doesn't then what does that word refer to?
A subjective consensus.
>16012174
Oh really genius, I guess if someone hack the 4chan logs I could theoretically post from the future.
The only reason I posted my stupid demand is because the rest of you retards keeps asking your stupid demand.

[Anonymous No.16012379]

>>16009476
>please prove to me you could change my imaginary past or else your observable present phenomena do not exist
That is the point, this "prove to me you could have done otherwise or no free will" argument is retarded.
>>16009134
>If past doesn't then what does that word refer to?
A subjective consensus.
>16012174
Oh really genius, I guess if someone hack the 4chan logs I could theoretically post from the future.
The only reason I posted my stupid demand is because the rest of you retards keeps asking your stupid demand.

[Anonymous No.16012382]

>>16009476
>please prove to me you could change my imaginary past or else your observable present phenomena do not exist
That is the point, this "prove to me you could have done otherwise or no free will" argument is retarded.
>>16009134
>If past doesn't then what does that word refer to?
A subjective consensus.
>>16012174
Oh really genius, I guess if someone hack the 4chan logs I could theoretically post from the future.
The only reason I posted my stupid demand is because the rest of you retards keeps asking your stupid demand.

[Anonymous No.16012385]

>>16012382
>That is the point, this "prove to me you could have done otherwise or no free will" argument is retarded.
No, the point is that you can only do what you did, you can't do otherwise.

>I could theoretically post from the future.
No, you are specifically addressing a post from the past, you can't address a post from the future and even if you "posted from the future" you could only reply to posts from the past.

> I posted my stupid demand...
because you are stupid and making stupid posts is the best you can do.

[Anonymous No.16012406]

>>16012385
>No, the point is that you can only do what you did, you can't do otherwise.
So if I ate chicken for lunch today because I couldn't have ate beef instead.
This is such a retarded statement.
Let's just cut the crap alright, if you are going to argue people have no free will, that all they do is determined by past physics, the prove it, predict exactly what people are going to do, based on past physics.
Science is predict or stfu. Bunch of midwits making retarded philosophical demands while calling others stupid is peak reddit soiyence.

[Anonymous No.16012416]

>>16012406
>So if I ate chicken for lunch today because I couldn't have ate beef instead.
Yes if you at chicken for lunch earlier, you can't do otherwise, its done now and you will have to have beef for dinner if you want beef because you already ate chicken for lunch.

>predict exactly what people are going to do
They are going to do exactly what they do and never otherwise because they can't do otherwise, they can only have done what they did.

>Science is predict or stfu.
Which is why it is up to you do prove they can do otherwise since I predict they will do exactly what they do instead of doing otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16012424]

>>16012416
>since I predict they will do exactly what they do instead of doing otherwise
The entire point of Determinism vs Free-will is that Determinism postulates all human actions is DETERMINED by past physics, and thus can be PREDICTED based on past physics, while Free-will says it can't.
Nobody gives a shit about some retarded meaningless philosophical statement such as "I predict they will do exactly what they do instead of doing otherwise".

[Anonymous No.16012451]

Body is in a homeostasis and separated from outside the world by our skin. So when the causal forces hit the body, our system repurposes it and churns out an output that is not always linear. Depending on how someone's mind has been trained, they can negate the external causation by simply not being an NPC. NPCs respond instantly to stimuli. Real agency comes from thorough analysis of everything from the input to the inference machine (brain) to the output and makes a difference in the world.

[Anonymous No.16012476]

>>16012382
>the past is imaginary
yeah, there's no hope for you.

[Anonymous No.16012482]

>>16012406
>determined by past physics
this is a mischaracterisation of determinism. as i already said in an earlier post, determinism is not about the past determining the future. it's about the forced nature of all events. i.e. they could not have been different.

[Anonymous No.16012493]

>>16012482
Look OP's pic. What do you think Determinism means in a scientific context.
You want backpedal Determinism into some abstract philosophic postulate with zero scientific relevance, go right on ahead. Just don't cry when people dismiss you on a /sci/ board.
>>>16012476
Don't ask stupid questions and you won't get stupid answers.

[Anonymous No.16012496]

>>16012493
>Look OP's pic
that's just art that i really don't have to care about.
>What do you think Determinism means in a scientific context.
the inability to have done otherwise.
>You want backpedal Determinism into some abstract philosophic postulate with zero scientific relevance
i'm afraid that's just what determinism means, for anyone who knows anything about the subject. you will have to deal with it sweetie.

[Anonymous No.16012504]

>>16012496
>>What do you think Determinism means in a scientific context.
>the inability to have done otherwise
Scientifically untrue. I could have picked beef for lunch even though I had chicken. I couldn't have ate my lunch on the moon.
You need to pick your words more carefully.
>i'm afraid that's just what determinism means
Good, now I know I can safely dismiss philosotards' version of Determinism.

[Anonymous No.16012508]

>>16012504
>I could have picked beef for lunch even though I had chicken
that's a false statement if determinism is true.

[Anonymous No.16012510]

>>16003551
No, the hidden wisdom is that freedom comes on rails. First comes years of training and conditioning to master your ability. Then comes the total freedom to impose your free will onto crude matter.

[Anonymous No.16012524]

>>16012508
You know what I just realized. You philosotards's version of Determinism is literally just "God willed it so".
People couldn't have done other than what they have not because they might have just been an emergent product of known physical forces and is completely determined by physics.
Oh no, people couldn't have done other than what they have because, literally, "God willed it so".
I bet it was a christfag philosotard who first came up with Determinism, now it all makes sense.

[Anonymous No.16012545]

>>16012524
>I bet it was a christfag philosotard who first came up with Determinism
Christians believe that there's a divine will that granted human beings the free will to do otherwise. However: going against divine will leads to suffering so christians choose to follow what they believe is divine will anyway. This christian perspective seems similar to the atheist' and taoist' saying 'go with the flow' and the yogic' union with universal consciousness. These ideas also seem similar to doing what's natural in debates about nutrition and lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.16012912]

>>16003541
free will makes perfect sense to people that have it and no sense to the people that don't.

[Anonymous No.16012976]

>>16003426
>Yes, world is deterministic.
This hasn't been demonstrated.
> There is no "free will".
This is false. Why did you put free will in quotes?
> But it still feels like there is.
Not to the NPCs (like you probably)

[Anonymous No.16013075]

>>16003426
>There is no "free will".
You don't act like it.
If you truly believed there was no free will, you would simultaneously have to believe that everyone's opinion on the matter is also predetermined, and thus cannot be altered.
The fact of you trying so hard to convert people to your way of thinking proves your belief that peoples lives are not predetermined.

[Anonymous No.16013101]

>>16013075
>people can't be predetermined to try and convince others
how simple-minded are you?

[Anonymous No.16013635]

>>16012424
That is determinism vs chaos, not free will.

[Anonymous No.16013637]

>>16012504
>I could have picked beef for lunch even though I had chicken.
You can't now, though, because you are unable to do otherwise, you picked chicken and now it is all you can have had for lunch yesterday, you will never have eaten beef for that lunch.

[Anonymous No.16013639]

>>16012524
>"God willed it so".
No, its because you already did it and you can't do otherwise now, its more about a hindsight fate than a god.

[Anonymous No.16013641]

>>16012912
Except the part where you can't justify that it is actually free and you have to accept that your form and circumstances dictate your will to make choices.

[Anonymous No.16013645]

75% of population has no free will, they're just npcs with no consciousness and just follow their programming. To them, the idea of free will is confusing and makes no sense.
25% of population has free will and it feels intuitively obvious it exists. They find it funny there're people claiming there isn't free will when it's so evidently clear there is.

[Anonymous No.16013649]

>>16013645
Except the part where you still can't come up with a coherent definition that doesn't contradict itself given your will to choose is not actually free, but bound by the limits of your body and the choices.

[Anonymous No.16014230]

no its not deterministic cause of an intelligence horizon, and manny other stuff.

[Anonymous No.16014232]

>>16014230
you could trap me in an time loop for 5 years and i will still tell you its not deterministic.

[Anonymous No.16014235]

>>16014232
localy redundant but not deterministic.

[Anonymous No.16014238]

>>16014235
all stars end bevore the hydrogene core ends.