/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16009313]

So there's no evidence of free will?

[Anonymous No.16009317]

There is. You just need to ask the relevant authorities in the afterlife.

[Anonymous No.16009335]

Free will is a semitic concept. if free will exists as jews claim:
it was created by the jewish god to give a man a choice: either be a god's drone and not suffer, or do the opposite of what god wants and suffer according to his plan. thus free will has no freedom in it.

[Anonymous No.16009360]

>>16009313
Free will simply means your will is free from prior physics, that it cannot be predicted from prior physics. Thus far science have not yet managed to be able to conjure up a model to predict exactly what a person will choose based on known physics.
>>16009335
>Yes you have free will but you better do what my God says or else!
That's just religion. Ignore them and don't throw baby out with the bath water.

[Anonymous No.16009365]

Ima stab you in the front homie

[Anonymous No.16009393]

>>16009313
Free will can’t be refuted and the deterministic conception can’t be established because free will and indeterminism have been fundamental parts of any viable laws of physics or their application since 1925 – for fudging 95 years. The quantum mechanical revolution has established the non-existence of determinism in Nature and the dependence on the observer and his choice of the observation (and free will is also exhibited by elementary particles and all other degrees of freedom due to Kochen’s and Conway’s free will theorem; a theorem means that it’s been proven mathematically).

[Anonymous No.16009394]

>>16009313
define
>free will
>>16009360
>Free will simply means your will is free from prior physics
That is a definition, however it still rests on an undefined term. Define
>will
(also under your definition quantum randomness would be free will but that's another matter entirely)

[Anonymous No.16009411]

>>16009394
>define "will" in "free will"
Enact change.
>your definition quantum randomness would be free will
Your words not mine. Maybe maybe not. The observable effect is "the ability to enact change free from prior physics", as for the cause of free-will, if there is even a cause, that's up to anybody's guess.

[Anonymous No.16009419]

>>16009393
There are alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Many-Worlds interpretation and the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which attempt to retain determinism in some form.

[Anonymous No.16009430]

>>16009313
You have free will if your IQ is high enough.
Stupid people are just the result of what happens to them.

[Anonymous No.16009445]

>>16009411
>Enact change.
"enact" implies an actor, does that actor have any special properties (such as "it is a human") or can it be any object in a causal chain, such as a billiard ball which enacts change of movement of another billiard ball?
>as for the cause of free-will, if there is even a cause, that's up to anybody's guess.
If we would know the cause then it would be subsumed under physics

[Anonymous No.16009465]

>>16009445
>can it be any object
I don't know. As far as I know we have only observed it in humans. It is most strongly exhibited when people are choosing consciously.
>such as a billiard ball which enacts change of movement of another billiard ball
That would not be "free" because the observed ball's change would be entirely predicted by the physics of the prior ball/environment..etc.

[Anonymous No.16009466]

>>16009313
Existence emerged from the quantum field. The quantum field is fundamentally random. This means everything in existence emerged from randomness. For determinism to be true the universe had to start in a known state, but this is impossible when the universe is fundamentally random.

[Anonymous No.16009477]

>>16009466
How does one prove that something is true randomness and not the appearance of randomness? There is no counterfactual universe accessible to us to compare two outcomes. You could create a simulation that appears to be identical to our universe but in which everything is deterministc.

[Anonymous No.16009735]

>>16009466
Quantum field doesn't exist, free will is freedom within the constraints of your own mind. Niggers tongue my anus.

[Anonymous No.16009745]

>>16009313
not when your gut microbiome is responsible for the majority of your decision making

[Anonymous No.16009821]

>>16009313
>So there's no evidence that we could have done otherwise?
correct.

[Anonymous No.16009824]

>>16009393
prove that you could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16010554]

>>16009313
Most people are biological automatons

[Anonymous No.16010708]

>>16010554
yeah, pelicans are pretty evil. swallowing their prey alive and whole. imagine how painful it is to die that way.

[Anonymous No.16010940]

>>16009824
Never before have I seen such a midwitted take. Implying that the ability to model various possible outcomes to a given situation, based on previous experiences, would be inherently unscientific, beacons levels of self-obliviousness that even /sci/ should not produce

[Anonymous No.16010946]

There is free will. I declare it.

[Anonymous No.16010957]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu44zAcqnXg

[Anonymous No.16010973]

Someone points at you with a gun, says "tell me where is your family, or I will kill you". Suppose you are very afraid of losing your family and you don't tell them, then this is your unconscious choice, you are acting as a reaction to fear. Let's say you are very afraid of losing your family, but you think for a moment and decide not to tell them, in accordance with all the fear you feel, but not as a reaction to it, then that is your conscious choice. That is free will, that you can go above and beyond the unconscious decision of survival. Unconsciousness is determinism. Conscious action is free will.

[Anonymous No.16010975]

>>16010940
>he models his future self as voting red or blue
>interactions between his physiology and environment since birth determined his values
>given his values his decision-making process leads to choosing one over the other
>t. Freya Williams.

[Anonymous No.16010979]

>>16009465
>As far as I know we have only observed it in humans.
Observed? What does it look like? How is it measured?

[Anonymous No.16010993]

>>16010973
>Let's say you are very afraid of losing your family
Let's say you should have thought of that beforehand.

[Anonymous No.16010995]

>>16010993
Maybe if you would have prioritized their security over Shit Cunt's security?

[Anonymous No.16010996]

>>16010973
Based take

[Anonymous No.16010998]

[Anonymous No.16011002]

>>16010973
>Conscious action is free will.
No because you decided unconsciously in both cases, the consciousness only makes up excuses for the decision made; free will as a violation of deterministic or truly random physical phenomena violates thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.16011029]

>>16010940
>the ability to model various possible outcomes
read it again. it says the ability to have done otherwise. which is one of the most popular definitions of free will. i think you need to do some reading.

[Anonymous No.16011037]

>>16011002
The difference within free will and determinism is very nuanced, I will put it in other words: it's in the quality of the decision process, not the decision itself, that makes one decision unconcious (deterministic) and distinct from a conscious decision (freewillistic idk).

How does one measure the quality of a decision? I don't know if there are any methods for that, but I do know that they might be developed by looking at the response of a subject's body, since deterministic decision making is heavily related to the bodily systems of self preservation, and conscious decision making is not so violent and more accepting and peaceful, like one surrendering to the decision of being killed by the governmental forced because being a slave goes against your values.

[Anonymous No.16011108]

>>16011037
>How does one measure the quality of a decision?
You could compare the outcome to the intended outcome.

[Anonymous No.16011117]

>>16009313
Free will is the null hypothesis. Determinism is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proving it is on determinists.

[Anonymous No.16011143]

>>16011117
>Free will is the null hypothesis.
Impossible because there is no universal agreement on the definition of free will and therefore no way to disprove it. That makes free will circular like religion.

[Anonymous No.16011226]

>>16010708
what's being done to the pelican is even more evil

[Anonymous No.16011233]

>>16009313
Yup. Free will does not exist but it doesn't matter because while everything is deterministic it is so complex it is effectively irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.16011234]

>>16009313

If you need evidence for it then you must not have it and I feel sorry for you. Those of us that have it know how great it is

[Anonymous No.16011238]

>>16011037
You are just saying that free will is the pre-frontal cortex, there's nothing "free" about going against your instincts, it is as deterministic and ruled by causality as any other decision you take, no matter how complicated and nuanced it is, the ultimate violation of one instincts, suicide, isn't any "freeer" than a knee jerk reaction, its more complex, but not irreducible.
>>16011117
>Determinism is an extraordinary claim
It's derived from the known laws of physics, free will defined as "an ability to have done otherwise" violates known laws of physics, which is an extraordinary claim, how can anything have done otherwise than in accordance with the laws of physics??

[Anonymous No.16011243]

>>16011238
Well glad we got that sorted out. I'll just tell all the slaves that they are meant to be slaves since it happened within the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.16011244]

>>16009313
There's a lot of evidence that I have free will but no evidence anyone else does.

[Barkon No.16011247]

In your sleep, the following day is predetermined. You wake up with enough power to perform to some degree of success during that day, in all its determined events. Your mind then gets bored and you feel as if you cannot safely produce any new content or you go back to sleep. Life being predetermined doesn't mean there is no free will, you can't change the day ahead, it's all predetermined by the sleep of the previous day or off of others sleep, but you can change your performance, or your direction, you just don't want to, you want to follow your dreams.

[Anonymous No.16011253]

>>16011243
Yeah? Not sure what's the catch. Just as a burglar is compelled to steal by the laws of physics so is the cop to arrest him and the judge to condemn him.

[Anonymous No.16011256]

>>16011117
Correct. Same with free will as with existence of the past, the existence of the future, the reliability of arithmetic and other basic assumptions one cannot prove rigorously but has to rely on daily.
>>16011143
You could just take a definition that's given to you by the person you're arguing against and disprove it. But your programming does not include this decision tree.
>>16011233
Low IQ.
>>16011244
Exactly. It's pointless for the man with agency to try to convince the NPC that agency exists, since the NPCs mind is incapable of conceptualizing agency as it's a subjectively experienced phenomenon. The burden of proof is on the NPC to prove the agency the man claims to have is illusory.

[Barkon No.16011258]

>>16011253
If life has no free will, then all skill based tests are invalid/void. There is no skill.

This is of course wrong.

[Anonymous No.16011259]

>>16011253
The laws of physics were found and are constantly reevaluated. Again, your free will is on the table here. Can you be trusted to make a moral judgement if you believe the results are already determined?

[Barkon No.16011264]

>>16011259
ITT: casuals versus vets at life.

[Anonymous No.16011267]

>>16011258
What? Of course there is, either you went through the circumstances that allowed you to pass the skill test or you didn't
>>16011259
>Can you be trusted to make a moral judgement if you believe the results are already determined?
Yes? Just use the compatibilist definition of free will, saying "oh its all determined so it doesn't matter" doesn't make any sense, like I said in the burglar example, just as he was determined to commit the crime so was the cop to arrest him and the judge to condemn him, there's nothing to give up, life goes as it has always been going

[Barkon No.16011269]

>>16011267
Can you - shut up please faggot?

Skill based test.

[Anonymous No.16011274]

>>16011267
But you see the problem here right? You're saying that every person including you have already a determined fate.
You're trying to wiggle a bit but I won't allow it. Your claim is that the very laws of reality are compelling us forward.
And if you told a rape victim well that sucks but you were always going to get raped so get over it then I think a lot of people would determine that your fate isn't gonna be long.
How do you sleep at night knowing your every action is already determined including this conversation? Do you really think we'll guess those black people got unlucky since x, x2, x3 and then y.
You act like you couldn't walk up and out of your life completely right now.

[Anonymous No.16011275]

>>16009313
People whose thoughts and experiences solely depend upon digital information fed to them by algorithms don't have free will.

[Anonymous No.16011276]

>>16011253
What does it feel like to exist as an NPC? Are you sort of like an actor trapped in a movie role you've never read?

[Barkon No.16011277]

>>16011276
-farts in your mouth-

DON'T HARASS THE NPCS

[Anonymous No.16011279]

>>16011277
Eat a cat dick

[Anonymous No.16011283]

>>16011274
>And if you told a rape victim well that sucks but you were always going to get raped so get over it then I think a lot of people would determine that your fate isn't gonna be long.
No need to tell them that, because that's callous and doesn't help with the situation, so why would anyone do that?
>How do you sleep at night knowing your every action is already determined including this conversation?
I don't mind it much? I still feel completely responsible for my actions, its not like our brains are very capable of comprehending this kind of stuff so it doesn't really matter that much, just like when talking to people the best way to convince them isn't to cite statistics and factual information but powerful, personal and emotional anecdotes, our minds don't register this kind of information very well
>>16011276
See my previous statement

[Anonymous No.16011305]

>>16011283
Bitch you cannot prove you know why no one else is here right? Billions and billions are missing from this conversation most of which have no fucking clue what 4chan is. You don't know why they aren't here and we are. You cannot possibly understand the mechanism that creates this situation.
It's not even impossible it's literally a fiction. A fiction you have created inside your head. Your belief is no better than that of a god that brings rain because of human sacrifice.
Gay faggot cock cum booger fart poop
Guess you wanted to know about my fart poop in my butt as I fart and poop on another butt
That's free will. That wasn't determined.

[Anonymous No.16011309]

I don’t understand people who are sad about this. It literally changes nothing.

[Anonymous No.16011319]

>>16011309
Have you considered that maybe no one is sad about this and you're just a schizo?

[Anonymous No.16011513]

>>16011226
not really, no.

[Anonymous No.16011604]

>>16009313
Free will is possible if consciousness collapses the wave function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

[Anonymous No.16011608]

The chastisement must be sufficiently punitive, but Satanic agenda is to set anyone other than myself as the decider of sufficiency.

[Anonymous No.16011808]

>>16011238
I will give you a unpopular point of view on the scientific community: everything has free will, and determinism is born from free will. In other words, free will is fundamental and determinism is an emergent phenomenon which suits our desires and experience. Sean Carroll says exactly the opposite.

This implies that every particle and therefore any macroscopical object, chooses to play the game of life, ie: the game with the rules of physics.

[Anonymous No.16011830]

So there's no evidence for determinism?

[Anonymous No.16011848]

>>16011604
I've had that channel on my backlog for a while, some good stuff about Orch-OR in there

[Anonymous No.16011852]

>>16011830
Anton Zeilinger's bold essay "The message of the quantum" (Nature 438, 743; 2005 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/438743a)))) claims "the discovery that individual events are irreducibly random is probably one of the most significant findings of the twentieth century." But we should not forget that the claim of true randomness has not yet been backed by evidence. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle nor Bell's inequality exclude the possibility, however small, that the Universe, including all observers inhabiting it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program, as first suggested by computer pioneer Konrad Zuse in 1967 (Elektron. Datenverarb. 8, 336344; 1967).

The principle of Occam's razor, which is fundamental to theory-building, favours simple explanations (describable by few bits of information) over complex ones. But if the Universe's history really included many truly random events, an enormous amount of information would be necessary to describe all the random observations inexplicable by the known, simple, elegant, compactly describable laws of physics.

A few previous attempts at discovering a pseudo-random generator behind seemingly random physical events have failed (see T. Erber and S. Putterman Nature 318, 4143; 1985 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/318041a0)).)). But as long as the randomness hypothesis has not been verified, physicists should keep trying to falsify it and search not only for statistical laws but also for deterministic rules explaining any type of hitherto unexplained apparent randomness.

[Anonymous No.16011983]

>>16009313
what would you consider evidence?

[Anonymous No.16011985]

>>16011513
ok

[Anonymous No.16012871]

>>16010993
>Just predict at a random time a man will point a gun at you and randomly ask where your family is bro, everything is your fault no matter what!

this is how boomer niggers think.

[Anonymous No.16012913]

>did the universe start from a big bang or other similar thing or did it pop into existence truly at random
>did that happen for a actual reason and that reason had a actual reason and so on forever or did it happen truly randomly
these are the only questions to if there is true will or not

if the universe started from the big bang or similar and the big bang happened for a non random reason as part of a chain of non randomness then life is deterministic
you could track every particle from the beginning of time and see all of time as a chain reaction unfoldig

if the universe started for any random reason whatsoever if at any point there was randomness introduced and something happened for NO REASON then there is free will
tracking every particle from the beginning of time would be unreliable as true randomness could effect any of them at random changing outcome in NON deterministic ways

is there randomness in the universe or not is the real question
things like quantum physics may seem random to use but whos to say if the "random" things in the universe are just to complex for us to understand

[Anonymous No.16012969]

>>16012913
>Deterministic or Random
You left out the schizo option - Intentional.
>Surangama Sutra, Buddha to Ananda
>"You didn't know, that within fabric of reality, form is emptiness, emptiness is form, originally pure, and all of reality thus. Depending on man's attention, and reacting to the amount of knowledge, thus do never-ending realities manifest themselves."
>"World is ignorant, thinking things are due to cause and effect, or that they naturally are."
>"All are manifestations of ego, differentiating and calculating."

[Anonymous No.16012974]

>>16011852
>the discovery that individual events are irreducibly random is probably one of the most significant findings of the twentieth century."
Except this wasn't discovered. Didn't read the rest.

[Anonymous No.16013484]

>>16009430

[Anonymous No.16013494]

>>16011002
You don't understand how physics works. Theoretical physics is an inferential modeling discipline where we attempt to use the axiomatically defined platonic forms in mathematics to describe mechanistically the observed world. It is not some perfect source code of the universe from which the rest unrolls procedurally.

Hamilton's principle of least action is one that we axiomatically assume. It is not something that is necessary for the universe to be a physically consistent system.

[Anonymous No.16013510]

>>16011238
Your understanding of how "the laws of physics" function is literally on the same level of religious fundamentalism as biblical literalism. You've just replaced "scientific materialism" with the divine logos.

You should spend some time reading the beliefs of these pioneers of physics. They would be embarrassed to see so many people like you mistaking their work to describe reality with the language of mathematics for a claim that mathematics is itself reality. You've lost the plot and mistaken the map for the territory.

[Anonymous No.16013556]

>>16013510
This.
These "laws" are simply consistent patterns man have observed in nature thus far.
Nobody actually knows if these patterns correspond to actual immutable laws or are just temporary phenomena unchanged thus far.

[Anonymous No.16013611]

>>16009313
Consciousness wouldn't make sense if there wasn't free will.
Imagine a robot that can replicate, self-repair and has random mutations each time it replicates. Then you have all ingredients for natural selection to happen. However, it doesn't require a conscious to work, it's still just an automata. If we speculate life emerged from non-conscious stuff, why would natural selection eventually lead to consciousness instead of automatas? If there's no free will, then there's no difference between them and beings such as humans wouldn't be biased towards having consciousness. But we are.
Then one can speculate there's some evolutionary advantage to having a consciousness. But what advantage could it be to have a subjective experience if there's no free will? Well, there's room for nondeterminism in the universe. That means there's more than one state for the same initial parameters. In such a setting, an automata would choose the state randomly. But a conscious being would pick what it wills, and it might be a huge advantage when it comes to staying alive if you can brainwash the being into thinking that being alive is important. So, even though a lot of our behavior is determined, there's room for choice, but all our brains can do is to bias our choice with pain and pleasure.
In fact, what would be the point of a reward system in our brains to tempt us to do certain things if there was no room for free will? Wouldn't it just make more sense to cut the persuation and just have us do the thing? There would be no need for the experience of pain or pleasure, only the acknowledgement of the signals. Qualia requires free will. It's so obvious it's baffling some try to argue otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16013633]

Nope. Look up the readiness potential experiments. Essentially the order of things in the brain is that random interactions of molecules tell our body to do something. then, after triggering the biological cascade to do the action (I.e. hitting a button) our brain is made aware of whatever action is taking place. So we think we control our bodies and wills but there is evidence that the causal relationship between thought and action is actually reversed

[Anonymous No.16013678]

>>16009360
>Thus far science have not yet managed to be able to conjure up a model to predict exactly what a person will choose based on known physics.
Wrong, based on known physics, you can predict all possible next states since they are all dependent on physics and no matter how much freedom you have, you will never get from point A to point B without traveling a path of all points between the two points.
Just like a weather system, predicting the next state a human transitions to with modern computing is trivial, predicting x number of states ahead become too chaotic as x increases.

[Anonymous No.16013705]

>>16009393
>I still don't understand the difference between free will mumbo jumbo and axiom of choice which is an actual math/physics construct that led scientists to largely abandon free will in favor of agency over a century ago.

[Anonymous No.16013707]

>>16009411
>Enact change.
So every animal, the wind, the sun, my cement foundation, and the topsoil all have free will?

[Anonymous No.16013709]

>>16009465
So a billiard ball filled with a series of varying density liquids as a core that rendered the path too chaotic to predict has free will?

[Anonymous No.16013712]

>>16013678
That's a whole lot of words to say nothing.
Either you come up with a model to predict human actions down to the letter, based on pure physics, thus proving everything a man does is pre-determined by physics.
Or you have proved nothing.
>>16013707
>>"the ability to enact change free from prior physics"
>muh cement
Can your cement foundation enact change free from prior physics.

[Anonymous No.16013728]

>>16013712
>Can your cement foundation enact change free from prior physics.
Cement enacts random changes upon the environmental conditions inside vs outside of the foundation, so it conforms to your poorly thought out definition of free will since many of those are dependent on random variables like phase transition and nuclear decay.

>Either you come up with a model to predict human actions down to the letter,
Which you can do as long as your predictions are very limited in scope, once you try to predict things that require many intermediate steps, chaos effects come into play and predictability becomes too explosive, just like with the weather which again I am not sure if you have acknowledged that your definition leads to the weather and many other inorganic entities having free will.

[Anonymous No.16013729]

>>16011117
No, axiom of choice is since it is the one that assumes all choices that are equal have some personal value differences that are null and equally likely.

[Anonymous No.16013730]

>>16011143
Circular arguments are the most satisfying kind as the only other possible ones are assertive which just declare themselves to be true and regressive that have no real end cause and must be evaluated infinitely.

[Anonymous No.16013733]

>>16011244
The only "evidence" you can provide is that you have a very low standard for what qualifies as free.

[Anonymous No.16013735]

>>16013730
No the other arguments start from premises we agree on so any dispute can be solved by referring back to the premise.

[Anonymous No.16013736]

>>16013728
>Which you can do as long as your predictions are very limited in scope
Link papers. This better not be some EEG again. A neurofag just got btfo in the other thread.
>random = free-will
Again your words not mine. I simply said free-will is free from prior physics, I didn't say it's random.

[Anonymous No.16013741]

>>16011269
>Skill based test.
The fact that it takes time to develop skills and you make choices around your skill set proves that will isn't free, but bound by circumstances like the amount of time that has previously been committed to developing a particular skill.

[Anonymous No.16013743]

>>16011276
If you auditioned your body before you freely chose it, why is it so terrible at being that you have to hide it and go online to make anonymous post instead of using your body to create new things?

[Anonymous No.16013746]

>>16013736
>A neurofag just got btfo in the other thread.
You mean where you only complained that the scope of successful prediction wasn't large enough to qualify as omnipotence while you completely ignored their successful ability to regularly predict choices before the willing agent was even away a choice had been made?

[Anonymous No.16013747]

>>16013736
>I simply said free-will is free from prior physics
So then you have disproved your own definition of free will since no physical body is free from prior physics.

[Anonymous No.16013749]

>>16013510
>map for the territory.
Ignore everything you think you know and observe: do shapes stay the same shape? Do colors stay the same color? Are you confident that these shapes and colors will be the same shapes and colors tomorrow? If yes then the territory has rules that exist before you make a map of the territory. If there is no (metaphorical) divine logos then where do these rules come from?

NTA.

[Anonymous No.16013751]

>>16013746
*aware a choice had been made

[Anonymous No.16013758]

>>16013746
>it's only scope wasn't large enough
>you completely ignored their successful ability to regularly predict choices before the willing agent was even aware a choice had been made?
No.
He was claiming those studies were predicting what decisions were going to be made before the person was even aware themselves. But anybody with half a brain who read the methodology can see those EEGs were just half assed mind reading devices that's reading what choices people HAVE made based on brain signals.
So if you have other papers that actually predicts decisions before awareness instead of just before reactions, by all means, link.

[Anonymous No.16013763]

>>16013735
That is what a circular argument allows for instead of infinite regression or a "because I said so" approach.

[Anonymous No.16013767]

>>16013758
No, in that image, you are clearly complaining that they limit the scope of the study to only one prediction at a time.
Now its up to you to prove that the people were actually aware of making their decision while they were deliberating before they claimed to actually be aware of making their decision.

[Anonymous No.16013770]

>>16013749
>where do these rules come from?
Physical circumstance.

If a divine mind created them, why don't the rules regularly change on the divine mind's whim and from people's prayer like they did in the bible and other mythologies that attempted to explain physics in terms of divine creation?

[Anonymous No.16013779]

>>16009393
Surely on some quantum level, perhaps completely unknown to our physicists, there exists some level of determinism, no?
"Truly random" can't be real, so every particle movement, no matter how small or seemingly random, must have something that moves it, no? Meaning that if you somehow had infinite time and infinite computing power, you could technically map out everything that ever was or will be in the universe from the Big Bang until the "end of time". It's just that the amount of computing power it would take to compute the path of the universe even a fraction of a nanosecond after the big bang in its entirety is unimaginably large.

Is this wrong? Are you telling me scientists have disproven this?

[Anonymous No.16013782]

>>16013767
>50/50choices offered -------- (20sec eta)(thinking..) ---------- (5sec eta)(brain scan spikes!!!, model predict B) ---- (person picks B)
>wE prediCted chOices beforE pEople aRe awAre wHat theY gonNa pick!!
Try again.

[Anonymous No.16013783]

>>16013782
I don't need to when you clearly just conceded, broke a fuse, and went haywire at the realization you are wrong and your choices in life aren't as free and open as you have imagined them to be.

[Anonymous No.16013801]

>>16013783
>(brain scan)+(choices WILL be offered)=(model makes prediction B)---(offer choice)---(20sec eta)(thinking..)----(person picks B)
If this is what happened THEN you can claim your study predicted people's decision, and thus free will.
If you can't understand the difference then you are just braindead retarded.

[Anonymous No.16013807]

>>16013801
That is like saying we can't predict the weather in the next hour since we first need environmental sensors data to plug into the model to calibrate it to the current weather statistics.

[Anonymous No.16013819]

>>16013807
Yes you aren't "predicting" the fucking weather by yelling it's gonna rain after seeing rain drops in the sky.
I can predict the subject is gonna pick B with just my eye balls because his hand is reaching for the B button, that doesn't mean my prediction is worth shit in the context of free-will.
The EEG predictions as they stand in those papers are just as worthless.

[Anonymous No.16013823]

>>16013819
So raining right now means it will always still be raining in an hour using additional metrics besides the fact it is raining right now to make successful projections about how long it will rain doesn't count as a prediction because you think like a chicken and assume once it starts raining it will always be raining?

[Anonymous No.16013846]

>>16013510
How does this change anything? I know that all we know about the universe is inductive reasoning, a unicorn could show up in the moon tomorrow, not sure how that matters, either our brains follow causal chains like everything else or they operate through actual magic, i.e. a process unlike anything else in the universe, that is both not causal (like particle decay) but not random (unlike particle decay). Unless you wanna suggest panpsychism like the other guy, which is a much more appealing notion than this.

[Anonymous No.16013854]

>>16013823
>>16013807
>So raining right now means it will always still be raining in an hour
wtf you even talking about right now you retard
Let me give you another example:
>chemistry
>valid model = predicts A and B mix will explode, mixes A+B, A+B explodes
>scam model = makes no prediction before hand, monitors the mixture after A and B mix, predicts A+B will explode 1 sec before explosion due to temp spike
Those EEG papers in relation to free-will is like the scam module above, get it?

[Anonymous No.16013860]

>>16013854
>wtf you even talking about right now you retard
Your retarded comment that you know it will still be raining in an hour simply by looking outside and seeing that it is raining now.

You wouldn't know A and B would explode without first knowing the chemical makeup of A and B with neuroscience, the A is measured by first connecting the electrodes to see what the current state, A, is and what the input stimulus, B is interpreted as by the neurons.

[Anonymous No.16013874]

>>16013860
>You wouldn't know A and B would explode without first knowing the chemical makeup of A and B with neuroscience
Well guess what, as it stands now with neuroscience according to those papers, you wouldn't know what happens when A and B mixes anyways, before they actually mix.
Yet here you are, claiming neurofags got a valid model to predict free-will, when in fact every one of those EEG papers contain a scam model.

[El Arcón No.16013885]

[Anonymous No.16013888]

>>16013860
>Yes you aren't "predicting" the fucking weather by yelling it's gonna rain after seeing rain drops in the sky
>equals
>Your retarded comment that you know it will still be raining in an hour simply by looking outside and seeing that it is raining now
Also holy shit what kind of retarded cope is this.

[El Arcón No.16013887]

My counterparties in such matters are biased toward proving that I'm wrong rather than bias toward proving what is true. For the millionth time, they proven nothing but their own inferiority relative to my obvious superiority.

[Anonymous No.16013892]

>>16013763
Then there are still at least two kinds of circular arguments: those with premises we agree on and those with controversial premises.

>>16013770
>Physical circumstance.
That doesn't make sense. At all. Without physical laws reality will be completely random. For apples to fall from trees / for gravity to work there must be something that makes it necessarily so.

>If a divine mind created them
You seem to have lost the plot here. The other Anon compared determinism / mathematics / physical laws to a religious belief because physical laws are not observed as things-themselves and are therefore an abstraction. The claim is not that there really is a God that rules the universe. The claim is that physical laws are an atheist' linguistic trick to hide a belief in a supernatural entity because laws = abstraction.

>why don't the rules regularly change on the divine mind's whim
Sticking to the metaphor of rules = supernatural entity: it is indeed puzzling why matter behaves consistently in a reality without metaphysical entities that enforce consistency like a hidden mathematical rulebook (= God).

[Anonymous No.16013894]

>>16013874
>you wouldn't know what happens when A and B mixes anyways, before they actually mix.
Yes you do because you know the current state, A, the input, B, and how long it takes to propagate through the neural network so that it is consciously registered, tB, so you know reaction time and you can tell if their final choice got decided faster than their ability to react to the stimulus and more than half the time, significantly greater than chance, they can successfully predict the choice before it has been consciously chosen.
Are you conceding that your free will is not actually a conscious decision and is rather determined by your physiology before you can even be consciously aware of the choice?
Predicting the choice as the stimulus mixes with neural network, but before a conscious choice can be made is definitely proof that decisions are not the result of conscious choice, but of some underlying physical process that also results in conscious experience.

[Anonymous No.16013905]

>>16013887
Science can ever only prove what is wrong and what is not yet wrong.

[Anonymous No.16013927]

>>16013888
I don't know its the only way I know how to cope with retarded statements like the one you made where you think modern weather prediction is just some guy yelling while it is raining.

[Anonymous No.16013939]

>>16013892
>Without physical laws reality will be completely random.
Yet they aren't completely random because physical circumstances are not like that, so they allow for modeling and predictive inquiry.

> there must be something that makes it necessarily so.
Yes, the physical circumstances or laws as you call them.

>physical laws are not observed as things-themselves and are therefore an abstraction.
They are about the properties of things and therefore are about things.

>The claim is that physical laws are an atheist' linguistic trick to hide a belief in a supernatural entity
Except that the physical laws are not some entity akin to a being because they have no ability to change their mind or impose their will like divine minds have been claimed to do, they are not supernatural but metanatural since they are not the omnipotent machination of some superhuman being, but potentially flawed post hoc human experience derived descriptions of the way nature seems to behave from a human perspective.

Metaphysical is not the same as supernatural.
An entity is not the same thing as a being, entity only require an observable form, being requires the explicit expression of self realization and an explicit knowledge that it exists as itself, a hurricane in an entity, but is not a being.

[Anonymous No.16013940]

>>16013894
>how long stimulus B takes to propagate through the neural network so that it is consciously registered, tB
First of all, you don't know tB. If you can somehow determine for sure when something is CONSCIOUSLY registered, you just solved the Hard Problem.
This is precisely why the prediction needs to be made BEFORE the introduction of choice to the person, before the mixing the "chemicals". There is no guess work in that scenario.
Now you are claiming oh but we know when the chemicals actually REALLY mixed when they got poured into the beaker together and we made predictions before they REALLY mixed up.
That shit just aren't gonna fly. Predict before you mix the chemicals or bust.

[Barkon No.16013947]

The complexity of my most complex room dwarfs something much more than what I have shared.

[Anonymous No.16013949]

>>16013940
>If you can somehow determine for sure when something is CONSCIOUSLY registered
You just flash something on a screen and keep lowering the interval until they can't correctly identify the image.

Consciousness is dynamic and doesn't neatly turn off, so you can't introduce things while it is off then turn it on and see how it reacts.

>the chemicals actually REALLY mixed when they got poured into the beaker together and we made predictions before they REALLY mixed up.
If you know the chemical makeup and A and B and you know the exact exothermic reaction that results based on previous data, you will also know the reaction time it takes to achieve a certain heat threshold.

In chemistry A and B just sit there and don't change considerably when stored properly, in neuroscience, A is constantly changing so measuring it too far before the reaction is instigated won't be accurate.

[El Arcón No.16013956]

>>16013905
Mathematics proves affirmative statements all the time. That's why we have theorems like "A is B" rather ones like "A is not anything other than B."

[El Arcón No.16013961]

>>16013940
If AB=CD, and CD is a number, then AB is a number. If it is also true that B is a number, then A is a number.

[Anonymous No.16013970]

>>16013956
>Mathematics
>deduction
>Science
>induction
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.16013979]

>>16013949
>You just flash something on a screen and keep lowering the interval until they can't correctly identify the image.
That's less than a second. EEG made predictions less than 1 second right after a subject is introduced with a choice?

[Anonymous No.16013980]

>>16013939
>They are about the properties of things and therefore are about things.
You have never observed nor will you ever observe such properties. You observe apples falling from trees but you don't observe gravity. Therefore it's mythology to imbue mass with the property of gravity. You observe particles bonding together / repelling eachother but you don't observe Van der Waals forces. Therefore it's mythology to imbue particles with the property of Van der Waals forces. Yet you strongly believe in those myths.

>but potentially flawed post hoc human experience derived descriptions
Since you can't observe the property of things that necessitates predictable behaviour your deterministic worldview is like free will a potentially flawed post hoc human experience derived descriptions.

[Anonymous No.16014061]

>>16013846
Causal chains are not anywhere near as strict as you believe them to be. The system could very well be Markov or autoregressive and it will look causal "on the average" because it is generally stationary despite being fundamentally probabilistic for individual state transitions.

It doesn't require magic, it just requires an understanding that there's literally no guarantee that the "least costly path" is required to be followed in practical reality. Firstly because our notion of cost is always imperfect, secondly because closed systems don't actually exist. There's no hard discontinuities in the universe.

[Anonymous No.16014064]

>>16013749
There could very well be rules to the territory that exist in and of themselves separate from the map. That doesn't mean the map isn't a map and not actually a list of the rules themselves.

My point is not that it is an impossibility that these rules exist. They could very well exist and be entirely unchanging. My point is that the rules we call the laws of physics are written by man. They are observations of the rules of the territory anchored within all of the cultural complexities of a human inferential system. They are our best approximations, and for the most part they are good ones. But they are approximations based on our interactions with what we believe they should be and shouldn't be confused for something divine (regardless of whether the divine exists in and of itself).

All models are wrong but some models are useful. Physics is a modeling discipline. QED.

[Anonymous No.16014079]

>>16009313
Nothing could possibly count as evidence for the people who say it doesn't exist. There's always an argument to be made that "well in THIS specific way you aren't REALLY free", no matter how the world turns out.

[Anonymous No.16014303]

>>16013940
This anon is high IQ.

[Anonymous No.16014332]

Consciousness bros, don't all these different theories of consciousness ignore one huge piece of empirical data? Namely, the fact that consciousness seems to emerge *at some point* during gestation?

>is a sperm conscious? Is an egg conscious?
>If yes, how do those two combine into one consciousness?
>If no, when does conscious emerge?

Like, we have our own case studies of emergence theory with every single pregnancy. Doesn't this basically hold the answer?

For idealists or panpsychists or whatever, how do you get around this?

[Barkon No.16014343]

>>16014079
The denial of free will is a cowardly thought. It is feared into existence. Gawking at the unknown. I presume all dimensions that have an unknown will feel as if free will is optional.

[Barkon No.16014345]

>>16014343
I obviously have free will.

Is the palat of choice above or below me? Yes I can only *type* using *English* but is this choice open or closed? It is open.

[Barkon No.16014347]

>>16014345
Whether or not it's known to happen, or is the preferred route of my day, also known, does not suggest if I deeply wanted to I couldn't change things.

[Anonymous No.16014350]

>>16014332
What's the reasoning here?

[Barkon No.16014351]

It's not hard for a dream state to predict all your actions the next day if you're someone who just does what it wants/physically needs.

[Anonymous No.16014362]

>>16014332
>is the wave crest ocean? is the wave trough ocean?
>if yes, how does these two combine into one ocean?
>if no, when does the ocean emerge?

the sperm and egg emerge from consciousness, not the other way around
they are both consciousness, and therefore, conscious.

[Anonymous No.16014368]

>>16011305
you sound mad and wrong

[Barkon No.16014369]

>>16014362
Consciousness derives from the watery nature of sperm, which exists in both the female and male form. The fish sperm can grow in the male testicles, and the act of transferring waters transfers an element of youth which is contained in the female egg.

[Barkon No.16014371]

>>16014369
Consciousness arrives in the body by logical consequence of pulsating body and quart body union through swirling matrix available in consciousness apt vessels.

[Barkon No.16014375]

What is consciousness if not encircling all the body parts and mind? You know, being the body, having dominion over all parts - encircled self.

[Anonymous No.16014379]

>>16009313
There are some quantum particles that behave nondeterministically so free will is real.

[Anonymous No.16014393]

>>16014332
>Consciousness bros, don't all these different theories of consciousness ignore one huge piece of empirical data? Namely, the fact that consciousness seems to emerge *at some point* during gestation?

Life begins long before conception, it begins at some point when both parents, by means of their own thoughts and therefore actions, create an environment where the probability of conception can exist, this probability is brought into existence by the parent's desire (it can even be and commonly is other people's desire). This desire, which also one can call idea or thought or geometric pattern or amalgamation of frequencies, has already life of it's own. By life meaning that this desire was born from consciousness, and therefore is conscious, and therefore has free will (it can choose to never incarnate physically for example, but if the parents intention was to concieve, it's highly probable that the desire's desire is also in alignment with the parent's desire).

[Anonymous No.16014405]

>>16014393
This was an example, some lifes begin even long before the parents existence. Some lifes are willed into existence by the desperate cry of whole of mankind's collective consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16014427]

>>16014362

What does that even mean? At what point does the human consciousness begin?

[Anonymous No.16014433]

>>16014393

Let me see if I understand what I think you're saying. Basically nature exists within God's consciousness and we also exist within God's consciousness. But we are given consciousness within that with free will. And new life forms when our intent aligns with God's intent via nature?

[Anonymous No.16014434]

>>16014427
Consciousness, also known as God or Source, is eternal. It has no beginning for it is previous to all thought.

Sorry if I am a bit cryptic but I don't want to make any shortcuts.

[Anonymous No.16014437]

>>16014434

I agree with that.
See >>16014433

But what I am asking is when the individual human consciousness emerges.

[Anonymous No.16014457]

>>16014433
Consciousness and God are the same. So yes we could say all of Nature (we included) is an extension of God's consciousness or some interpretation like that. And yes new life (ie a human fetus) forms when our intent to do so exists, which is the same as God's intent.

Nature (the 3 physical dimensions) and (if you want to include them in the definition if nature) all dimensions which contain non manifested physical information (which amount to 10 dimensions in total), are indeed subsets of the 11th and 12th dimensions, the 12th dimension representing God in pure form (oneness, unmanifested, the one, black, darkness), and the 11th dimension representing the primordial split (contrast, the manifested, the other, white, light). So everything is a subset of God/Conciousness, this implying things like: light has consciousness, or better said, light is consciousness (If I'm not mistaken, in 3D, light has the closest frequency to God).

This leaves us the understanding that God's intent is to know itself through the other, and is achieving this through splitting itself, this is the fragments of consciousness that we perceive as ourselves, a rock, a cat, the other.

[Anonymous No.16014471]

>>16014437
I don't know when the split that concieved humanity as a thought happened, it is up to history and somewhere in the records. Much less I know less about each individual's first intention for choosing to manifest as human.

The answer is: it happened at some point, it might be billions of years in the past, for some it can be pretty recently (what the woo woos call young souls).

It's kinda like asking where does the river begin? well, obviously at the Source. One can see that the river splits here or there (what I presume you call individual conciousness), the thing is, the rivers can split anywhere and at anytime, so there is no general rule for when they each individually begin.

[Anonymous No.16014494]

>>16014437
One example well know is Christ Consciousness (that is, the consciousness that gave birth to Jesus Christ), I've heard that this particular branch/river is in this day and age manifesting physically as various individuals, and for some reason they are female majority (idk why lmao). This is what the religious people call return of Christ (not what they think).

[Anonymous No.16014613]

>>16010957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwtQSNEOivk

[Anonymous No.16014786]

>>16014471

So maybe the individual split is learned/invented by the mind during growth of the fetus/baby.

[Anonymous No.16014837]

>>16014786
>learned/invented
You mean it's creation? it happens way before conception, as I previously described. >>16014393

What happens during brain development and infancy is that at some point the child is capable of separating itself from it's surroundings, creating an ego which deems itself different from everything. Having an ego is not the same as being concious. The ego and mind are functions of the brain, consciousness supersedes the brain, and therefore, mind.
Unless by mind you mean the mind of god or another not common usage of the word mind. In that case, see >>16014393.

[Anonymous No.16015204]

>>16014332
>For idealists or panpsychists or whatever
If you are asking for the schzio side of things it's pretty much this >>16012969.
The idea is that consciousness in subtler form condenses into the gross physical form *at some point* during gestation.

[Anonymous No.16015213]

>>16009313
what evidence would distinguish a world without free will from a world with free will? what test can you imagine that comes out different in these two worlds?

[Anonymous No.16015697]

>>16015213
Deterministic worlds cease to exist rapidly because there is nothing new to them.

[Anonymous No.16016133]

>>16009313
yes you are matter you want to expand, everything else are patterns.

[Anonymous No.16016137]

>>16015213
you are free to will to to will to expand.

[Anonymous No.16016139]

>>16016137
yo think its about pussy but this is a memetic hazzard. in reality you are matter matter only wants to expand, everthing else are super intellgient patterns forcing you to believe bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16016143]

at this point the discussion probably become colder as with an matrhematican have a nice day sir.

[Anonymous No.16016194]

>>16009313
If there is no free will then how do you explain my feelings?

[Anonymous No.16017462]

>>16016194
its the theral expansion of your field. if your field is realy trapped ín a body its a marble of engeneering. but it might just be e memetic weapon.

[Anonymous No.16017467]

>>16016194
>>16017462
what i weant ot say is creating an wave pattern who fakes an human experience is maybe easyer as engeneer them.
u a used to that things a solide but why are the solide?
its a dissonance of mukltible time cores, i personally cessnt imagine its very stable at all.

a broeadcast of a specific live expecience is maybe easyer to produce as billion of people.

[Anonymous No.16018646]

>>16014303
Just not as high IQ as the person they responded too which is why they were clearly wrong.

[Anonymous No.16018647]

>>16014393
What about when the woman is raped in her sleep and is never even aware of the conception then goes on to have an undetected pregnancy which leads to toilet twins?

[Anonymous No.16018648]

>>16014457
>oneness is represented by the number 12
kek this how much religion retards the mind

[Anonymous No.16019761]

>btfo'd determinism 500 years ago

[Anonymous No.16020327]

>>16019761
he was a compatibilist. not like that's much better though

[Anonymous No.16021006]

>>16009465
Observed is the demented belief that the brain's interpretation, and subsequent distortion of information, presents an absolute, unyielding truth - the sole correct view of reality. The distortion of senses and interpretation might stem from a brain function aimed at protecting the ego or self, inadvertently altering reality to safeguard its 'host' in a parasitic or symbiotic-like relationship.

It cannot be measured, despite humans wrongfully believing they can. 'Observing' remains a vague term.

Moreover, the act of measurement with instruments may introduce further distortion in interpretation due to the complexity of reality. One cannot simply measure one aspect; rather, an infinite number of factors and variables must be considered. These factors can significantly influence and affect reality, even though we are often blind to their influence.

Nevertheless, measuring with instruments presents a different aspect altogether. One could argue that it is a form of observation as well. However, it is at least less likely to be influenced by the brain's distortion effect on thoughts and interpretation of senses.

>>16010979
Observed indeed

[Anonymous No.16021071]

>>16021006
1. Prove you aren't a bot
2. Prove you aren't a figment of my imagination
Until such a time, I rest assured in being the only thing that exists and that this sim is here to stop my boredom. Every time this immersion breaks, the more lonely and bored I feel. I want you patched out of the next update.

[Anonymous No.16021102]

>>16021071
1.How would I prove I am not a bot? as you say, I very well might be one.
2.This again loops back to the first question, that I again can not prove. nor disprove.

it is as you say a figment of your imagination, I agree completly. I hold much the same belifes as you yourself do. If anything this is my world and mine alone. the rest of the world is a sim as you pointed out
>1. Prove you aren't a bot
1. How can I demonstrate that I am more than just a bot? As you've suggested, the possibility exists that I am indeed one.
>2. Prove you aren't a figment of my imagination
2.This question inevitably leads us back to the initial dilemma outlined in point 1: the inability to definitively confirm or refute such assertions. If I were to undertake actions to prove my authenticity, it might paradoxically cast doubt on my reality—am I real, or am I merely fulfilling your expectations, thereby perpetuating the uncertainty??

Indeed, I wholeheartedly align with this thought. If anything, my existence seems to be akin to a private realm, where the surrounding world could very well be a construct shaped by my senses. Perhaps the idea of the "Laplace demon" holds more truth than we or I initially thought.

[Anonymous No.16021134]

>>16018648
12 is just as spectacular as the numbers 3, 6, 9. These are the dimensions where all the previous dimensions are contained. You can see the 3rd dimension is the sum of all 1st and 2nd dimensions.

[El Arcón No.16021137]

That guy punched me in the back, and I assume the video shows it.