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

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 364x500, 1299092892423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2841999 No.2841999 [Reply] [Original]

People. I have an excercise in free will and determinism for you. I would like you to explain what happens to the guy in the following paragraph in a deterministic way.

"A man is at a beach. It is a hot, windless day and he has decided to go to the water and swim. He reaches the water and it is absolutely freezing. He now has the choice: to go in and cool off in an uncomfortable way, or return to his friends and remain hot."

It would be interesting what hard determinists like you will say to this. I have not enough knowledge about free will or determinism to have an opinion as of yet.

>> No.2842012

Impossible to know, the solution of the problem is affected by the entire status of the surrounding system, not just the perception of the man.

>> No.2842018

A determinist would say that you've already supposed that he has a choice, faggot.

>> No.2842025

>>2842018

Ok then I shall change that sentence. There are now two options. Is that fine?

>> No.2842048

I'd say almost anyone would go back to their friends. Nobody wants to be in FREEZING COLD water. that would make him even more uncomfortable.

>> No.2842063

>>2842012

how so? its a simple decision. either freeze or be hot.

>> No.2842073

>>2841999

Or given a full mapping of every state in the brain, we could conclude what the person plans to do. Thus it is deterministic. This, of course, assumes that the brain does not function with any random value generation within its "protocols", which may also be the case.

>> No.2842094

I dont think you really understand the arguments of determinism. A determinist view would say that one could predict (or determine) the choice before it was made. This would involve brain mapping all kinds of detail that are currently impossible. Another way to think about it: if you went back in time, would the man always make the same choice (determinism) or different choices on occasion (free will)?

>> No.2842103

>>2842073
Except that the processes in the brain are directly and inextricably linked to outside events and situations. [i.e. we're not talking about a brain in a vat]

Your statement makes 2 assumptions:
1] That knowing a brain state at any given time will allow you to know what that person is thinking at that time
2] That the brain state of a person is the only factor which plays into a person's decision.

Both of these assumptions are wrong. The human brain does not represent information in any way analogous to a computer and so you cannot necessarily look at a pattern of brain states and determine what thought is there. In order to be able to have a fine detail on a person's thought, if at all, you would need to know the current situation of both their brain state and the current situation of the environment that he or she is in. Basically, you'd need to know every possible aspect about the current moment throughout at least Earth to be able to make this observation--clearly this is not feasible.

Source: Philosophy of Cognitive Science I took last semester

>> No.2842118

his "choice" is controlled by small high variance chaotic factors. Maybe he saw a documentary about a russian swimming in ice cold water and decides to "tough it out". Maybe heat is more uncomfortable for him than someone else. Maybe he would feel silly changing his course of action just because the water turned out to be cold. You cannot simply say he has choice and it is undetermined just because it would be hard to follow the causal chain.

>> No.2842123

>>2842094
philisophical determinism has nothing to do with prediction... that is just some claim a scientist made at some point which later turned out to be false. All that means is he never understood determinism to begin with.

>> No.2842126

He goes back onto the beach because humans enjoy suffering in company more than suffering alone.

>> No.2842147

>he turns around
>gets on the floor
>everyone walk the dinosaur

>> No.2842162

Goddammit guys, we need to wait for more research on the brain to determine (ohohhoo) whether or not we have random values or not that influence our decisions

>> No.2842172

As a determanist myself I would say that whatever action the man takes, it was the only decision he could ever make.

Whatever he does, it's not free will, it's a byproduct of causality. If you cool water enough it has to freeze. And if you send certain impulses down the optic nerve into the brain, the gooey neurons that make up the brain have to chemically react in one way. Those chemicals are our thoughts and emotions and personality and actions. Claiming that there is some magical force in the brain that can let us "choose" how our brain chemicals will react to impulses is just as ridiculous as claiming you can make a pot of water boil only with the force of your mind. The impulses that play on the brain are bound by the exact same laws of physics as the baseball in flight.

To change them would require nothing short of magic.

You're scoffing, just as you were destined to scoff from the moment the universe burst into existence billions of years ago. "After all," you say to your computer monitor, whilst arrogantly stroking your luxuriant beard, "I can choose to stand up or remain sitting! I'm sitting here right now, making the choice! I can do either one! I know what it feels like to freely choose!"

That feeling that you can choose to do something different than what you wind up doing is just a chemical side-effect, an impression of the emotions that feels like something it really isn't, just as a certain formation of clouds can look like a castle or a tree branch can look like it's flipping you the bird. You're getting an impression of something that isn't really there.

>> No.2842174

>>2842162

Do we? If he "chose" one or the other, and then later I asked him why he made that choice instead of the other what would he say?

If it was free will, it wouldn't even make sense to ask the question.

>> No.2842192

>>2842172

That's.....that's beautiful man.

>> No.2842217

cock rapist anal bludgers

>> No.2842252

Evidence suggests that the world we live in is deterministic.

Basically, if every cause can be mapped to a specific effect, then determinism is the way that the world works.

All of science is based on this assumption. Why would we bother attempting to find the causes of things if they didn't map to specific effects?

There is no reason to think that the brain is somehow a specific exception in the universe. In fact, neuroscience and psychology suggest otherwise.

>> No.2842260

>>2842252
DUN DUN

>> No.2842299

>>2842172

Amazing

>> No.2842308

>>2842172
this is excellent, well done

>> No.2842320

>>2842252
>Evidence suggests that the world we live in is deterministic.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHno

on a macro scale (including neurons etc) yes, seems almost as if it actually is, but you're forgetting all the complete random shit at sub-atomic level

>> No.2842326

Honestly the most valid way of proving free-will is by examining PET scans of a brain, before and after.
A brain of an OCD, there is a therapy in which the orbital frontal cortex is shown to have drastically shrunken in a 8 week period. This is due to our minds (not matter) adjusting the matter in which our brains are made up of.. If it were true that our brains are just hard-wired devices, then how is it that due to our own thought we can mold the matter of our brains.. This is due to free-will. If everything has already been determined then there is no way our brains could have changed size. How can a hard-wired machine change its wirings? It can't, but you can.

>> No.2842345

>>2842326
Epigenetics bitch do you know it?

>> No.2842355

>>2842326
Self-modifying =/= nondeterministic.

>> No.2842367

>>2842326
i'm sorry but your argument makes no sense. sounds just like the watch and watchmaker argument theists sprout about

>> No.2842380

>>2842172

Oh, I should have read your post before making my own. You explained determinism much more clearly.

>>2842320
No, I am not. Does it really matter if the subatomic level appears random if the end result is a macroscopic level that is deterministically predictable?

I also don't understand why this conversation always revolves around the brain. People are arrogant in nature. They have no problem conceding that the heart or stomach is deterministic in nature, but some reason they think the brain is some sort of magical entity.

Use some critical thinking skills please.

>> No.2842391

He either goes in the water or doesn't. That's what happens. But whatever happens is inevitable.

>> No.2842413

>>2842172

>the gooey neurons that make up the brain have to chemically react in one way. Those chemicals are our thoughts and emotions and personality and actions.

I have no science background and was sitting here trying to understand your post and I think I got the gist of it, but I don't really know what you mean when you said "those chemicals". I assume you weren't specific for the sake of length, but I just don't know what these chemicals would be/are. So for example, the actual names and operations of the chemicals.

Sorry if that was worded poorly, still trying to articulate my thoughts.

>> No.2842416

>>2842380
>Use some critical thinking skills please.
okay bro, heres some critical thinking for you:
>subatomic level appears random
it does not just "appear" random
>end result is a macroscopic level that is deterministically predictable
to a certain extent only, you can predict (experimentally proven yes) the choices you are about to make in maybe, say, 15 minutes, an hour, a year, but somewhere down the line, those little changes at the sub atomic level is going to break the deterministic chain. you can compose something predictable out of something that is unpredictable. we are all a bunch of probability waves, so to speak; just because our wavelengths are fuckign tiny doesn't mean they are non-existant

also, argument is revolving around the brain because it is the most complex organ (maybe the most complex object?) we have. however my argument wasn't based around the brain

PS: here's some reading for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

>> No.2842422

>>2842345
lmao, Epigenetics literally has nothing to do with neuroplasticity...
>>2842367
So you're saying that it was all part of your plan to modify, I guess that's a valid argument. But still, you're following in the footsteps of a philosopher 300+ years outdated... Descartes.
So, don't make me laugh, you think he had it all figured out? LOLOL fuck off. Its generally accepted that he was pretty much wrong. This life isn't determined, sorry.

>> No.2842430

>>2842413
i'm not him but a simple example could be neurotransmitters between the neurons, or even charge carriers like K and Ca. the point is that all the "operations" inside the brain are bound by the laws of physics, which doesn't leave any room for choice making

>> No.2842438

>>2842422
>quoting a philosopher
>on /sci/
oh boy, idontgiveafuck.jpg

>> No.2842443

>>2842422
No but it does show how even our genetics can change, so just like our brain, they adapt to our environment (deterministic)

>> No.2842448

>>2842438
I didn't quote a philosopher..?
Everybody in here is.. LOLOLOL
I was saying how silly it is to do so

>> No.2842456

>>2842443
But in the original point I made, I didn't say the brain changed due to environment. In these OCD patients it wasn't anything external that changed the way they thought, but instead it was there own minds morphing the matter in their brains..

>> No.2842457

>>2842422
actual philosophy major here.
there is no consensus that descartes is wrong.

>> No.2842459

>>2842422
Not the guy you responded to, but you're incorrect. And here's why. Life is deterministic because you make choices based on outside influences. I.E. You turn up the AC because you are hot. Or, the AC is expensive, and the reason it is expensive is because a owner of the energy company wants more money, because of it gives him enjoyment. Sorry, english is not my first language.

>> No.2842463

>>2842448
>descartes
is there a physicist named descartes that i don't know about?
okay you didn't quote him i misspoke but still

>> No.2842469

>>2842172

This is fantastic, please write more

>> No.2842479

>>2842416
you "can't" compose.... sorry about that

>> No.2842480

>>2842456
>In these OCD patients it wasn't anything external that changed the way they thought
>there is a therapy in which [...]

>implying therapy isn't en external influence
>still implying that self-modification is a case against determinism

>> No.2842485

>>2842459
WHAT? Firstly not one piece of the information I laid out is wrong, so Idk how you're going to say it was. Secondly, Honestly, that's your example, oh yeah life is deterministic because when its hot I have to turn the AC on.. But wait a minute couldn't I just turn a fan on, oh wait I could also just deal with the heat, oh yeah that's right! I could also just KILL MYSELF.
You act as if life is as simple as this or that...
You've got a vast quantity of choices in which to choose. So don't even go there and say this is why I'm wrong. YOU'RE WRONG!

>> No.2842495

>>2842456

Do you consider the placebo effect to be magical free will mind powers at work, too?

What you described sounds pretty much like the same thing.

>> No.2842496

>>2842480
>en external influence
>en
Goodness, I'm sleepy.

>> No.2842500

>>2842485
I was trolling. You mad?

>> No.2842510

>>2842485
Guy you responded to here. I'm saying your reaction is based of out side influences. Because something happens, you respond. Your reaction is based of what your ideals are and knowledge, and bodily reactions to it. Sorry if I come of sounding like Ayn Rand.

>> No.2842512

>>2842495
Ok, well I guess I worded it wrong then. Self-therapy.. Because that's essentially what the therapy consisted of. Has anyone here read Jeffrey M. Schwartz, The Mind and The Brain
He's the one who examined these PET scans. If you honestly believe determinism then I challenge you to read it..
>>2842500
Yes, so I guess you can take pleasure in being a douche-bag... But that's you.

>> No.2842527

>>2842463
A physicist no, he was a philosopher. But still I was just explaining how he took strong belief in this determinism. And yet in current science, he is considered outdated. Nobody honestly takes what he wrote seriously, at least not what he wrote on Materialism, and Determinism...
He was one of its strongest advocates.

>> No.2842535

>>2842416

I think you need a better understanding of physics.

"So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times!"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#DetHumAct

>> No.2842536

>>2842469

Glad you liked it, let me give you my opinion of causality and determinism.

When you were a babe at your mother's crotch, you had a brain built on the genes handed down by your parents, and they got theirs from their parents, all the way back to the first life formed by an accidental cell mutation. And everything you've seen or heard in your life since was fired into your brain as electrical nerve impulses from your eyes and ears. We can measure those impulses. They are physical things. And each of those impulses, what you called 'sights' and 'sounds' threw certain chemical switches in your brain, all of which can also be observed and measured. Those switches, as they turn as predictably as gears in a clock, are what we call 'thoughts' and 'emotions' And what you know as your 'self' is just the accumulation of chemical changes made to a genetic blueprint. We could change it in a lab. We could make you fall in love. We could make your soul from scratch. EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER HEARD ABOUT FREE WILL VERSUS FATE CAN NOW BE MEASURED IN A LABORATORY. THE DEBATE IS OVER.

>> No.2842537

>>2842512

The placebo effect is self-therapy.

>> No.2842548

If you argue in favor of "free will" then you essentially evoke Cartesian Dualism.

I hope we all realize by now that Dualism is just silly.

>> No.2842551

I was also just thinking about future wise what the acceptance of Determinism will do to mankind.
Imagine if anyone believes everything they do is meant to happen. OMG, Imagine unemployment rates, I would imagine people would take much less interest in advancement. I can imagine right now people saying "What does it matter, this is what I was meant to do." Drug Addicts would stick to drugs, Pedophiles would stick to raping children, Murderers would keep on murdering.
Just think for one second, try and put yourself in other peoples shoes. I can see how this will more than likely because an excuse for everything that you do that is wrong. Am I wrong?

>> No.2842552

>>2842536
Different guy than the first. Please write a book. L

>> No.2842562

>>2842551
The guy goods not good at english here, thats a logical fallacy you cant argue a theroy by the consequences of it.

>> No.2842563

>>2842551

Stupid people are going to be stupid.

As for the people who have a brain, they will just realize that whether the world is deterministic or not, the experience of free will is just as real.

>> No.2842564

Determinisms is the only true scientific way of thinking. All other schools of thought are null and void. The idea is that humans possess control of some kind of invisible metaphysical energy ("soul") that lets them actually choose their actions, apart from the pure physical push of genetics and stimulus. It supposedly exists independently from the physical brain and it acts by choosing, not based on opinion, but by recognizing inherent "good" and "bad" things in the universe.

They imply that the emotional impression you get from a kitten in a blanket versus a pile of maggots on a human face is a result of the soul actually tuning into an inherent "goodness" in the first and "badness" in the second. They imply that these attributes exist whether you are there to observe them or not. They imply that if there were only two men left on Earth, and one murdered the other, the murder would still be wrong even though there is no one left to think it is wrong.

And by that, they say, humans are able to do something incredible, which is to re-make the physical universe in ways they see fit. It may have been destiny for a stone to roll to a certain spot and stay there, but this power of "will" lets a human actually interrupt that destiny by picking up the stone and sticking it in his pocket.

It only demonstrates how ridiculous this is when we notice that the only observable instance in all of the universe where this power is exercised is via one particular species living in one short span of time on one particular tiny speck of a planet out in the vast ocean of nowhere.

That would suggest that human beings are not only unique in their physiology, but actually harness a sort of energy that is stranger and, in some ways, more powerful than that found in the stars that dwarf their planet. We're back to the ridiculous geocentrism that says all of the universe revolves around us humans. As if there was something special about us.

>> No.2842567
File: 47 KB, 380x432, George Berkeley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2842567

If determinism necessarily relies on the principles of cause and effect, then it is ultimately fallacious in this nature. It can never be known if X causes Y, only that X precedes Y, and that Y is a sign of the occurrence of X.

Within the contemporary and commonly held world-view, causation makes sense, because, for the most part, it works. Once this paradigm fails, notions of causation will shift or fall into abandonment. At the macro-level of events, this has not come to pass. However, at the micro-level, where quantum sciences have grabbed hold, the notion of causation slowly dissolves, and the conceptual aftermath that would be determinism (if causation were to be true), fails.

This is not to say anything regarding free-will though.

>> No.2842568

>>2842562

He wasn't he was just talking about the possible consequences of the theory, when people start accepting it.

>> No.2842578

>>2842562
Yes, I know, but I'm not using it as a counter argument for disproof but rather I'm just saying would mankind be better off not knowing something like this if it were to be true? When talking of things of such importance it is in our best interest to examine the possibilities of what outcomes may be possible.

>> No.2842583

>People. I have an excercise in free will and determinism for you.
I already don't give a fuck.

>> No.2842597

>>2842578
"We dont care who likes this or not, as long as we know it's the truth"

>> No.2842605

>>2842535
i'm studying for an exam right now so i didn't have time to read the whole thing but i jsut found the quote you wrote and read the next sentence which gave me a chuckle (not because it was silly or anything)

"...everything hinges on what interpretational and philosophical decisions one adopts."

sorry i don't have time to argue anymore, maybe if this thread is alive tomorrow i'll read the whole thing and respond

>> No.2842606

>>2842567

I suppose you too need the link.

"So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading. Ironically, quantum mechanics is one of the best prospects for a genuinely deterministic theory in modern times!"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#DetHumAct

>> No.2842612

>>2842597
That's not what I was saying, but rather the opposite.
I hope you meant that to show what everybody else opposing my statement was basically saying...

>> No.2842625

>>2842567
stop quoting century old philosophers on a science board please
determinism is a concept based on science, not philosophy

>> No.2842643

>>2842413
>>2842413

Posted this a bit earlier, still trying to understand things.

I sort of made up my own scenario and have just ended up confusing myself further. So:

There's a guy playing a video game, and after dying on a certain level his brain tells himself to give up and stop playing. But what if one day he tried the level again? This second time playing he still died on the level, but instead of quitting he kept playing.

Doesn't that sort of contradict what he did in the first situation? Or is it because the second situation is (even if slightly) different that he kept playing? I assume that just because he gave up once doesn't mean he'd give up if he ever tried again - like it was a constant unchanging value of decision making.

So...given the influences of the outside world, the chemicals in the brain (mentioned in that guys post) would react differently, thus producing different results? I think?

Bah, this is confusing.

>> No.2842658

>So...given the influences of the outside world, the chemicals in the brain (mentioned in that guys post) would react differently, thus producing different results?

Yes.

>> No.2842661

>>2842643
Yup higher balances in the brain would allow him to feel less frustrated or vice versa... Interesting isn't it?

>> No.2842669

>>2842643

The 2nd option. If you are asking a more specific question about determinism, I can help you with that as well. Your question seems to be how much does our environment effect us vs our genetics.

Look into adopted twin studies for your answer.

For example, if one twin is gay there is a 50% chance that the other one is gay as well. The probability decreases as the genetic relationship decreases. For example, I think the statistic is 10% when considering adopted siblings instead.

>> No.2842706

>>2842661
It really is pretty cool.

>>2842669
>For example, if one twin is gay there is a 50% chance that the other one is gay as well. The probability decreases as the genetic relationship decreases. For example, I think the statistic is 10% when considering adopted siblings instead.

So, because they are twins it's more likely that their brain would operate in the same way, but if they are brothers only by adoption it's less likely because their brains aren't structured in any similar way? Tell me if I'm getting it or not

>> No.2842714

>>2842606

And yet, this is dependent on interpretation, as noted in your link.

"If one adopts an interpretation of QM according to which that's it—i.e., nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions governed by the equation tell the complete physical story—then quantum mechanics is a perfectly deterministic theory"

So the consequent, that quantum theory is deterministic, is necessarily dependent on the truth of the antecedent, that one adopts a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics. So, if there is at least one interpretation that does not consequently result in determinism, then it is not necessarily the case that within a world view that incorporates quantum mechanics, that this world view also incorporates determinism.

Here is the correct link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#QuaMec

As well, the entire point is missed, the argument presented is based on the notion of causation, which, if determinism depends upon, and is fundamentally flawed, rules out the ultimate usefulness of determinism. Once again, it can not be said, with all certainty, that X causes Y, only that X precedes Y, and that Y is a sign of X. To say X causes Y suggests that there is some power within X that brings about Y. This cannot be known, as it is a limit of our perceptual capacities.

>> No.2842717

So everyone backing up determinism therefore must also back up a God theory, correct?
Who is it that determined this life for you?

>> No.2842735

>>2842717
hahahahahahahahahaha
cool troll chap, 9/10

>> No.2842756

>>2842735
Honestly wasn't trolling, just curious where determinists stand on the idea of god, or at least on the idea of what is determining all of this?

>> No.2842770

>>2842756
oh, okay then
determinism leaves no place for a god, there aren't any choices made, there aren't any options and there certainly isn't any evil or good, everything just is. it's the ultimate materialism

>> No.2842791

>>2842770

Unless of course you take Deism into consideration. In which case what you have said is only partly true.

>> No.2842799

>>2842770
i disagree; it's the new nihilism

>> No.2842822

>>2842770

You can never really claim anything "has no place for God" because they'll just go "herp derp magic exists outside the physical world you can't disprove nothin' derp herp"

>> No.2842831

>>2842770
So when Australopithecus where still roaming the earth, it was already determined that they would evolve into human beings as they are today (over a very pro-longed period time, we all know). But then you will say, Oh no, it was the adjusting to the nature surrounding us they we evolved as we did, but then I ask you, was earth determined to be as it is? Because I do believe theory holds it was asteroids that hit each, melted together and cooled to form earth as it was, and is. So you honestly believed all that was determined to happen? As of right now, its just curiosity asking the questions? Not bashing (yet)...

>> No.2842841

>>2842706

Yeah that's right.

An easier, less pride-hurting example is physical fitness. If one twin is in good shape, the other twin is also more likely to be in good shape.

Even though there are obviously environmental influences on fitness, there is also a very clear biological basis to physically fitness.

>> No.2842851

>>2842841
Likelihood = Deterministic?

Nope.

>> No.2842856

>>2842625
And science is based on philosophy, ergo determinism is based on philosophy.

>> No.2842879

>>2842162
\thread

>> No.2842883

>>2842831

I'm not that guy, but even if you were to assume that something in the universe causes indeterminism, it still wouldn't be any proof or indication of a god. It would just be random occurences distrupting the link of determinism.

But I don't believe such things exist.

>> No.2842897

>>2842879

Bullshit. Saying such things already assumes that there is something about the brain that does not follow physical laws.

>> No.2842894
File: 18 KB, 480x360, 1301844471363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2842894

>mfw /sci/ is flooded with 20 of these exact threads every day

This is not some new example you've brilliantly come up with. This is a textbook thought experiment.

>> No.2842908

>>2842714

>Y is a sign of X

How is this statement not a cause?

> This cannot be known, as it is a limit of our perceptual capacities.

Why would you speculate outside of perception? The current perception (aka evidence) suggests that there are causal relationships.

Determinism is the foundation of the scientific methodology, so while you continue to pretend that determinism does not exist, I hope you enjoy hypocritically relying on it to make predictions.

>> No.2842912

And honestly what's not making much sense, is if true that a brains are hard-wired.. Everything that is happening was predetermined to already happen, then why is it that I'm choosing to disagree with such a thing? Why is it that I've come up with valid arguments in contradiction to determinism? How does that fold into the idea that I've been determined. Wouldn't I readily agree to everything being predetermined if it were so, how could it be that I was determined to argue that I was determined?

>> No.2842917

>>2842831

Yes, since the beginning of the universe, the big bang, particles have been moving in one direction. Maybe that that direction lead to the creation of the earth, you eating a pop tart this morning, or a waterfall looking awesome. It doesn't matter, the postiion those particles are in now are because that was the result of their trajectories. Even that particles in your brain, the ones givining you the illusion of thought, are only there because that is the result of a massive expansion of matter 13.7 billion years ago.

>> No.2842922

>>2842851

casual relationship = determinism

fag

>> No.2842934

>>2842422

>lmao, Epigenetics literally has nothing to do with neuroplasticity...

Wow. You are really fucking stupid aren't you. Have you ever opened up a biology book?

GTFO you poorly disguised Christfag

>> No.2842954

>>2842912

No dude.

Let me put it in a way that you can understand. Your physical brain (not some voo doo magic soul) is the cause of your self-awareness and choice.

If I destroy that cause by smashing your brain into pieces, you would no longer have the effect of being self-aware.

>> No.2842962

>is if true that a brains are hard-wired

Good night /sci/.

This is going over the line.

>> No.2842981

>>2842934
I'm an atheist.
So make a point please?
Epigenetics doesn't have anything to do with neuroplasticity, if you think it does, you don't know what you're talking about.. Please do explain the relation, I'd love to hear

>> No.2842994

>>2842954
What? I don't believe I have a soul, but I do believe in free-will... These two don't coincide, if you think they do, you're either an idiot or not understanding the foundations of free-will...

>> No.2843015
File: 19 KB, 381x400, 1294161247955.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2843015

>>2842994

HOW?

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY YOUR BELIEF IN FREE WILL WITHOUT A SOUL?

YES I MAD

MAD AS FUCK

I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS SHIT FOR 3 HOURS AND DENSE MOTHERFUCKERS KEEP POPPING OUT OF NOWHERE.

>> No.2843031

Just arrived in the thread, can't be bothered to read the entire thread, so what do we define free will as here?

>> No.2843058

>>2843015
Why mad? Explain then for me, whether you'd like to explain in full detail, or just an abridged summary of why free-will can exist in a system where a soul does not exist..

>> No.2843070

>>2843031

>the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined

>>2843058

>Explain then for me, whether you'd like to explain in full detail, or just an abridged summary of why free-will can exist in a system where a soul does not exist..

>why free-will can exist in a system where a soul does not exist..

THAT'S WHAT YOU BELIEVE, NOT WHAT I BELIEVE. YOU EXPLAIN TO ME.

>> No.2843072

>>2843058
I meant free-will cannot exist in a system where a soul does not exist...

>> No.2843088

>>2843072

Because:

Event X has to either:

1. Follow pre-determined rules

2. Act out of true randomness.

This is a true dichotomy. There is no third option.

Free will doesn't fit into either of these categories.

>> No.2843089

>>2842981

"In biology, epigenetics is the study of changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above) -genetics."

In other words, epigenetics is a form of gene regulation. Certain proteins are expressed more or less frequently in any cell depending on environmental input.

Of course there are other more significant aspects in which the brain is able to interact with the environment but saying that epigenetics plays no role in neurology would be incorrect or dishonest.

Sorry if I misjudged the meaning in your first statement.

>> No.2843127

>>2843072
why is the soul necessary for free will?
how is it a requisite part of the equation?
how would you define the soul in the first place?

>> No.2843136

>>2843015
I'm no neuro-scientist so I don't know if my brain processes have any random element in them.
That's why I don't claim hard determinism in human actions.
If it's proven that there are no random elements then okay.
But really the whole issue isn't that interesting since the difference of which hypothesis is correct is largely meaningless.

>> No.2843140

>>2843088
Those sound like rules, what if it doesn't follow those rules?

>> No.2843151

>>2843140

Then it's something magical. Or completely unexplainable, AKA "paranormal".

>> No.2843155

>>2843136

>I'm no neuro-scientist so I don't know if my brain processes have any random element in them.

Even if there was a random element it still wouldn't imply free will.

see >>2843088

>> No.2843165

>>2843151
unexplainable things don't have to be paranormal, there's plenty of things that are impossible to describe.

>> No.2843170

>>2843089
That is ok, as long as you now understand what it was I meant.
>>2843088
What? Are you serious? Where then do you factor in environmental adaption. It seems you don't understand yourself what it is you believe in.. From my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, determinism is basically a given name for cause-and-effect, correct? Therefore, I must know, for myself to believe, what is it that is causing nature. If everything can be tied in to a cause-and-effect, what is the cause of nature? I see its effects, they are obvious, evolution. We are the effects it seems. I do believe you've been describing it on this level that there must be something that causes us to think the way we do, in last the effect is what we do, correct? But like I did, try and think of it on a level of many different aspects.. If you can give a cause for nature, I would assume you're only response could be the big bang, but then please do give me a cause for the big bang. It seems the easiest way to break determinism down, and to show its fallacy, is in asking what is the cause. You're describing to me the effect. GIVE ME THE CAUSE GOD DAMMIT!!!

>> No.2843184

>>2843165

The very nature of it doesn't agree with the physical world, as demonstrated.

That is why believing in a free will also requires some sort of belief in a soul or god or something magical.

>> No.2843187

>>2843155
Then this whole free will discussion is even dumber than I thought.

>> No.2843196

>>2843127
for free will to exist, there must be a "self" outside of the physical body that isn't affected by physical events.
If it is affected by said physical events, it obviously has a ruleset of sorts, making it deterministic.

>> No.2843202

>>2843170

So this whole argument was based upon your disbelief in the theory of the big bang?

You should've said this earlier, so I wouldn't have bothered, because that really isn't my area of expertise. I'll let someone else take over that explanation for me.

>> No.2843220

>>2843170

Speculating on the cause or lack thereof is just speculation.

If we consider the evidence though, causality exists without exception.

>> No.2843265

>>2843202
NOOOO!!! WTF? I'm saying what caused the big bang, the big bang theory, is the most widely accepted theory on how the universe was created in the scientific world... As of right now there isn't such a theory accepted as to what caused the big bang, actually there is a number of theories.
But what seems odd to me, I'm not bashing, how you can stand solid on a deterministic view point when you have no idea what caused the big-bang. If everything has a cause-and-effect, what then caused the big bang, its a simple question in a sense of determinism because it asked the question that you say you have all the answers to. What caused it? I see the effect, that being the physical aspect of the entire universe, but I don't see the cause? It seems to me because there isn't one, it was at this point free-will was created, because it was at this point that something spontaneous happened that had no cause.

>> No.2843288

>>2842799
If all you see is nihilism in science then I feel bad for you, son. You don't need to reify the existence of a very specific Abrahamic Divine creator just to avoid killing yourself or not giving a shit. Stuff will always remain meaningful to you because, if nothing else, its all you will ever know.


The apparent lack of free will doesn't mean the removal of action and intent. Individuals can still be held morally responsible. It's just that those morals are formed through rationality, through social and cultural experience instead of apparently being handed to us from some mystical creator that can't ever be known.

I suggest you take convert to Buddhism if you're depressed about science.

>> No.2843295

>>2843265

The cause and origin of the Big Bang is a completely different discussion that we're having.

I do know enough to say that whatever was "before" the Big Bang was not the same physical reality that exists now, so applying concepts like determinism to it isn't fair.

Also, as >>2843220 said, all evidence points to determinism being correct in this universe.

>> No.2843298

>>It seems to me because there isn't one, it was at this point free-will was created

Who said there isn't one?

Believing that causality breaks down at that point is a leap of faith. Even if the big bang randomly occurred, like the other person mentioned earlier, free-will does not automatically follow. Remember, free will also requires that the owner of the free-will chose the actions.

>> No.2843302

So I have a question, what does everybody in here think about Compatibilism?

>> No.2843306

>>2843302
I'd first need to know what that is

>> No.2843321

>>2843302

I've tried reading about it. I listened to an hour long lecture of Daniel Dennet explaining his view on free will (which was basically compatibilism).

But I still have no goddamn clue how it works.

>> No.2843326

>>2843295
Ok, there you have it. That was a really good point.
Determinism states that everything has been determined since the big bang, it would make all the more sense in this fashion. Because it seems the cause-and-effect starts there. The cause of all this is the big bang, everything we perceive is the effect. I am officially a determinist. Congratulations! You've "converted" me. lol

>> No.2843332

everyone in this thread clearly missed to point.
1. hot air
2. cold water
3. windless day.

wrrrrrrrooooooonnnnnnggggggggg

>> No.2843334

>>2843302

If I am not misunderstanding the concept, I would agree.

Even if our actions are deterministic, we still have the illusion of free will and can still be held responsible for our actions.

For example, even if a murderer was determined to be a killer, I would still suggest locking the murderer away to prevent the murderer from killing again. Although, preferably, in the future, there will be forms of medical treatments to help cure lunatics.

>> No.2843337

>>2843306
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.

>> No.2843347

>>2843337

I'm >>2843321 and I know THAT much, it says that on the wikipedia page, but I still don't understand the inner workings of it.

>> No.2843351

>>2843326

>I am officially a determinist. Congratulations! You've "converted" me. lol

If you're not being sarcastic here that does indeed make me feel satisfied. I can finally go to sleep now.

>> No.2843366

>>2843337
but then, how the fuck does one define free will in compatibilitism?

>> No.2843372

>>2843366
like freedom as that's commonly understood. So yeah it's not really free will as we've been referring to it at all. compatibilitism isn't relevant to this debate on free will, at least. Maybe another one where free will i a different thing entirely.

>> No.2843384

>>2843372

That is what I've never understood. What is free will as according to compatibilism.

>> No.2843386
File: 32 KB, 184x184, 1299717277951.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2843386

the free will and determinism debate is incredibly stupid.

You are a biological machine that is programmed to behave a certain way based on genetics and past experiences.

You will behave in a predictable way no matter what the situation is, all that matters is your prior experiences and genetics.

>> No.2843394
File: 20 KB, 273x240, 1288606139677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2843394

>>2843386

>> No.2843396

>>2843384
>What is free will as according to compatibilism.

Individual volition

But free will when opposed to determinism, is more metaphysical

>> No.2843430

>>2843384
The fact I can choose whether or not to pick up my coffee cup right now is me acting upon my will.


But free will within the debate in this thread is more like : if that point in time when picked up my coffee cup were to replay a million times with all conditions remaining the same each time, is it possible for me act differently?

>> No.2843448

>>2843351
I'm serious, I'm converted.. Be satisfied
>>2843384
Its more like limited freedom.

>> No.2843457

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x.

>> No.2843478

>>2841999
if he's from /sci/ he might know enough that getting into freezing water out of the heat will only make him fucking sick as though he'd stood outside on a cold day with no coat.

But you were to fucking retarded to realize this when making up that stupid scenario...

>> No.2843479

water

you'd be uncomfortable for a short time, but then be comfortable when you got out for a much longer period of time, until you dry off

>> No.2843481

>>2843430

>The fact I can choose whether or not to pick up my coffee cup right now is me acting upon my will.

Not really...

If you accept determinism, whether you were going to pick up the cup or not was determined beforehand.

I don't see how that is your "will" existing logically with determinism.

>> No.2843513

>>2843430
cont.


change "picking up my coffee cup" with "raping a 9 year old girl".

If I chose to rape a child, thats me acting upon my own freedom, volition, liberty etc.

It is not me acting out 'free will'. Because, all conditions remaining equal, I was always going to do it.

That does not mean I can't be held morally responsible for my actions as Intention and moral responsibility are affiliated with the first definition of 'free will' not the second.

What it does mean is that the morality on which the action is judged is based on sociocultural processes, not given to us from a supreme creator.

This is moral relativism. It does not mean all moralities and equally good. It means the morality in which you are situated with can be considered the best because its the only morality you have. It is liable to change. Morality is a highly volatile process but you will always consider that which you hold to be the best course of action. For the most part, morality can be formed alongside rationality.

>> No.2843541

>>2843481
>If you accept determinism, whether you were going to pick up the cup or not was determined by my brian and its response to external stimulus as opposed to some third party external to physical reality.

>> No.2843552

>>2843481
>I don't see how that is your "will" existing logically with determinism.

It's liberty and freedom existing logically with 'free will'.


Free will doesn't equal liberty.

>> No.2843568

>>2843513

That makes it a bit more clearer, but I'm still having trouble understanding the distinction between

>my own freedom, volition, liberty

and

>'free will'

>> No.2843587

>>2842172
this post is not very intelligent
>gooey neurons that make up the brain have to chemically react in one way
>gooey
what a poet
>have to
HAVE TO =/= DO

>> No.2843615

>>2843568

1) Liberty, etc. means that your self-aware brain is making decisions and can be held accountable for them.

2) Free will in the sense that we were talking about on this thread means that your brain is not pre-destined to make the decisions that it will make.

Compatabilists believe in a version of free will that is closer to definition to liberty, etc.

>> No.2843623 [DELETED] 

>>2843568
When we say something is determined in this debate we do not mean it is inevitably going to happen.

What we do mean is that an action was governed by physical reality of brain and the material world, as opposed to some unreal abstract 'mind'.

i need to sleep now. read the compatibilitist article on wikipedia :S

>> No.2843649

>>2843615

So compatibilism has more to do with 'free will' and it's relation to moral responsibility than it's relation to physics? Would that be a fair statement?

I've gotten a bit confused after discussing this for 4 hours so what I just wrote might be gobble-de-gook, but it sounds intelligent to me.

>> No.2843647 [DELETED] 
File: 29 KB, 550x409, 10SECONDS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2843647

GO

>> No.2843669

>>2843649

Yeah, I think so.

>> No.2843702

>>2843649

Oh, another way that you can think of it is that compatabilist free will is addressing the perception of free will while the free will that we were talking about in this thread was physics/causality free will.

>> No.2843730

>>2843702

I see. I'll have to go through the compatabilist wiki page properly soon.

Now my head is starting to spin from all this debate and /sci/ seems to be bored of it too so it's time to call it a day.

>> No.2843740

Determinism is the thesis that "at any given instance, there is one physically possible future." (Dennett, Freedom Evolves)

Using this, both choices are just as likely; also, I have no knowledge of his prior actions, i.e. before this situation, or his actions in similar situations.

>> No.2845364

>>2842172

This is beautiful man

>> No.2845402

>arguing and conjecturing a bunch of unfalsifiable ideas like a bunch of 16th centure "natural philosophers" on a science board
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>> No.2845959

Don't forget the effects of random quantum processes on brain activity.