/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3983601]

Hi

The ones who believe in free will, please answer. Others can fuck off.

How much do you think free will has an effect on a single human being when compared to genes and environmental factors? (so called nature vs. nurture vs. free will) What do you think the percentages are?

In my opinion it's free will 45% environmental factors 40% and genes 15%. So you can become anything you want to be if you want it with all of your will (and if genes or envinronmental factors are on your side)

[Anonymous No.3983614]

>The ones who believe in free will, please answer. Others can fuck off.
well we dont realy have a choice do we, if we post its not our fault.

>So you can become anything you want to be if you want it with all of your will
but why do you choose it, because of genetics and environment. almost everything you do can be traced to a cause.

[Anonymous No.3983624]

but isn't power of free will determined? having emotional support in my life suddenly made me feel like i was more motivated, etc you know how it goes.

[Anonymous No.3983628]

Free will is 100% and the decisions made with that power are affected by the other things.

[Anonymous No.3983631]

This is bullshit way of looking at the picture. Genes and nurture, form something like a gun barrel or oddly shaped cone that covers an area of different possibilities for us to choose, this is a weak analogy because the sides only factor in as likelyhoods or statistics. But in the end its the same thing. Free will is the ability to choose and pick what genes and nurture make available through the cone, anything else is so against our nature that it never comes up, hence free will doesn't apply on those levels, Nurture, and possibly some future field of chemical communications trans humanism that mimics the effects of genes. could theoretically change that cone over time, widen it or reshape it, but without that, you're restricted to what's inside the cone's range.

[Anonymous No.3983633]

Free will is gibberish. No one even bothers trying to give non-religious explanations for the mechanisms by which free will is supposed to work. You might as well replace it with the word "magic."

[Anonymous No.3983635]

so apparently we arent sure if the cat is alive

[Anonymous No.3983638]

numbers trump your opinion OP. Just look at the cycle of poverty, and the blatant relationship between the likelihood of someone getting uni education and whether their parents have a university degree. There are always anecdotal exceptions, but by and large the environment you grow up in shapes who you are and what you do.

[Anonymous No.3983647]

>>3983633
You don't seem to know a fuck about quantum mechanics? C'mon, it isn't the sixties anymore.

[Anonymous No.3983651]

>>3983647
People who claim QM implies free will have only read bullshit popsci regarding QM.

[Krakengineer !h28m2qQSeY No.3983653]

>>3983601 The ones who believe in free will, please answer. Others can fuck off.

Wow. You aren't even willing to read comments by people with an alternate point of view. Most people atleast make an effort to hide how dogmatic they are.

[Anonymous No.3983654]

I'm sorry, OP, but we don't have free will.
We are a prisoner to our own biological influences and the conditioning that we have had during our developmental stages.

I suggest you read the Mahabarata some time as it boils down the whole "Free Will" versus "Fate" debate pretty well.

[Anonymous No.3983655]

>>3983638
Well what if the parents with uni degree have strong free will and thus the children have strong free will? Poor bastards are just lazy.

[Anonymous No.3983656]

>>3983651
>>3983651
>>3983651
we dont have as coherent theory of how wave functions collapse, so free will isnt ruled out by it like classical mechanics ruled it out.

[Anonymous No.3983659]

>>3983601
We don't 'believe' around these parts.
>>>/x/
Is more up your alley.

[Anonymous No.3983668]

Free will? Isn't it the case that scientifically such a thing is impossible? I mean hypothetically, if we were to know all of nature's laws it would be possible to explain everything and even predict the future, thereby showing that every action is determined by natural laws with no "choice" on the part of an individual.

[Anonymous No.3983686]

>>3983656
still an odd connection to make though, eh?

[Anonymous No.3983698]

Free will is an idiotic term. One will can not be free, that the whole point of willing. You cannot choose what you want, that would be ridiculous.

Futhermore we are all bound to causality, but one can lay moral restricitions upon itself so that it doesn't have to follow it's first desires, in that way and that way only, we have a bit freedom.

but where the fuck did you get the numbers from, this is sci

[Anonymous No.3983700]

>>3983686
it just provides a crack for free will to live in that wasn't available before QM.

[Anonymous No.3983705]

pretty subtle troll, most aspies here are falling for it

[Anonymous No.3983712]

[Anonymous No.3983733]

>>3983712

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3983737]

>The ones who believe in free will, please answer. Others can fuck off.

Stopped reading right there. Blackman himself has trolled more subtly.

[Anonymous No.3983743]

free will 2% nature 80% nurture 18%

free will means nothing if you are born as a women in somalia married fo at the age of 13 and forever a sex slave to some brutal war lord.

we are all just lucky

[Anonymous No.3983744]

[Anonymous No.3983751]

>>3983744
I like this one. Nice.

[Anonymous No.3983752]

>>3983705
The difference between sophisticated trolling and ignorance and misinformation is subtle. Should we abandon the education of the benighted to avoid gratifying pranksters?

[Anonymous No.3983766]

Yeah considering we are made up of particles that do what the fuck they want I dont think free will exists.

Even me writing this was just particles doing there particle thing, I had no choice just as a calculator has no choice when you plug in 2+2.

[Anonymous No.3983770]

[Anonymous No.3983771]

Hey guys breaking news

determinism doesn't imply lack of free will

More at eleven!

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3983775]

>>3983771
Explain.

[Anonymous No.3983777]

>>3983775
but it's only 9:50 where i am!

[Anonymous No.3983781]

If free will is such a thing, then how did I choose to be born?

[Anonymous No.3983784]

"Free will" is a pretty loaded word... it has different meanings.
Consider that we still don't know how consciousness comes to be, so any opinion on it is pretty much worth shit, including mine: if we are conscious, it means consciousness somehow helped our ancestors survive, theresfoire it can influence our actions, ergo we have a measure of free will.

[Anonymous No.3983786]

>>3983775
It's called compatibilism.

Further, even some extremely simple physical systems are not deterministic. The behavior of human beings is definitely not deterministic.

[Anonymous No.3983790]

>>3983781
No one is arguing that infants or fetuses have free will. If you have free will now and you regret your life, you should be able to choose suicide.

[Anonymous No.3983795]

>>3983790
So if free will is a process of development which we aren't in control of, then anyone who develops tendencies of free willedness which are counter to society's interests are not ultimately responsible for their actions.

Bite the bullet.

[Anonymous No.3983798]

>>3983668
Nondeterministic universe etc.

[Anonymous No.3983800]

>>3983795
Your conclusions are not implied by your assumptions. Could you try to rephrase that?

[Anonymous No.3983801]

I find the notion of allocating percentages (of what exactly?) to either free will or some other stuff rather disorienting

>>3983784
please dont equate consciousness and free will, it need not be the same

[Anonymous No.3983809]

test

[Anonymous No.3983805]

>>3983800
If there is no choice to be as we are then there is no choice to act as we do.

[Anonymous No.3983815]

>>3983786
Chaotic=/ Non-deterministic

I believe you're just talking about unsolvable systems, which are still deterministic because we know their law, only we're too dumb to solve them

[Anonymous No.3983817]

>>3983786
Why do u think that behavior of human beings is definitely not deterministic?

[Anonymous No.3983819]

>>3983801
By free will I mean the ability of our conscious self to shape our behaviour. I'm not equating the two, but the existence of free will implies, in my humble opinion, some measure of free will.

[Anonymous No.3983820]

[Anonymous No.3983823]

>>3983805
You might benefit from looking very closely at the meaning of choice. Intuitively, it seems like there should be a conflict between determinism and choice, but there is not.

[Anonymous No.3983824]

>>3983819
I mean, the existence of consciousness implies free will, fuck.

[Anonymous No.3983826]

>>3983819
did you just said "free will implies free will"

because if that what just happened I think i'm gonna go throw up for a few minutes

[Anonymous No.3983832]

>>3983815
It's not an issue of the systems being unsolvable. Infinitely small changes in initial conditions can cause arbitrarily large changes in the state at a later time. It's not even theoretically possible to determine what such a system will do.

[Anonymous No.3983835]

>>3983809
You should also test the delete function.

I don't know why this is the third free will thread I've seen today, but my stance is this:

The question "Do humans have free will?" is an ill-posed question. It's like asking "Is there a purpose to everything?" To say there is no purpose to the everything is to assume it would even be logically conceivable that "everything" would have a purpose.

Both free will and universal purpose are not conceivable, confusions that happen in the central processors of gene-propagating apes.

At least I think; I am not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3983844]

>>3983832
so what

in reality systems have perfectly defined initial conditions

it's our bad that we can't know them

[Anonymous No.3983849]

>>3983809
You should also test the delete function.

I don't know why this is the third free will thread I've seen today, but my stance is this:

The question "Do humans have free will?" is an ill-posed question. It's like asking "Is there a purpose to everything?" To say there is no purpose to the everything is to assume it would even be logically conceivable that "everything" could have a purpose.

Both free will and universal purpose are not conceivable, confusions that happen in the central processors of gene-propagating apes.

At least I think; I am not a philosopher. If you want to prove me wrong, give me a possible scenario where the cosmos would have a purpose, or people would be the intentional sources of their actions. You are even allowed to make shit up, like souls or gods.

[Anonymous No.3983853]

>>3983826

I corrected myself here.
>>3983824

As I said, it's just an opinion without much worth - first we should decide what we mean by free will and understand how consciousness works. Until then we are trying to run before we can even stand up.

Which is not necessarily bad, intuition sometime reaches places logic cannot even see at the moment.

[Anonymous No.3983860]

>>3983817
There's feedback and amplification within the human brain, both of which make a system more sensitive to its initial conditions. A real proof of non-deterministic behavior would require identifying some process in the brain that is non-deterministic and its effect on human behavior.

[Anonymous No.3983867]

okay just what do we mean by free will?

ability to choose?

[Anonymous No.3983876]

>>3983835
The question is answerable. Finding an answer requires that we agree on the meaning of the question, but this constraint applies to any question.

[Anonymous No.3983881]

>>3983819
U said it urself: we dont know the nature of consciousness, so it is actually meaningless to bring it in context with the notion of free will.
Consciousness could very well just be an illusion fabricated by underlying processes which arent conscious.
Could free will be located on the level of these very processes?

[Anonymous No.3983911]

>>3983876
I'm assuming you were responding to me. Here is the revised comment:
>>3983849

Anyway:
>the question is answerable

I suppose. Like asking "When a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound?" Once you define "sound" correctly, the question dissolves in to something trivial. Similarly, the question "Do we have free will" could be dissolved into "Are our actions uncaused?"(no) or "Do our brains carry out decision making functions?"(yes).

[Anonymous No.3983914]

It seems there is some cunfusion on the definition of free will. Firstly, Determinism is the philosophy that everything is caused by physical processes- and therefore determined to happen.

Note, however, that if you define free will to be the ability to have and form reasons to do things, then the above statement is irrelevent since causation is a different logical category than reasoning and intention. This isn't to say reason is uncaused-merely that causes are not reasons.

This is the philosophical position of Soft Determinism which acknowledges both physical causation and free will arising out of rationality and intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3983933]

>>3983914
dont think u can kill this thread with the same post too

[Anonymous No.3985038]

Which comes first when the neuron's fire the positive or the negative charge?

[Anonymous !genesi1Q6c No.3985045]

>In my opinion it's free will 45% environmental factors 40% and genes 15%. So you can become anything you want to be if you want it with all of your will (and if genes or envinronmental factors are on your side)

Oh my god, so much derp.

[Anonymous No.3985064]

Somebody's already said this, I'm sure, but philosophers can't even agree on what free will means, and you want to quantify its effect?