/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4393324]

Has science disproved free will?

[Anonymous No.4393347]

Dunno, but I know how this thread is going to go.

[Anonymous No.4393365]

What a fucking pointless thing to worry about. Either you have free will and your choices will be whatever choices you're going to make, or you don't and they'll *still be whatever choices you're going to make.*

The existence or nonexistence of free will would have exactly zero impact on the world. And don't give me that "Bluh bluh but you can't hold murderers accountable if they don't have free will" because, SURPRISE, the judge ALSO doesn't have any free will about whether he holds the murderer accountable or not. See how this works?

[sage No.4393374]

>>4393347

straight to page 15.

[Anonymous No.4393381]

Neurology experiments and research in the past few decades certainly have. Or at least point in that direction.

[Anonymous No.4393388]

>>4393365
That doesn't mean it's not an interesting scientific/philosophical question.

[Anonymous No.4393393]

>>4393388
I don't find it interesting.

Get on my level, bitch.

[Anonymous No.4393400]

Define 'free will'.
In a rigorous manner.

[The Devil's Advocate !!N3loBeJ3RB3 No.4393405]

You are now aware that there is no such thing as free will.

Every decision you have made in your life has been dictated by a combination of DNA/genetics, hormones/chemicals, electrical impulses and your previous experiences.

To suggest otherwise is to believe in the presence of something that acts beyond the realm of the above mentioned natural and scientifically proven processes, which, by its very nature, adds credence to the possibility of the supernatural, the afterlife and the existence of God; all of which are in direct conflict with many aspects of existing scienctific knowledge.

The illusion of free will is caused by a conscious awareness of subconscious decision making: you do not make decisions, you are simply aware that these decisions are being made. Just as a robot is a slave to its circuitry, you are a slave to biological processes. You have no "soul".

Enjoy being a powerless and passive witness of your own existence.

[Anonymous No.4393406]

>>4393381
I would love some proof of that ridiculous claim. By proof, link me to a credible article attesting to that

[Anonymous No.4393423]

>>4393324
No more than it disproved fairies and leprechauns.

In order to be refuted, a theory needs to be defined in specific terms, and publicized- I don't even know what free will is, after hours of discussion on it, and neither do physicists.

The scientific position is that the human brain operates in a probabilistic way and all thought processes can be physically accounted for, though.

[Anonymous No.4393425]

>>4393405
so I would assume that ops biological program led him to questioning the notion of his free-will...

That's just aspie

Our biological program instills a survivalist attitude, does it not? To live, procreate etc
Yet, if one suicides, have they not acted in total opposition of their biological program?
What if I decided to skip breakfast this morning, despite being hungry?

There is no doubt we have hormonal and chemical balances that influence thought, yet, our mind has the final say and what we choose to do and think, these claims of s lack of free-will are humorous, at most

[Anonymous No.4393441]

>>4393425
good points

[Anonymous No.4393443]

>>4393425
>implying that we are programmed to do anything

We aren't supposed to do anything, we just happen to be complex chain reactions that continued when other complex chemical reactions didn't. The brain isn't supposed to give you cereal, it's supposed to do what it thinks is in your best interests, which this morning, for you, was skipping the meal. Suicidal people are generally mentally ill, and I'll let you connect the dots on that one.

[Anonymous No.4393453]

>>4393365
exactly; if everything were predestined, there would be no sense in arguing about anything; que sera, sera

[Anonymous No.4393461]

>>4393405
the thought that "existing science" is capable of, or has, "disproven" "God" is laughable on so many levels

[Anonymous No.4393471]

Let's say you have one block, which is programmed to make an 'L' shape by forming two blocks next to it. These blocks are also programmed to make an 'L' shape. And so on and so forth forever.

Roughly speaking, that's how all order in the universe forms. It's literally nothing other then meaningless gibberish until a mind (Simple life) comes along which is programmed to see order by this chaotic process.

Every single thought you've ever had has been the result of this meaningless initial pattern. It's as predictable as an apple falling to the ground.

Free will isn't just an illusion, it's also a delusion of complexity and depth that simply isn't there. All that exists is this 'binary' of the universe, that simple one-action pattern that creates everything.

[Anonymous No.4393480]

>>4393461

It's laughable because the notion of God was put as a stopgap to explain a world of existing facts and to dominate future worlds of possible facts.

It doesn't take lab coat "science" to kill the subhuman "God". Only a knowledge of ape psychology!

[Anonymous No.4393482]

>>4393443

hmm, that's odd.. The reason I'm skipping it is due to complete apathy and laziness. How would my brain deem that as being "in my best interests"
Have people realized that when we self-analyze, we do so in a distanced manner. As in, to question why we do certain things, and how to, maybe, avoid doing them again. Isn't that also indicative of free-will? There is a mind and a brain. The brain carries out the uncontrollable functions, such as memorizing an experience you've had, against your will, seeing, against your will, hearing, against your will et cetera. Yet, the mind is free to reflect, think and question on the processes of the brain. This is where free-will remains. Now, I'm not sure if op is arguing that we have no control over our actions, but, for the most part, we do. If I were to make the decision to get out of bed right now, I will. The mind has the final say, no matter how coerced it may feel by hormones and our biological program.
If my raging hormones have made me horny, it is up to my mind or consciousness to decide whether I act upon it and many a time I have chosen not to. If we had a lack of free-will, we'd be having sex Everytime it got hard.

Now, the real question is: is the mind a product of the physical brain or is it metaphysical? Many on this board would say with absolute conviction, despite a lack of proof, that it is a product of the physical.

Anyway.. Continue

[Anonymous No.4393498]

>>4393480
that doesn't convince anyone, in the slightest, that there has been a "stopgap" towards the notion of god. Why doesnt someone actually share some useful information on why you disbelieve in a god. Something logical and rationale, that's convincing. There are too many aspies making claims with no logical basis

[Anonymous No.4393500]

>>4393405

Well on the quantum level of physics everything is pretty well described as being "random". And that's what rules your biochemistry / DNA and lots of other stuff. Or do you have any evidence that God / Nature keeps some well specified random seed and random number generator? ;)

[Anonymous No.4393524]

>>4393482

You are right in questioning "in the best interests" line of thinking when really what he should have said is "following instincts that manage to survive and help the system in which they are embedded".

But now onto further comments
>As in, to question why we do certain things, and how to, maybe, avoid doing them again. Isn't that also indicative of free-will?

It's indicative of both instincts, as in a certain configuration of physical elements in the brain, and of learned habits, which would also be configurations of physical elements in the brain. The "freedom" of a "will" is dependent on mechanics, not on the Christian fantasy of an omnipotent "will" that is completely free of casual connections between physical elements.

>Yet, the mind is free to reflect, think and question on the processes of the brain

The mind is not "free". A flex of your unconscious activates a "conscious" element which then proceeds in a feedback loop with other senses.

>the most part, we do.

LOL. Only deluded liars of the heart convince themselves of that fantasy. They forget how much is mere habituation and obsession!

>If I were to make the decision to get out of bed right now, I will.

If your mechanism can override any number of signals prodding you to get back to sleep!

[Anonymous No.4393527]

>>4393480
tell that to God

[Anonymous No.4393531]

>>4393482
>How would my brain deem that as being "in my best interests"
By passing electrical charges round inside itself and using the pathways of least resistance to instruct your muscles to not act.

The mind is just the output of the brain. What you call your consciousness doesn't do anything; It's the end result of processing going on in your brain.

I say with scientifically certain conviction that the brain is a wholly physical machine.

[Anonymous No.4393539]

>>4393498

But how else would you describe God other than an intense auditory and visual hallucination in the minds of various "prophets"?

The concept is a projection of a social relation set in civilized societies (Big Boss Father) projected outward. It doesn't actually EXPLAIN ANYTHING.

"Oh God did it". It's one of the ultimate seductions for the megalomaniac to take a rest from the unceasing labor of his ambitions.

[Anonymous No.4393551]

>>4393524
so how do you live from day to say 'believing' that there is a lack of free-will? Are you better off being dead? And that thought alone, that we are nothing without free-will and our self-contemplation on it, is to me, an act of free-will. It relates to that notion "I think,therefore, I am"
I had a lot more to say but I gotta run. I will leave it at this, why do you /sci/ guys have the utmost conviction in unproven claims? There is no modularity in your speaking. Why is this?

[Anonymous No.4393570]

>>4393539
why don't you meet God for yourself and find out what He is like?

[Anonymous No.4393575]

>>4393551
it's because science has been corrupted into a pseudo-religious naturism; nothing supernatural or paranormal can exist, because science says so.

"settled science" = "religious tenet"

[Anonymous No.4393585]

>>4393575
FUCKING THIS, THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS

it's as if they refuse to let themselves consider anything paranormal, effectively closing off their scope of possibilities to the physical world alone.

I say free-will exists, they say, with utter conviction, that it does not based on physical reactions within the brain that, effectively, explain the processes of enacting free-will. But because it is a physical process, it is no longer free-will.

You /sci/ nerds are absolutely pathetic and self-righteous betas.

[Anonymous No.4393603]

>>4393551

>so how do you live from day to say 'believing' that there is a lack of free-will?

Isn't the answer obvious ? We don't have free will so we do what neurological programming ( for a lack of a better word) tells us to do.

[Anonymous No.4393625]

>>4393585
dont ever consider /sci/ to be anything like science. they are the waste of science that just make rampant claims with terrible justification (like this:
>>4393531

You have basically explained the process of the brain enacting free-will
>with scientifically certain conviction
scientists aren't even certain, and this clown is?

i gave up on /sci/ a while ago. they have a BELIEF (that's right, id term it as such you faggots) and keep stating with certainty its true with terrible justification. They are just as bad as religious evangelists. There is no difference. One is stubborn about the metaphysical, the other about the physical. Neither will accept the culmination of both - due to being stubborn.

math is all that is left of this shitty board

[Anonymous No.4393631]

>>4393603
>implying i cant just kill myself right now

that is ridiculous
i come onto /sci/ for intelligent rationales not half-asses beliefs with weak claims

/thread, fuck off everyone

[Anonymous No.4393634]

>>4393625
you just realised this now? they are just as retarded as /x/

[Anonymous No.4393635]

>>4393585

Things belief in the supernatural has accomplished:

- Lots and lots of dead 'heretics' and 'witches'
- Wiccans.
- Hippies
- 'New Age' everything.
- A large denomination of pushy people claiming anyone who diagrees with them is going to burn in hellfire.

Things the study and understanding of the physical world has accomplished:

- All medicine, the elimination of smallpox, a quadrupled life expectancy over a thousand year span.
- Flight, fixed and rotary wing. Spaceflight. An object sent outside the solar system. Men walking on the moon. An understanding of our place is the cosmos. The picture to the left.
- Electricity, an understand of the states and ways to modify matter and energy. The computer you are having this discussion on. The entire infrastructure of the modern world.
- The ability to see and change the basic building blocks of life as we know it. DNA manipulation, tailor-made organisms.
- Atomic energy; the direct conversion of mass into usable energy.

-Many, Many other things.

Well. I've made my decision as to which is more practically useful. Have you?

[Anonymous No.4393644]

>>4393635
Wow, what a weak argument.

>implying we can only take one side over another

You are just like the rest of the filth that live by the notion: "science and religion are incompatible"
what bullshit, they are not mutually exclusive

and there is a line drawn between believing bullshit (like what you proposed) and believing in the metaphysical.
I would agree that Catholicism is archaic, yet I believe in a metaphysical existence. You faggots only seem to rip on catholicism when someone share a slight belief in the metaphysical, being the retards you are. Pro-example: >>4393539)


Also, you faggot
>implying that wonderings of the unkown and metaphysical have not led to scientific discovery

holy shit this board has gone retarded
it was never like this a year ago... im out.

[Anonymous No.4393651]

>>4393635
> A large denomination of pushy people claiming anyone who diagrees with them is going to burn in hellfire.

And atheists aren't "pushy"?

Society has a problem. We have two extremes.. theists and atheists
Both are as retarded and stubborn as the other.

[Anonymous No.4393656]

>>4393651
Atheists are just modern day Catholics. Not in the sense of beliefs, but in the sense of self-righteousness and utter conviction.

They limit their scope to what their beliefs include, and refuse to accept anything outside.

Catholics saying that the opposing party will go to "hell"

Atheists saying that the opposing party is a "retard"

They are both just as retarded as each other

[Anonymous No.4393669]

the arguments for a lack of free-will are plain ridiculous in this thread. im not even going to bother...

[Anonymous No.4393672]

>>4393603
what a wonderful way to alleviate yourself from all personal responsibility

you, um, do know that is what you are doing, yes?

[Anonymous No.4393675]

>>4393672
dont bother. /sci/ is just retarded. Scientists do not even believe this claim but /sci/ is above all.. and can make ridiculous statements and force everyone to believe them.

this board is essentially little kids with a flawed understanding of the world

[Anonymous No.4393676]

>>4393656

It is funny how you do not the see hypocrisy in your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.4393678]

>>4393635
you haven't really taken the long look at things, now, have you

if everything is as you say, materialistic and utilitarian, determining what is "better" in a meaningless life on a meaningless rock in a meaningless system in a meaningless galaxy in a meaningless universe is, well, meaningless

so you haven't really given us anything to grab onto

[Anonymous No.4393680]

>>4393656
>>4393651
>>4393644

Regardless of group, the people you know within that group the best tend to be the ones who speak in public on topics related to it.

These people tend to be basically the same regardless of which group they belong to, or what they believe. They use the same arguments, belittle and attack opponents instead of ideas, and provide little to no actual evidence for their points. They are part of a group, and are embroiled in groupthink.

I think the problem here is a lack of a consistent definition of "metaphysical" and "supernatural" being a bad (as in ineffective) word.

As an example. If you could prove the existence of a soul, lets call it a field of energy that suffuses a body and grants life. Lets say that is proven. Is that metaphysical? Supernatural? Once it's proven, I'd argue that it is obviously natural, since it exists. It's a function of the natural laws of reality, which we now understand just a little better for the knowledge of it.

The basic rule of science is to test your beliefs. Always test them, over and over. And discard ones that prove to be false. That's it. The supernatural/natural divide is a false dichotomy. If it exists, it exists. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4393690]

Free will is a moral/philosophical matter, and is not debunked by science.

Determinism is false because of multiple universes.

[Anonymous No.4393692]

>>4393678

It's not my job to. I don't know why you assume it should be.

There is no inherent meaning. Nature does not care what you do, or how you live or die. The stars do not care. Time does not care. Galaxies and dark matter and elements and energy does not care.

We may care however. It it we who created the concept of "meaning". It doesn't exist outside of us. It is therefore up to us to define our own meaning, and to move to accomplish it with our own power.

And that is, in my mind, much more powerful and moving than a thousand pretty lies.

[Anonymous No.4393694]

>>4393680
Someone sticky this good man's post at the top of the fucking board.

Im sick of hearing this mutually exclusive: religion or science hurrr durr debate

you are all, except this anon, pretty retarded

[Anonymous No.4393698]

>>4393678
>>4393692
this is just a matter of a misunderstanding between the two
and both seem to support the free will argument

[Anonymous No.4393707]

>>4393672

So what?

What your saying has no bearing on wither determinism is true or or not.Which is what at least a part of this topic is about.

But hell your still free to believe in personal responsibility if you want, you don't have a choice after all.

[Anonymous No.4393710]

>>4393651
i'm not catholic, but i believe they say if you do not believe in God, you go to hell

that is different from if you do not believe what they tell you to believe, you go to hell

and i do understand this line has been crossed many times; yet it exists still

[Anonymous No.4393715]

>>4393707
HAHAHA, oh shit!

im done with this board. that was the final ridiculous post im going to read

Pro-tip: 4chan /sci/ is a cult. They all have the same, or similar beliefs (pertaining to a strict atheism and belief that everything is physically determined). When a new idea is implemented that conflicts with their limited and flawed scope of the world, they get aggressive.

Just leave now, before the retard takes over

[Anonymous No.4393721]

>>4393690

>Free will is a moral/philosophical matter, and is not debunked by science.

Science is a part of philosophy and has to a large extent disproved the traditional notion of free will.


>Determinism is false because of multiple universes.

Even if the multiple universe theory is true, I do not know how it would disprove determinism.

[H+ No.4393729]

>>4393694

I think the problem is again one of definition. (I'm
>>4393680 and >>4393692)

"Religion" as in belief and science are not mutually exclusive. Certain beliefs and science may be. For example, I think it would be very difficult to be a literal Young Earth Creationist and a Geologist who follows and fully believes in the scientific method at the same time without self-contradiction.

However, ever during the Enlightenment, many natural philosophers were Deists, with a belief in a God-created universe that was ordered and understandable because of a higher being who brought it into existence. This was considered perfectly logical, and why shouldn't it be?

Where things are not known, people should believe whatever their circumstances have led them to believe. However, the most important thing is to never, ever believe that you are right beyond all shadow of a doubt. There is always room for doubt, and there is always a chance you may be wrong. Anyone who is sure they are right, and refuses to change, will only hold us back.

If it's true, I want to believe it's true. If it's false, I want to believe it's false. You should believe whatever is true for you, but always try to remain open to the possibility you could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.4393732]

>>4393715

[Anonymous No.4393740]

>>4393692
and yet, one truth trumps all of that

God cares.

[Anonymous No.4393742]

>2012
>People believing in determinism
Axioms people. Your will 'feels and appears' free. You need evidence to disprove this sensation. Saying theres no such thing as free will is like saying there is no such thing as the computer youre typing on.

[Anonymous No.4393755]

>>4393729
let's take your example of a young earth creationist and a geologist

both see the geological chart. the geologist displays it as proof of an earth hundreds of millions of years old, with each layer representing the past surface of the planet.

the young earth creationist looks at the geological chart, notes that it does not appear anywhere in nature as stated, and that the layers of sedimentary rock covering the entire world are sediment from a global flood covering the entire world

at that point, i think if you are intellectually honest, you see the dilemna; both cannot be right, and both explain the reality we see today

so you're left with "everyone knows the universe is billions of years old" and "those layers took millions of years to get there" and, with peer pressure, er, peer review, you debunk all of the young earth creationist's arguments. after all, noah was just a fable, a story to tell children. God wouldn't really kill everything on earth, right?

right?

[Anonymous No.4393759]

>>4393324
>Has science disproved free will?
Yes.

/thread

But not /thread because some faggots have been determined to have lack of self control

[Anonymous No.4393760]

>>4393742
i think that believing in predestination is self-defeating; if it is the nature of reality, nothing you do will change anything. kill people, rape babbies, burn down buildings; it was all intended to be that way

it is a lie from the pit of hell; just because an omniscient being knows everything does not impute that knowledge to everyone and everything else.

you do have choices to make, and those choices count, and those choices accumulate.

[Anonymous No.4393772]

>mfw this thread dispoves free will

If /sci/'s aspies had free will, they would stop discussing philosophy with trolls.
They would control their butthurt and abandon this thread.
But they can't because free will does not exist.
They are compelled to reply again and again.

[Anonymous No.4393787]

>>4393772
faggot

[Anonymous No.4393790]

>>4393787
Proving my point.

[H+ No.4393796]

>>4393755

Except the belief that the universe is billions of years old is not supported only by rock strata, that is a false dilemma. It was also not believed for the majority of human history, so by your argument, opinions would never have changed to what we believe now if "peer pressure" was the only explanation

As to strata, I'm not an expert, but what I've read from experts explains why the Young Earth Creationist's argument fails.

The problem of course is that, in order to have a knowledgeable debate, you need proof, which usually comes in the form of references. And the amount of time it takes to gain enough references to prove a thing is false is a lot longer than the time it takes for a clever person to change to a different topic which he hopes his opponent is not prepared to refute, and so on, and so on. That's how most of the really bad "Religion vs. Science" debates tend to go, the Religion side offers a few dozen things offhandedly stated which are tricky or impossible to fully disprove to laymen without explanation within the time allotted for arguments. Then, if any remain at the end (or if the arguer for the religious side goes last and gets to toss out a few new ones) they claim victory, for their opponent wasn't able to prove them wrong.

How could they be wrong? They know they are right. This is just to convince others who are easily swayed by such things, not themselves.

And that's the rub.

[Anonymous No.4393801]

>>4393790
>implying he didnt intentionally do that

[Anonymous No.4393805]

So many horrible people making horrible arguments that they don't have a clear understanding of. Here are some highlights that are easy to summarize

People don't understand logic
People defining large groups of people by minority populations among those groups
Person thinks that atheism and Christianity are polar opposites - does not know that like their are different types of Christians, their are different atheists (see strong atheism vs weak atheism)
Person claims multiple universe is a concrete fact and not just highly speculative (yet interesting)
People who think they are being scientific using the word unconscious, as though that is a thing outside of Freudian/Jungian/similarly unscientific lines of thought. You may have been looking for the term nonconscious, which is a thing in science, but is definitely not the same thing as unconscious and really not that close that you should confuse the two.
Yes there are studies that have been done show brain activity correlated to a certain task happening before a person is aware of it. This is textbook stuff. Asking for this study is like asking someone to cite that there was indeed a guy named Pavlov that did experiments on dogs.

I just have to say, thank fucking native american mormon jesus that no one has claimed that the randomness associated with quantum mechanics implies free will. Those people are just as retarded as some of the fucks in this thread.

I hate all of you so much, well a few of you had good/decent/not terrible things to say.

[Anonymous No.4393812]

>>4393801
>implying he can decide what he does

[Anonymous No.4393818]

>>4393805
okay faggot.

is there free-will or isnt there? provide a logical rationale

FOR CHRISTSAKE SOMEONE JUST PROVIDE A FUCKING LOGICAL RATIONALE

[Anonymous No.4393821]

>>4393721
>Science is a part of philosophy and has to a large extent disproved the traditional notion of free will.
I used to "philosophy" describing fields of knowledge other than science, but that's just semantics.

How has science largely disproved free will (point to a post here you agree with if you like)? What exactly is the traditional notion of free will?

>Even if the multiple universe theory is true, I do not know how it would disprove determinism.
Determinism says that what happens is predetermined, but multiple world theory says universes diverge at random events (radioactive decay), making what happens random.

[Anonymous No.4393831]

>>4393805
I distinctly said CATHOLICISM not CHRISTIANITY.

And I understand there are other forms of atheism, although, I term it in the retarded context that /sci/ does.

to get through to a retard, you must be understandable by them

[Anonymous No.4393838]

>>4393805
>>4393831
he did, learn to read you beta

[Anonymous No.4393852]

>>4393796
peer pressure is sifting sand; a thing never known before becomes commonly held belief within one generation; it is not a hallmark of peer pressure that it leads to stability, but rather a belief that the instability of attacking every tenet leads you closer to the truth.

this other so-called evidence of a universe billions of years old is as obvious as the circular reasoning behind dating fossils; a fossil appears here in the strata; the strata is known to be 500 million years old, hence the fossil must be 500 million years old.

and in the cubicle next to you, another "scientist" is proving that the rock strata must be 500 million years old, because they found a 500 million year old fossil in it.

when that becomes patently absurd, the argument shifts to carbon dating; oops, radiometric dating (so much better than that nasty old carbon dating). except that it is a system fundamentally flawed with parent daughter assumptions galore.

so you come to the astronomer, and say, well, that star is 4 billion light years away, so it took 4 billion years for the light to reach us; hence the universe is 4 billion years old, at least.

neglecting for the moment that a light year is a measure of distance, not time, do you see how this "logic" and "rationalistic" view of the universe might be a tad difficult to swallow, especially given the nature of all the other "evidence"?

[Anonymous No.4393859]

>>4393818
well, for Christ's sake, there is free will, because you are free to choose to spend eternity in heaven, or spend it in hell.

knowing why you have free will might help you understand that you do have free will; otherwise, your view of God is your own imagination of a monster who created sapient beings just to torment them forever in a lake of fire.

that might be your assumption about God; it is not the true nature of God, not at all

[­ No.4393860]

>>4393425
>implying that the mind isn't an overall function of the neural activity in our brains which result from our biological blue prints (genes) interacting with our experiences to change or strengthen these neural functions
Also have you not heard of lethal genes nor memes which influence and alter your thought process

[Anonymous No.4393862]

>>4393859
ignoring the fact that i said "Christ's sake" I now want your opinion backed up with a logical rationale.

Just want to see if you can back up being a condescending little faggot

[Anonymous No.4393864]

>>4393860
no, i have not. fill me in

[Anonymous No.4393872]

>>4393860
> implying that the mind IS an overall function of the neural activity in our brains which result from our biological blue prints (genes) interacting with our experiences to change or strengthen these neural functions

dont be so certain next time, cock sucker

[­ No.4393877]

>>4393860
Also to add, Free will is really just a perception because all decisions you make and will forever continue to make reflect your previous experiences therefore if scientists were to know all of your previous experiences and the neural activity which went into/took part in those experiences with how your neural activity changed after said experiences whilst being in accordance with your genetic make-up there is no doubt that they would not be able to predict everything you did and were continuing to do as long as they could continue to measure the mental activity of each event large or small
But really we also need to link specific neural activity with real life behaviour as well in order to make these predictions

[Anonymous No.4393879]

>>4393425
i find many denials of free will a misunderstanding that the person is not omnipotent; in other words, by my free will, i cannot turn my desk into solid gold. therefore, i must not have free will.

so, defining down, free will is a choice amongst or between possiblities, both known and unknown, and influenced by many factors, both without and within the person. yet even with all of those factors, men take responsibility for their actions; children do not

[­ No.4393897]

>>4393864
Well I must profess to be no expert on the matter nor will I explain it justly but the idea as far as I understood it goes as follows:
Lethal genes are genes that mainly act in detriment to one or it could be all other genes, this could even mean the death of the organism containing the genes themselves, these genes act selfishly to accomplish whatever it has evoled or been 'designed' to do regardless of the repercussions to other genes of the same system
if you want it explain in much more and precise detail there should be a chapter on it in the selfish gene by richard dawkins

[H+ No.4393905]

>>4393852

Distance and time are linked, that is the point.

Radiometric dating and judging time by lightspeed follow the same logic, which is that we have observed X happening in Y time, and when we examine this, the same ratio applied to it shows that it took Z time for that to happen. If we know the speed of light and the distance to an object that emits light, the calculation for how much time the light must have been travelling is just as simple as the one your GPS uses to tell you how long you have to travel on the highway to reach your destination.

There is no reason to believe one and not the other, except that one disproves a belief you desperately want to hold.

Strata I don't know much about, but I do know about astronomy. And the fact that you called a light year a unit that measures distance and not time when you are talking about "how long the light took to reach us" (which is the definition of a light year) tells me that you do not.

I'd suggest you apply Occam's Razor and Diax's Rake to your belief. There is a reason things that require global conspiracies to keep the "one sane man" down and out for no reason other than to prove him wrong tend to be seen as crazy. It's the same logic train.

[­ No.4393906]

>>4393872
and your evidence to support that what I have suggested is false because why?
hardly my sexual orientation cannot debunk my suggestions

[Anonymous No.4393913]

>>4393862
i was going for irony, not condescension. condescension is when you talk down to people.

the rational argument for free will is that any other state of being renders you a helpless victim of circumstance. maybe some people like being that. most don't.

i know who gave you free will, and a conscience, and a soul, and i know what He expects you to do with them. so far, you're still broken.

God gave you free will, and you used that free will to say fuck you to God.

good luck with your personal rebellion against an omnipotent being.

[Anonymous No.4393917]

>>4393877
yes, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

how close is science to omniscience? a universe away? good luck turning yourself into God. you do know that is what you are trying to do, yes?

[Anonymous No.4393922]

>>4393879
but one can think of doing the impossible, with no pre-made experiences to go by, despite being able to actually do it.

thats a bit confusing, tell me if you want me to reword it

tl;dr: the mind has freedom of thought.

>>4393877
Hmm, i dont entirely agree. I also find your pictures redundant.

In any case, I would like to provide an example.

Say I go up to a girl and pull up her shirt. I have chosen to do such (let's not get into the whole hormonal, sex drive topic - it was discussed above).
Society frowns upon me doing such an act.
Now, the next time I see a girl, from past experiences, I would not pull her shirt up again.
Correct.
However, my mind is still free to think of my want to pull up her shirt. Yet, im physically restricted due to social expectations.

So, we have freedom of thought.
Maybe not freedom of action. We, actually, do. I could not give a rat's ass about society and choose to pull up her shirt again. But, for the most part, we would not.
Past experiences would lead to us choosing to reflect on such a situation and still choose to think about it, despite being coerced by societal expectations not to act upon it.

Is this fair to say?

[H+ No.4393924]

>>4393324

>>the rational argument for free will is that any other state of being renders you a helpless victim of circumstance. maybe some people like being that. most don't.

That's not a rational argument, that is Wishful Thinking. It is believing a thing because if the truth is otherwise it would be worse for you, personally.

But that's not how truth works. The truth that if you step off of a cliff, you will fall to your death is worse for you than believing that you can fly if you step off a cliff, but even if you believe that with all your heart, Gravity will have a differing opinion.

There are arguments for free will, but that isn't a good one.

[Anonymous No.4393926]

Don't just ignore any determinists as trolls, obviously there must be some validity to what they say if people like Einstein and Hawking did not/do not believe in free will.... but c'mon people who think free will is actually real....

Hawing is just a retard isn't he?... Guys?...
Google Benjamin Libit and his experiments for the basis of a lot of deterministic views.

[Anonymous No.4393931]

>>4393926
If there is non-determinism in the universe (on a quantum scale) then mystical concepts of "free will" are valid, because __________.

[Anonymous No.4393932]

>>4393905
a light year is a distance. can you at least agree to that?

and if we measure the current speed of light the best we can, light "travels" that 1 light year in 1 year. can we at least agree on that?

okay, so far, so good.

what you have now done, is to assume that the speed of light has always been the same. i do not believe there can be evidence that the speed of light has always been the same.

further, i do not believe the effects of gravity on the passage of time has been fully understood yet, nor do i hold out any hope that it will.

so what you have is a point in time, one data set, and you extrapolate backwards 4.3 billion years. and because everyone else comes to the same conclusions using the same assumptions, there must be a consensus that the universe is 4.3 billion years old.

and yet, there's that pesky fly in the ointment, where, in the beginning, nothing was as it is now.

no, friend, you have a faith in the collective knowledge of mankind. i would advise you to raise your sights.

[Anonymous No.4393940]

>>4393922
i agree. many of the brilliant men of the past were able to see the unseen, think something new, and make evident what was never before contemplated. such is the nature of genius; making common what was once impossible.

and i do think mankind has limited itself, and has been limited, or contained, so as not to completely destroy ourselves. we are incredible beings, capable of such wonderous acts, and of such horrors.

[Anonymous No.4393945]

100% of your thoughts and feelings are caused by the operation of your brain, all of which either obeys deterministic physical laws or is merely random. Cope.

[Anonymous No.4393951]

>>4393945
>merely random

oh, lord

[Anonymous No.4393958]

>>4393924
it is one that provides a stable framework upon which to think and act; indeed, it shows that any other framework is inherently meaningless.

i never had to think of the universe as machinistic, cold, impersonal; i always knew the Creator, so the universe is wonderful, magnificent, and intensely personal. i can see the wishful thinking of the damned that nothing matters and there is no afterlife; that is preferable to hell

but not believing in hell does not make hell disappear, and the rational man, with his soul in jeapardy, will, to his own satisfaction, safeguard it to the fullest extent possible. the irrational man will not.

[Anonymous No.4393967]

>>4393958
Believing in hell doesn't make it exist, and according to all of the evidence we have ever received it doesn't exist, and the only reason to suppose that it might exist in the first place are the myths of a band of bronze age savages.

[­ No.4393973]

>>4393922
I would argue that your freedom of thought is the same thing as free will and thus still a perception, because In order for you to want to pull up her shirt again for example, the same combination of neural activity would result in having that same thought, however, your experience in the matter has taught you otherwise and thus on a really simplistic level that activity that the first time made you pull her shirt did not happen this time, because of the effect that the result of that behaviour had on your brain

[Anonymous No.4393979]

>>4393967
the reason hell was created was to contain the devil and his minions; by your logic, you will find yourself there, with them, in a place not designed for you, in eternal torment.

it was not a bunch of savages that told us there is a hell; it was the being that created hell in the first place

and wishing it away simply will not work; no, you have to make a conscious choice of your own free will to live forever with God, and not to live forever without God

[H+ No.4393981]

>>4393932

Do you also believe that a meter was a different length 20 years ago?

Because that is the same type of logic. With the knowledge of the speed of light being a universal constant, we have been able to do things and explain actions that would not be possible without it being a constant.

To say "Oh, well it used to be different" when we have never observed it being different, and have no evidence it ever was different is again, wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.4393984]

>>4393979
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.4393988]

>>4393973
that's behavioral modification, not free will; you are just now aware that pulling up the shirt has negative consequences, and you factor those in to your new decision whether or not to act

you still have your free will to do so, or to learn better behavior and restrain yourself

[Anonymous No.4393994]

>>4393988
couldnt have said it better

[Anonymous No.4394004]

>>4393981
i actually didn't posit my belief; i just showed you the flaws inherent in your belief.

it seems obvious that the Creator placed the stars in the heavens and then stretched out the heavens around us; it seems obvious because that is what He said He did.

so, you have an infinitely powerful being, stretching the time space continuum; i'm gonna say to infinity in every direction, and likely with us in the middle. i say the last bit not because the bible says so, but because it appears the universe is moving away from us in a rather uniform way.

so again, you have free will to say that a sovereign God created everything, and us, as He said He did, or something else happened.

i just don't find the evidence that "something else happened" very credible, nor any authority higher than God's word

[H+ No.4394007]

>>4393979

Unless of course, the Greeks were right, in which case we'll both find ourselves in Hades.

Or the Egyptians were right, and I'll see you in the Land of Eternal Night.

Or the Hindus, and we're both going to be reincarnated as newts.

Or the Muslims, in which case we're both going to a very similar hell. Or something.

Or the Discordians, in which case, God lost creation to Eris in a game of strip poker in Eden, and I'm screwed because I enjoy hot-dog buns.

The problem with the "Only the correct believers don't go to hell" argument is that is assumes a false dichotomy. There are not just two answers, there are several thousand. And choosing not to believe in yours doesn't greatly alter my chances if only 1 of those 5000 is correct.

The difference in that case by disbelieving in any one faith is about 4 x 10^-8%

[Anonymous No.4394009]

>>4393984
why do you ask for a citation, when you think the bible is full of children's fairy tales? do you think people have gone to hell? they have not. it is empty. too soon, it will be full, and then closed, and then likely forgotten

[H+ No.4394016]

>>4394004

So your argument is "My belief is true because the book I read it in is true" and you are claiming your opponents use circular reasoning?

I think we're done here.

[­ No.4394022]

>>4393988
yes but what I'm saying is that the behaviour is not repeated because your thought is still a product of your biological make-up and experiences in accordance with your neural activity, and the sensory input gathered by your brain puts your neurons into that same frame of mind which initially gave you the idea to pull up her shirt in the first place, you may feel that you have a freedom of thought because most thought arises from an unconscious processing of this stimuli via your neurons and neural functions

[Anonymous No.4394027]

>>4394007
ah, so you are shopping for the truth? let's take a look at your examples.

>Unless of course, the Greeks were right, in which case we'll both find ourselves in Hades.
the Greeks deified Adam and Eve as Zeus and Hera, and glorified the descendents of Cain and Ham (and Naamah) over the believers in God. once you see where they got their gods, the rest is easy. worship the Creator, not the created.

>Or the Egyptians were right, and I'll see you in the Land of Eternal Night.
right in what? that the pharoah was a god? that only the pharoah goes to bliss? look with an objective eye at the pagan pantheon egypt offers you, and remember that God struck down the country at its peak.

con't

[Anonymous No.4394035]

>>4394007
>Or the Discordians, in which case, God lost creation to Eris in a game of strip poker in Eden, and I'm screwed because I enjoy hot-dog buns.

Actually, they're prohibited from believing that.

[Anonymous No.4394036]

>>4394007
What are the two things all these theists have in common?
1. There is a powerful metaphysical being (or multiple in some cases)
2. There is an afterlife

Hardly any difference between any of them

[Anonymous No.4394043]

>>4394022
>your thought is still a product of your biological make-up

If i succumb to peer pressure, is that part of my "biological make-up?"
What if I choose to adhere to societies laws and regulations despite, personally, thinking they are ridiculous?

Also, who's to say that free-will isnt a neural process? It doesnt have to be meta.

By your understanding, free-will is having neutral thought everytime, with no ulterior influences of memory and experience?
But isn't that also part of free-will? The will to learn from past experiences?

[­ No.4394048]

>>4394027
>the Greeks deified Adam and Eve as Zeus and Hera, and glorified the descendents of Cain and Ham (and Naamah) over the believers in God. once you see where they got their gods, the rest is easy. worship the Creator, not the created.
sorry but I must interject, the monotheism that you know as Christianity/Judaism arose from the beliefs of the ancient Greek mythology as well as the ancient Egyptian mythology, do not confuse which came first historically, This you cannot refute because in a time period of 6,000 years in which you may believe is considered to be the age of the earth, the greeks and egyptians still existed within that time frame

[Anonymous No.4394053]

>Or the Hindus, and we're both going to be reincarnated as newts.
with over 300,000,000 gods to choose from, even if you are a hindu, it's gonna be rough. odd how so many of their gods would be what we would call demons. and the hindu has the same problem: no proof that anybody lives twice or more, just stories. if you cannot live a perfect life in the here and now, what makes you think you will be capable of being perfect later? no, this is a works religion based on demons. pass.

[Anonymous No.4394058]

>Or the Muslims, in which case we're both going to a very similar hell. Or something.
even muslims do not know if their god, the goat god, the minor moon goddess of the canaanites, will eventually save them. in case that was lost, allah is not, and never will be, God, and in no way was mohammad as Jesus. Jesus didn't marry a 6 year old girl when He was 54. He died and rose from the grave having led a sinless life. if you follow mohammad, you will end up where mohammad is. pass.

>Or the Discordians, in which case, God lost creation to Eris in a game of strip poker in Eden, and I'm screwed because I enjoy hot-dog buns.
there are many ways that seem right to a man, but they all lead to death.

you have a problem; you have unresolved sin in your life. how do i know? because everyone does. it's a moral sickness; crimes against God. there is no sentance but eternal death, but there is a pardon being offered by the grace of God, who gave you enough faith to take Him up on it and change you into something wonderful.

>The problem with the "Only the correct believers don't go to hell" argument is that is assumes a false dichotomy. There are not just two answers, there are several thousand. And choosing not to believe in yours doesn't greatly alter my chances if only 1 of those 5000 is correct.
if God is God, then worship Him; if not, do not

>The difference in that case by disbelieving in any one faith is about 4 x 10^-8%
weigh them all; look at all of the upsides, and look at all of the costs. look at all of the leaders, and look at all of the followers. meet God, and see for yourself.

[Anonymous No.4394066]

>>4394016
more like, i have found what is written in this book to be not only true, but the truth, and it led me to meet the Truth, and the Truth set me free

i'm not asking you to adopt a new philosophy; i'm asking you to at least meet your Creator before your trial; He will witness of Himself to you, as He did to me, and millions of other christians

[TheOldFag !!ddNqgd/ihEj No.4394069]

>2012
>thinking free will exist
do you believe in invisible giant men in the sky too?

[Anonymous No.4394082]

>>4394069
wow, you sure are a faggot

>2012
>still making claims with no evidence

[Anonymous No.4394086]

>>4394048
you will find The Parthenon Code fascinating reading; also, there is no historical documentation that the earth is older than 6000 years; there are documents that go back to about the flood, 4500 or so years ago, and those documents, especially the chinese heritage documents, make claims, but none are substantiated

the universe looks really different if you think of it as being 6000 years old

[­ No.4394088]

>>4394043
I completely support that memories and experiences exist in decision making and thought,
>because your thought is still a product of your biological make-up and experiences in accordance with your neural activity,
and here is where I stated that in post >>4394022
memory would fall into the realm of experience
also holding opposing thoughts and behaviours is known as cognitive dissonance, human beings are not without flaws and prone to conflicting actions and thoughts, but it is suggested that some sort of mechanism is put up in a sense to allow for conflicting beliefs
In a very basic sense what I'm saying is that your genes are blueprints to your behaviour, you experience can reinforce/alter that behaviour/thought, and your thought is not some out-of-universe mechanism but that your brain is your thought processor, your memory storage device, your sensory recorder and son on. you are essentially the product of your environment in accordance and help from your genetic/bio-chemical make-up

[Anonymous No.4394092]

>>4394088
i don't think that mechanism has to be any more complicated than pure denial; not being able to hold two conflicting beliefs simultaneously, most people just go into denial about one or the other

[Anonymous No.4394094]

>>4394089

I SUGGEST EVERYBODY READ THIS ^^^

now shut the fuck up, go home

/thread

[Anonymous No.4394100]

>>4394094
intelligent people enjoy discussing intelligent things in an intelligent manner, and that can be stimulated by an unintelligent person

news flash?

[Anonymous No.4394105]

>>4394100
>intelligent people

oh, you guys...

[­ No.4394113]

>>4394094
SO because OP started a thread for the soul purpose of trolling that means all that has been argued for and against is nullified because the original strategy was to get people to debate in the first place?