[ 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: 56 KB, 640x275, dilbert[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4470834 No.4470834 [Reply] [Original]

Is there any proof that freewill exists?

>> No.4470871

Human actions are a result of conditioning of the DNA. This DNA resulted in a mind which is capable of visualising the present, foretelling the future and past. As richard dawkins points out, any mental model of the environment must eventually become complex enough to include a model of itself in the environment.

It is from this reflection that we gain free will.

Humans have the ability to apportion their energy to certain causes based on theories of the maximum payoff or benifit. This sort of gamling is an indecator of free will.

>> No.4470880

>maximum payoff or benifit

that is the opposite of a free will

>> No.4470888
File: 19 KB, 629x519, 1329203043878.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4470888

>free will vs. determinism thread
>2012
>I really hope you all never do this

Regardless of whether not it is accurate to the atomic level (which it is not, because we can predict the behavior of atoms fairly well and quantum uncertainty does not imply free will), free will is a useful and decently accurate behavioral model and thus we have no need to abandon it, however flawed it seems, until we can properly model behavior via neurochemistry.

>> No.4470900

ITT: nobody knows about monistic idealism

>>4470871
Dunning-Kruger all up in this bitch.

>> No.4470920

All actions result from prior conditions. You make decisions based on innate biases (environmental/genetic conditioning), prior experiences, and the present situation. Ergo, whether or not free will exists (whatever free will would be; it just seems to be some magical idea that makes your decisions more significant somehow), your actions are predetermined.

Any actions/decision-making other than this method is indistinguishable from pure randomness.

>> No.4470945

>>4470888
How is free will a "decently accurate behavioural model"?
What accurate predictions can you make using this model?

>> No.4470963

>>4470945
You can assume that people will act in the way that they deem best suits their interests if given an infinite set of options. We don't always see that happen, and it's difficult to determine what exactly someone's goals are. But our neurochemical model of decision-making is in its infancy and only has limited descriptive power. "Model" was probably the wrong word though. "free will" is really just a descriptive term that covers up the fact that we suck at predicting human behavior.

>> No.4470973

>>4470880
You havent understood.