[ 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: 6 KB, 250x250, ISHYGDDT.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110307 No.5110307[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>2012

>Denying free will

>> No.5110322

guys

how does it affect anything

>> No.5110317

read about the 'lateralized readiness potential'

>> No.5110324

>>5110317
Read about why the researchers conclusion was comical

>> No.5110328

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will


tldr: science shows your brain is boss of you, but you can override that shit.(ever feel yourself getting distracted, and then kinda drag yourself back into focus? conscious overriding brain)


but brain workings is all biochemistry which just fucks things up evem.more

>> No.5110330

>>5110328
What if I cut off head, wouldnt I be the boss of your brain now?

>> No.5110344

>2012
>brains trusting self aware meatsacks with vital body functions

we symbiotes I believe

>> No.5110354

Define free will.
>hurr durr it's not random but it is not deterministic either

>> No.5110358

stupid body, I wish it would fuck off every now and again.

need it to give me energy, though

>> No.5110375

Things occur only once when time pass, hence why all your actions are determined in advance.

>> No.5110414

why is determinism so trendy all of the sudden?


I know you all don't take these beliefs to heart...

>> No.5110421

>>5110414
Because it has been the obvious idea for centuries, and the apparent problems with it have been worked out for a long time now.

>> No.5110429

>>5110421
Not really.

>> No.5110442

The question is:
>implying determinism denies free will
I am a deterministic machine and my behaviour and thoughts are the result of (mostly) my own internal mechanisms. So that's my free will: my own internal mechanisms at work. The alternative is randomness, which doesn't come from within me, so it is not my free will.

>> No.5110439

>>5110429
Challenge me, then.

>> No.5110454
File: 1016 KB, 450x345, zaboo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110454

>tfw you realize that conscious thought is pretty much the same thing as unconscious thought, only slower

>> No.5110461

>>5110439
Nope, you're retarded if you're a hard determinist and the problem isn't even close to being solved.

When top neuroscience professors no longer believe in or are sympathetic to libertarian free will then I'll consider it wrong.

deal with it

you're probably a moral nihilist too

>> No.5110470

>>5110461
Define your nondeterministic free will. Is it mere dice throwing?

>> No.5110471

>>5110442
>>5110454
>implying any of this has been proved beyond belief

fuck pop-science

>> No.5110475

>>5110470
ur a faget

science is overrated

>> No.5110477

>>5110442

>So that's my free will: my own internal mechanisms at work

What does the "free" part signify? Isn't it just your will?

>> No.5110478

I'll bite.

Where exactly is free will coming from? It's either determined by, you know, universal laws (determinism), or not at all (completely random). How can there possibly be free will?

>> No.5110485

>>5110475
So it is either dice throwing or some magical hocus pocus that somehow is not deterministic nor random nor some middleground. Enjoy your religion.

>> No.5110486

>>5110461
>Nope, you're retarded if you're a hard determinist and the problem isn't even close to being solved.
The fact that you don't know a solution doesn't mean the problem isn't solved, you know.
>deal with it
Sure. It means there's no reason for me (or anyone else, really) to take your opinion at all seriously. As they say, put up or shut up.
>you're probably a moral nihilist too
Nope.

>> No.5110495

>>5110477
That's it: my will is part of my internal mechanisms. The alternative is randomnes.

>> No.5110498

>>5110461

Does moral nihilism necessarily follow from metaphysical nihilism?

>> No.5110499

>>5110421
Its also been obvious that the earth is the center of the universe. Doesnt mean its right by any means

>> No.5110502

>>5110499
>implying you cannot put the center of the universe wherever is most convenient for your computations
Do you ever frame of reference shift?

>> No.5110503

enjoy your physicalist religion while lacking the critical insight to identify the assumptions therein, all the while berating others for the same fallacious logic that you yourself use

monistic idealism

bonus: it does not in any way undermine the scientific process

>> No.5110505

ITT: unfalsiable claims

>> No.5110509

>>5110499

>implying it isn't.

The other planets travel in spirals. Deal w/ it

>> No.5110515

>>5110328
>How the brain constructs consciousness is still a mystery, and cracking it open would have a significant bearing on the question of free will.

ITS STILL A QUESTION

>> No.5110516

>>5110328
>your brain is boss of you
Are you implying that something other than your brain has any concept of "me?"

>> No.5110517
File: 14 KB, 500x375, 1317883348617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110517

>>5110503

>monistic idealism

>> No.5110518

>>5110503
>being monist
>2012
>not being nondualist

>> No.5110526

>>5110515

What is? The precise functions of how consciousness works? So?

>> No.5110523

>>5110516
Yep. Your heart. Your blood, the air, the skeleton, the chemicals. Take all those away and the "me" loses its existence

>> No.5110524

>2012
>still discussion inappropriately motivated concepts such as "free will" in the context of neuroscience

Stay un-empirical.

Until we can develop neuroscience enough to create a rigorous philosophy of mind from it, this discussion is completely meaningless.

>> No.5110529
File: 76 KB, 446x400, laughingsluts in miami.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110529

>>5110503

>monistic idealism

>> No.5110530

>>5110328
Surely that's just the brain overriding itself. If not, what exactly overrides the brain?
The soul?

>> No.5110532

michio kaku popular theoretical physicist on how heidenburgs uncertainty principle renders determinism obsolete.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/37862

it's less then 2 minutes, just watch it

>> No.5110533
File: 5 KB, 126x122, this.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110533

>>5110524
all of my this

>> No.5110536
File: 12 KB, 260x198, 260px-Hindenburg_burning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110536

>>5110532
>heidenburg

>> No.5110540

>>5110503
>bonus: it does not in any way undermine the scientific process

Its unfalsifiable nature and lack of supporting evidence mean it goes against the scientific method itself.

>> No.5110541

>>5110523
Hearts and blood can be replaced and limbs can be lost without changing who you are. Those things don't think, they just keep you alive and mobile.
Chemicals, sure, since that's how the brain works. The chemicals themselves don't have a consciousness, though.

>> No.5110542

>>5110532

This is such an absolute troll.

Kaku is well known for spreading sensational ideas, even if they are highly questionable.

>> No.5110547

>>5110540
I think he had a point. As it doesn't have anything to do with science, it doesn't undermine the scientific process. Neither does playing cards or dancing.

>> No.5110552

>>5110526
holy fuck, you cant into reading comprehension, can you?

>> No.5110554

>>5110541
So somehow in some process, the brain magically acquires consciousness? Bullshit.

>> No.5110555

>>5110542
>heisenberg uncertainty principle
>sensational idea
pick one

electrons be all random and shit: fact
cause and effect is not the end all be all, there's some wiggle room and thus free will isn't impossible.

hardly a sensational concept

>> No.5110561

>>5110328
whatever, consciousness is a product of the brain
its just your brain overriding your brain

>> No.5110562

>>5110555

The heisenberg uncertainty principle is not sensational.
Trying to apply it to a field outside of physics is.

>> No.5110564

>>5110554
Yes, magically. That is the current scientific explanation for the inner workings of the brain.

>> No.5110571

>>5110564
This is why science fails. Its full of WOO at the core dressed up to make it look real pretty and regal on the outside

>> No.5110576

posting in a troll thread

>> No.5110578

>>5110554
It's not magical... consciousness is a process, just like symbolic treatment of information.

>> No.5110582

>>5110555

Except quantum effects average out to be deterministic on non-quantum scales, like the scale that neurons are on.

>> No.5110586

>>5110578
Being a process doesnt mean it has real existence. I can describe the process of eating a food. Does that mean the "eating of food" has existence?

>> No.5110587

>>5110555
once again:
>implying free will is all random

>> No.5110589

>>5110586
Yes, it does.

>> No.5110592

>>5110586
Not because you describe it, no. But that process does indeed exist.

>> No.5110594

>>5110589
>believing in plato's idealism
>2012

>> No.5110598

>>5110555
>placing freedom in the random motion of electrons
I don't know how people can be satisfied with such naive philosophy.

The free will problem has nothing to do with physical determinism.
In fact free will is a bullshit problem. "Free will" guys stipulate that, apparently, if you decide to eat an ice cream because you want to, you are not free because your desire for an ice cream was caused by other things (like your taste for ice cream and the fact you are hungry).

But it's bullshit, doing what you want is precisely exercising you free will. "Freedom" is a political term, it means no other human is preventing you from doing what you wish.

>> No.5110600

>>5110594
Do you even read?
"Eating of food" exists as long as I am eating food because that food-eating is taking place in the real world.

>> No.5110603

>>5110594
It has nothing to do with idealism...
If you say "it's a process", then you admit it can be studied, like any process.

That's like saying chemical reactions can't be studied because they are processes.

>> No.5110607
File: 26 KB, 478x468, brofist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110607

>>5110598
At last, somebody that thinks.
I still don't get how come they think that having free will equals randomness out of one's control.

>> No.5110606

I have precognitive dreams so fuck your shit.

and no, it isn't deja vu (i've had that as well and know the difference)

u jelly? u mad you aren't blessed by a higher being like I am?

>> No.5110609

>>5110606
>not invoking demons
>2012

>> No.5110610

>>5110582
Precisely.
Quantum effects in water at 300K are abso-fucking-lutely negligible.

>> No.5110617

>>5110612
>implying it's not quantum
>implying they aren't proof of an afterlife

>> No.5110612

>>5110606
Precognitive dreams, if anything, are a proof of physical determinism.
Enjoy your Laplace's demon powers.

>> No.5110613

>>5110600
>"Eating of food" exists as long as I am eating food because that food-eating is taking place in the real world.

I don't even understand how actions can exist as more than concepts.

>> No.5110614

>thinking you have thoughts
>/x/

>> No.5110619

>>5110540
>>5110547

The physicalist interpretation is unfalsifiable as well. You make assumptions about the underlying nature of phenomena that you perceive without any basis for doing so.

All you know is that you perceive phenomena and that these phenomena can be accurately predicted using a model derived from previously perceived phenomena. That's why the scientific method remains valid. As you have no other way to acquire information than through perceived phenomena, you cannot make any statements regarding their underlying nature.

I don't expect you to understand this or to be able to fully follow the logic, in part because I doubt that you are particulary intelligent and moreso because the nature of this board dictates that you approach all unfamiliar ideas with baseless hostility, but in epistemologically strict terms, the only starting point is sollipsism. Starting from there you can only deduce a finite number of truths before you require assumptions to proceed further. One of those assumptions is the physicalist nature of the world.

My point is simply that the idealist view is logically coherent and does not make the same assumptions.

I could go on, but I see it as completely pointless. The idea is one that requires time, intelligence and motivation to understand in its entirety. Note too that understanding that a given system is logically coherent is not the same as accepting it as reality.

Cue the stream of Dunning-Kruger example replies.

>> No.5110620

>>5110613
>not believing in the existence of a real world
What w you doing in /sci/, then?

>> No.5110621
File: 42 KB, 552x464, my-nigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110621

>>5110607
Someone else finally gets it.
I'm so happy.

>> No.5110626

>>5110613
>only concrete nouns exist
So if you punched your monitor right now, it'd be alright because the act of punching isn't real?

>> No.5110628

>>5110619
Even solipsism is not a valid starting point... or is it?
Think about Descartes' evil demon. It could be making you think all those things that seem so obvious.

>> No.5110630

I don't understand how free will can exist.

If I throw a ball, the ball bounces and will act predictably.

If a planet gets too close a sun, it gets trapped.

How does consciousness come into existence and make the CHOICE to exert energy or not? Its fucking mind boggling

>> No.5110635

>>5110620
>>5110626
Neither of you understood what I meant; sorry, I should have elaborated. I was approaching it from a reductionism viewpoint.

>> No.5110636

>>5110630
From a deterministic point of view (which is unfalsiable as our idealist friends remind us,) your free will is just your internal mechanisms at work. The alternative is some external cause (or randomness, which I view as equivalent to external, but that's just another unfalsiable point of view, so please stop the butthurt everybody.)

>> No.5110637

>>5110630

It doesn't

>> No.5110644 [DELETED] 
File: 50 KB, 242x300, schrodinger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110644

(I) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.

(II) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

>> No.5110651

>>5110630

If you accept that free will doesn't exist, life becomes the most awesome thrill ride ever.

>> No.5110652

>>5110635
Well, from a naive reductionist viewpoints, you usually don't see shit.
Like you can't infere fluid mechanics from the quantum properties of the H2O molecule, or you can't deduct solid mechanics from crystallography.
Sometime (well actually, every time) you have to look directly at the system level to understand what is happening.

>> No.5110654

>>5110628
You're still perceiving. so it doesn't invalidate solipsism. You simply can't know anything more than the fact that you exist and that you perceive things in that case.

>> No.5110656

>>5110652
I guess the confusion arose of my misinterpretation of you using "real world."

>> No.5110665

>>5110654
It appears to be pretty obvious, right? But if those thoughts were made by an external agent, then they could be totally phony. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that sense-lacking could be some imposed, actually false construct.

>> No.5110672

>>5110652
Actually, you can infere fluid mechanics from the quantum properties of molecules. It's pretty easy for gasses, but it can be done, in principle, with any other substance, given enough computational resources.

>> No.5110677

>>5110656
>implying >>5110652 was the same person as >>5110620

>> No.5110679

>>5110672

>given enough computational resources.

That kind of computing power will never exist.

>> No.5110683
File: 12 KB, 240x240, 51miJUFcYJL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110683

>>5110679
We've been doing it for decades, you know...

>> No.5110687

>>5110651
>If you accept that free will doesn't exist, life becomes the most awesome thrill ride ever.
but I think it does exist.

But... fuck. I don't know. I feel like its some sort of paradox. Everything in the macro universe(as in not quantum shit) is predictable, yet I feel as though I can make choices.

>> No.5110692

>>5110683

>We've been computing human scale physical systems directly from quantum principles for decades

No, we haven't

>> No.5110695

>>5110687
Once again:
Why do you assume that you have to be random to make a choice? If your choice is random, there's no choice at all.

>> No.5110697

>>5110687
>Everything in the macro universe(as in not quantum shit) is predictable, yet I feel as though I can make choices.

That's not a paradox.

>> No.5110698

>>5110695
>If your choice is random, there's no choice at all.
Its not random... its just not... preset.

Fuck. Fuck it

>> No.5110700

>>5110692
Well, if you specify such a large and complex system, I concur with you. But my point was: we can infere fluid mechanics from a microscopical point of view and we can solve useful problems.

>> No.5110701

>>5110698
It is not random but it is not deterministic. So it is hocus pocus...

>> No.5110712
File: 66 KB, 199x269, Oppenfeel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110712

>2012
>denying incontrovertible direct experience

>> No.5110717

>>5110712
How can you deny ghosts/spirits/religion/telepathy/telekinesis/etc.?

>> No.5110719

>>5110712

>trusting your senses

Do you even do drugs?

>> No.5110741

>>5110717

>comparing direct experience of reality through consciousness to ghosts/spirits
>Science and Math board
>2012

>> No.5110767

>>5110719

>implying we experience reality in any other way other than input from our senses.

>> No.5110770

>>5110767
>implying that we experience reality at all

>> No.5110771

>>5110741
>believing in consciousness but not in ghosts

Sure, because one untestable claim without evidence is so much more rational to believe in than another untestable claim without evidence.

>> No.5110782

>>5110770

>implying that reality as we experience it isn't just an image formed by the brain from input from our senses
>implying reality isnt subjective

>> No.5110790

>>5110700
>>5110672
You couldn't be more wrong.
Equations like Navier-Stokes and the perfect gas equation completely throw nanoscopic physics out the window and assume random distributions.
There is no connection between physical laws at the nano and macro scales.

>> No.5110794

>>5110782
>implying there isn't an objective reality in which the brain must exist

>> No.5110802

>>5110796
The mirror test tests the ability to detect mirrors, not a metaphysical nonsense concept called "awareness".

>> No.5110796

>>5110771

Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

>denying consciousness

Wat.

We can test self awareness for example :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

>> No.5110799

The empirical fallacy and Godel's incompleteness theorem.

/thread

>> No.5110808

>>5110771
It's fully testable. At least consciousness effects are.

>> No.5110813

>>5110794

>implying our perception isn't just an interpretation of the true nature of reality.

>> No.5110809

>>5110802
Uh no... a lot of species can detect mirrors and still fail the mirror test.

>> No.5110817
File: 35 KB, 287x300, 1348777299030.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110817

>>5110802
>nonsense

>> No.5110818
File: 113 KB, 389x251, laughing_girls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110818

>>5110802

>The mirror test tests the ability to detect mirrors

>> No.5110822

>>5110808
Which effects? Your metaphysical nonsense has no effects.

>>5110809
That's a contradiction.

>>5110818
That's what it does.

>> No.5110826
File: 91 KB, 247x248, grabbing head.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110826

>>5110790
>There is no connection between physical laws at the nano and macro scales.

>> No.5110828
File: 35 KB, 477x355, cat.png.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110828

>>5110802

>> No.5110838

>>5110822

The mirror test is a test of whether animals possess the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror, used as a measure of self-awareness.

> a test of whether animals possess the ability to recognize themselves

>> No.5110848

>>5110826

the connection is statistical, not fundamental

>> No.5110852

>>5110802
>denying self-awareness

wow, reductionists really are fucking retarded

>metaphysical
i don't think you know what the means

>> No.5110849

>>5110826
You're supposed to read the rest of the arguments, and then deny them.
But then you would fail at it anyway, since those who are actually knowledgeable know we are already way past the age of naive reductionism.

>> No.5110855

>>5110799

>empirical fallacy

You don't just get to make up terms

>> No.5110864

>>5110838
It tests whether an animal can detect a mirror or not. That's what it does. It cannot be used to justify idiotic magic beliefs.

>>5110852
There is no reason to believe in untestable things with no evidence. A rational person dismisses those.

>> No.5110875

>>5110848
If you had the processing power to sufficiently model physics at the nano scale it would be more accurate than your models of the macro scale.
The reason we don't take into account individual particles when, for example, constructing buildings, is because current models are good enough. But if we could model the building as smaller and smaller particles, each model would be increasingly more accurate.

>>5110849
> those who are actually knowledgeable know we are already way past the age of naive reductionism.
What does this even mean? "Naive" reductionism?

>> No.5110870

>>5110864
>untestable
empirical fallacy

also who cares about being rational in your nihilistic world

>> No.5110871

>implying reality can be known via concepts based on limited understanding

>> No.5110883

>>5110870

>empirical fallacy

You keep saying that, but that isn't a real term

>> No.5110880
File: 19 KB, 294x294, 132505226769.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110880

>>5110864
>magic

>> No.5110887

>>5110864
You see, there are plenty of so called "consciousness effects", like the mirror.
Of course, you could deny consciousness and come up with an ad hoc bullshit explanation for each one of them.

But you know about that thing were you take seemingly very different observations and put them all in one simple unified theory?
Yeah, we like to do that. It's pretty cool.
There is the thing with scientific models : it makes no difference if something actually happens or if everything happens "as if". And a lot of "consciousness effects" are explained by the simple postulate that consciousness exists.

>> No.5110889

experience > tests

I experience my self-awareness.
I experience my consciousness.

That is all I need to know that I am conscious and self-aware.

deal with it, "rational" nerd.

>> No.5110890

>>5110870
Eliminative materialism is not nihilism.

>>5110880
Calling it by its name.

>> No.5110896

>>5110892
Please show objectively verifiable evidence for your qualia nonsense.

>> No.5110892

>denying personal experience

super-autist detected

>> No.5110897

>>5110875

As mentioned earlier in the thread,that kind of processing power will never exist. We have no choice but to use statistics, just like in thermodynamics.

>> No.5110898

Qualia.

>> No.5110901

>>5110896
Are you denying qualia? holy fuck you are retarded

human beings undergo subjective experiences and, hence, their conscious mental states have qualia.

>> No.5110902

>>5110889

Exactly experience comes before tests, not the other way round however some reddit hardcore rational thought police seem to think otherwise "WE CAN'T TEST CONSCIOUSNESS - DOES NOT EXIST DAWKINS,KRAUSS,HARRIS FUCK YEAH RATIONAL THOUGH"

>> No.5110903

>>5110889
Has your "I" experience "I"?

>> No.5110906

>>5110875
>If you had the processing power to sufficiently model physics at the nano scale it would be more accurate than your models of the macro scale.
You have no idea what you are talking about and are talking out of your ass. It's never been done and you are just speaking on faith.
But actually yes, you are kind of right, if you did a very expensive model for a gas following quantum physics, maybe you would find proper laws in the end.
But you know what? You would also find the same result if you assumed particles followed the fucking Dow-Jones fluctuation.
Macro scale laws are statistical laws, they don't rely AT ALL on what happens at the nano scale.

>What does this even mean? "Naive" reductionism?
It means you are naive and misinformed. Maybe you should read a bit of Laughlin.

>> No.5110907

>>5110896

>Denying our only knowledge of existence.

>> No.5110909

>>5110901
Please provide evidence supporting your claim.

>> No.5110919

>>5110914

>No reason to believe in experience of reality

>> No.5110914

>>5110907
I do not deny anything. I simply dismiss untestable claims with no evidence. There's no reason to believe in them.

>> No.5110918

>>5110897
I don't know if such power will ever exist. But regardless, that doesn't mean that more-accurate models can't exist. I'm not saying that statistics in place of more accurate modeling is wrong; I'm saying it's less right.
It is however completely wrong to say that nano-scale models are less accurate than macro-scale models.

>> No.5110921

>>5110919
Troll harder.

>> No.5110925

>>5110875
Sure buddy, now try to calculate a Young modulus for a real metal using its crystallographic properties.

>> No.5110935

>>5110921

You are the one trolling: you are denying qualia which is thereby denying conscious experience.

>> No.5110945

>>5110925
I can't do that given my current knowledge.

>> No.5110939
File: 1.63 MB, 296x248, 1336187978241.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110939

>nihilism

>> No.5110940

>>5110906
>It's never been done and you are just speaking on faith.
I didn't say it has been done. I said if it were possible.

> You would also find the same result if you assumed particles followed the fucking Dow-Jones fluctuation.
You would find similar but less accurate results.

>Macro scale laws are statistical laws, they don't rely AT ALL on what happens at the nano scale.
Which is exactly why nano-scale models would be more accurate. Of course they're much less feasible.

>It means you are naive and misinformed. Maybe you should read a bit of Laughlin.
Help me out and tell me what makes me that.

>> No.5110941

>>5110935
Give me the evidence. Without evidence I don't have a reason to believe your claims.

>> No.5110943

1. The eliminativist sincerely utters, "There are no beliefs."
2. So, the eliminativist believes that there are no beliefs.
3. So eliminativism about beliefs involves realism about beliefs.
4. So eliminativism is incoherent.

>> No.5110948

The only possible explanation for free will is that it's relative and you have several dimensions where the one below it looks deterministic, but each higher layer becomes more homogenous. Eventually reaching a singularity where there is only one.

>> No.5110950

>>5110941

I have to give evidence that I exist?

>> No.5110953

>>5110939

>implying existential nihilism isn't the most valid phiolosopy

>> No.5110954

>>5110950
Well we certainly can't just take your word for it.

>> No.5110963

>>5110918
>It is however completely wrong to say that nano-scale models are less accurate than macro-scale models.
But you are wrong, calculate a Young modulus for a metal starting from the crystal description, and you will find fantasist values. Calculate a gas behavior with an atomistic model and you will never find proper Navier-Stokes-ruled behavior.
>But regardless, that doesn't mean that more-accurate models can't exist.
It doesn't mean it can...
More importantly, it has never been done and it's completely impractical.
You are speaking on complete faith. You think numerical models always work by default, while they could very well be completely divergent. There is a fundamental problem behind the act of simulating physics with numerical computers. There is no guarantee anywhere that it should work.

Once again, even if you make a very expensive model using nanoscale laws which works, but making the same model with a completely random assumption instead of nanoscale laws works EXACTLY AS WELL, then there is NO link between nano and macro.

>> No.5110967

>>5110940
>You would find similar but less accurate results
That's what you don't understand.
You would find THE SAME results.

>> No.5110970

>>5110954

You don't believe my 'claim' that humans exist?

Nice application of Occam's razor and rational thought there.

>> No.5110982

>>5110950
You just did by making that post. I was asking for evidence for your qualia nonsense.

>> No.5110979
File: 15 KB, 312x361, donald implying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5110979

>>5110970

>thinking you can defeat solipsism with occam's razor

>> No.5110988

>>5110967
Citation needed. What in the world makes you think this?

>> No.5110991

>>5110940
>Help me out and tell me what makes me that.
Well I don't know. You should realize that the act of dividing a physical process into small discrete increments of time, and position into small discret increments of space, EVEN when EXTREMELY small, is NOT a "guiltless" act in terms of mathematics. I know a lot of physicists don't realize this, but there are some equations which won't undergo smoothly a discretization process, even with very fine steps.

>> No.5110999

>>5110988
Citation : take a bloody course in statistical mechanics.

>> No.5111005
File: 143 KB, 800x1020, oc-012.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5111005

The quantum scale is too complicated and weird to predict with models.

>> No.5111013

>>5110982

So you agree that humans exists but deny consciousness in humans.

>> No.5111016

>>5111005

What? We already do. Quantum mechanics is complete...

>> No.5111022

>>5111013
Humans existing is a fact verifiable by observation. Consciousness isn't.

>> No.5111025

>>5110991
>Well I don't know. You should realize that the act of dividing a physical process into small discrete increments of time, and position into small discret increments of space, EVEN when EXTREMELY small, is NOT a "guiltless" act in terms of mathematics.
So where exactly did the guy you're replying to state his model would work like this? YOU are the one making retarded assumptions about the type of model here.

>>5110999
Statistical mechanics is an approximation. No doubt the APPROXIMATION would come out the same, but that doesn't mean the real world would. That's EXACTLY what >>5110940 is arguing.

>> No.5111033

>>5110988
You just have to assume an equal distribution of, for example, direction of motion.
It doesn't matter what laws actually make it equally distributed.

>> No.5111034

>>5110963
>calculate a Young modulus for a metal starting from the crystal description, and you will find fantasist values. Calculate a gas behavior with an atomistic model and you will never find proper Navier-Stokes-ruled behavior.

I'm struggling to believe that you would get an incorrect answer is you properly approached the problem. Of course you are more knowledgeable about this than me, but is it possible that the proper answer can only be reached via abstractions is because the answer itself is abstract or requires a specific context? In the same way that, say, analyzing my brain state would not tell you whether my beliefs were correct.

>> No.5111041

>>5110967
The same results that your ASSUMPTIONS would give.

>> No.5111049

>>5111033
It doesn't matter for the statistical-mechanics APPROXIMATION. But that is an approximation, and we can do BETTER by actually doing the complete calculations.

>> No.5111050

>>5111016
It obviously isn't if we still have more than two types of elementary particle.

>> No.5111052

>>5111022

>Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object

Are you seriously suggesting humans are not aware of external objects.

>> No.5111054

>>5111022
Consciousness is what does the observation.

>> No.5111056

>>5111025
>So where exactly did the guy you're replying to state his model would work like this? YOU are the one making retarded assumptions about the type of model here.
Excuse me? There are two types of models, analytical and numerical. Of course we weren't talking of analytical ones, since we were talking about supercomputers and such.
Now tell me exactly how to NOT discretize things when using numbers and computers, I would be happy to hear that.

>Statistical mechanics is an approximation. No doubt the APPROXIMATION would come out the same, but that doesn't mean the real world would.
What the HELL are you even talking about? See >>5111033

>> No.5111068

>>5111034 here again, didn't put my full reply in one post for some reason.

>You are speaking on complete faith. You think numerical models always work by default, while they could very well be completely divergent. There is a fundamental problem behind the act of simulating physics with numerical computers. There is no guarantee anywhere that it should work.

I'm not operating on faith. I'm operating on the fact that, so far, every phenomenon we have encountered has been reducible to smaller parts, and more accurate models.

>> No.5111069

>>5111052
Humans can perceive their environment by means of physical perception. So can machines, given they have specific measuring devices. No need to introduce untestable bullshit terms like "awareness".

>> No.5111092

>>5111049
It's still faith.
What you are arguing has no relation with anything done in science. It's all "maybe", "we could". The least we could do when talking about science is keep it grounded in reality.

>>5111034
Uh maybe, let me meditate on that.

>> No.5111093

>>5111069


Consciousness is merely a state of being self-aware, unlike a machine (with current technology).
Albeit It is possible that one day a machine with sufficiently advanced technology could be conscious.

>> No.5111106

>>5111034
>I'm struggling to believe that you would get an incorrect answer IF you properly approached the problem

i made a typo

>>5111092
Okay, thanks.

>> No.5111100

>>5111068
>I'm operating on the fact that, so far, every phenomenon we have encountered has been reducible to smaller parts, and more accurate models.
Have we? What exactly are the successes of big old school reductionism?

>> No.5111101

>>5111093
Herp is a state of derp. Your sentence is entirely meaningless. You define one untestable nonsense concept by another untestable nonsense concept. Lrn2science and provide some fucking evidence.

>> No.5111115

>>5111100
>What exactly are the successes of big old school reductionism?

Physics from Newton onward?

>> No.5111123 [DELETED] 

>>5111101
>untestable nonsense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_tes
>... used as a measure of self-awareness...

Now be quiet.

>> No.5111129

>>5111115
Uh, how are Newton laws reductionists?
I mean do they appeal to lower scales law?

>> No.5111132

>>5111101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

>The mirror test is a test of whether animals possess the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror, used as a measure of self-awareness.

>a test
>of self awareness

>> No.5111135

>>5111123
The mirror test tests the ability to detect mirrors. We already had this argument. Something being incorrect in wikipedia doesn't make it truth. Also if I remember correctly the wiki article lists all the criticism that explains why your mirror test does not prove your metaphysical nonsense.

>> No.5111138

>>5111132
There you go >>5111135

>> No.5111147

>>5111056
>There are two types of models, analytical and numerical.
That's a false dichotomy, actually.
>Now tell me exactly how to NOT discretize things when using numbers and computers, I would be happy to hear that.
I'm not saying you don't need to discretize things (though this might in fact be possible, who knows), but that doesn't mean we have to discretize those entities for which it is dangerous to do so. Fine, so perhaps you can't discretize time and space (though I *think* the quantum-dynamical result that both are always differentiable means you can in fact do this safely), but that doesn't mean there isn't SOME abstraction or basis for which it IS possible.

>> No.5111153

>>5111135

Ok your autism and lack of intuition has made this argument pointless.

>> No.5111155

>>5111153
An insult is not an argument. Try again.

>> No.5111166

>>5111093
>Albeit It is possible that one day a machine with sufficiently advanced technology could be conscious.

Nope.

>> No.5111167

>>5111147
Well so it's all "maybes" and "if we had completely new and different models".
So far, reductionism doesn't and has never worked, direct macro scale and statistical models rule uncontested.
Let's remain anchored in reality, shall we?

>> No.5111170

>>5111153
Would a camera test, where the subject is in a room with a screen displaying a video camera feed of the room, be a test of self-awareness?
I can certainly imagine that, given the position of the camera and the size of the screen, animals that pass the mirror test might fail the camera test.
Perhaps we use a camera that takes single frames. Would we change the definition of self-aware?

>> No.5111174

>>5111170
A camera test would test whether you understand what a camera does. Nothing more.

>> No.5111175

>>5111167
I think what he's trying to say is that models with less assumptions will be more accurate. Which, to me, is a bit of a trivial statement.

>> No.5111181

Why be rational?

>> No.5111184

>>5111181
It's the best way to optimize utility.

>> No.5111190

>>5111167
>Well so it's all "maybes" and "if we had completely new and different models".
Actually, it's "assuming we'd do the job of making sure our computational model is representative". Which a reasonable person would of course take for granted.
>So far, reductionism doesn't and has never worked, direct macro scale and statistical models rule uncontested.
If you mean by that "actually doing all the low-level calculations has never been practical, which means you really want macro scale models for all intents and purposes" then of COURSE. I don't think anyone in this thread has disputed that, certainly not me.

>> No.5111193

>>5111166

What makes you so sure that AI could not reach the stage of self awareness. Even 'simple' animals show signs of self awareness.

>> No.5111195

>>5111166

[citation needed]

>> No.5111198

>>5111184
Why optimize utility?

>> No.5111206

>>5111198
Right now the best answer anyone can give to that, I think, is "feels good man."

>> No.5111207

>>5111175
Well yeah they can't be worse. The shit really hits the fan when you realize they are just as good and much more expensive.
It's also a political problem of course, since naive reductionism is the driving force behind particle research getting so much funding, while other fields which could be very fruitful like material sciences are left to the industry (assuming wrongly that companies will perform fundamental research).

>> No.5111216

>>5111190
But it's true for both calculatory models and analytical ones.

>> No.5111221

>>5111190
Not only are they not practical, they are useless and we learn nothing from them.

>> No.5111232

>>5111216
What is?
>>5111221
You're still not making any new observations.

>> No.5111233

>>5111206
How can I feel good when your rationality denies my conscious self-awareness and free will?

>> No.5111238

>>5111221
>they are useless
No, we can model things with them.

>we learn nothing from them.
The same way we learn nothing from current models?

>> No.5111247

>>5111233
>your rationality denies my conscious self-awareness and free will?
I never denied you those...but since you bring it up, why wouldn't you be able to feel good without "self-awareness" and "free will"?

>> No.5111279

>>5111233

Rationality supports consciousness and therefore free will.

>> No.5111289

>>5111279
Bullshit. Rarionality supports dismissing nonsense with no evidence.

>> No.5111292

>>5111279
How does consciousness infer free will?
Additionally, please define both terms.

>> No.5111296

>>5111238
>No, we can model things with them.
The debate has been going on for quite a while, at this point you have to provide an example.

>The same way we learn nothing from current models?
Do you even simulations?

>> No.5111301

>>5111289
Fuck rationality and evidence.

>> No.5111308

>>5111238
What does this "can" mean?
If it's "can" as in actually "can" and not "could", then no, we can't.

>> No.5111311

>>5111292
If you already believe in one kind of magic, why not believe in all kinds of magic? It's not like one had more evidence than the other.

>> No.5111314

>>5111296
>The debate has been going on for quite a while, at this point you have to provide an example.
Not that guy, but how about protein folding simulations?

>> No.5111325

>>5111289
You don't "believe" in models. Either they are good models or not.
If you know another one which is actually simpler and more elegant for explaining consciousness effects like the mirror one, I'll take it.

>> No.5111328

>>5111314
I know nothing about that actually.
Is there a change of scale involved? I was under the impression everything pretty much happened at the molecular level.

>> No.5111333

>>5111311
Look dude, I don't know what your problem is, but just shut the fuck already. I'm asking this dude some fucking questions and you keep quoting my posts and telling me how stupid they are. I know how you feel. I want to ask this guy questions so I can see where our fucking misunderstanding in because at least one of us is wrong. You're contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation. I define consciousness is an abstraction of numerous mental processes. Is that fucking magic? No it's a goddamn model.

>> No.5111334

>>5111328
*I meant molecular.

>> No.5111339

If Occult Chemistry's(a book) illustrations are right, it's no wonder we think there are truly random forces at work.

>> No.5111341

>>5111334
>>5111328
Wow, I'm tired.

>> No.5111345

>>5111328
>I was under the impression everything pretty much happened at the molecular level.
It is, which was a great improvement over coarser higher-level older methods.

>> No.5111352

>>5111296
>The debate has been going on for quite a while, at this point you have to provide an example.
I don't know where the Rules of Debate state that, but alright, I suppose I should.
Let's say we want to describe the movement of a car. I model it as an oval object moving at some velocity. That might be good enough for our purposes (if we're in a high school physics class), but if we're working at Ford, you're going to turn to me and say, "Hey, this model isn't accurate enough. Let's fix that." And then we separately model wheels, and the frame of the car, and the engine parts, and so on.

>Do you even simulations?
So why wouldn't we learn something from more accurate simulations?

>> No.5111358

>>5111345
Wait what, how can you get higher level than molecular for proteins?

>> No.5111368

>>5111352
To expand on my car model: if I'm Doctor Manhattan and I want to accurately know how a car will work (let's pretend I can't see into the future), I can see how the atoms or subatomic particles making up the car will work, which is even more accurate, but certainly very unnecessary for the two of us back at Ford.

>> No.5111378

>>5111292
Consciousness - state of being self aware of own entity and external objects

Free will - the ability to make choices (determinate) from thoughts (indeterminate)

>> No.5111371

>>5111352
Going from a full car to wheels and frames really isn't a change of scale. You are still using standard Newtonian mechanics in both cases.

>So why wouldn't we learn something from more accurate simulations?
Because it turns out they aren't.

>> No.5111375

>>5111358
I'm not sure. But I distinctly remember that once upon a time courser methods were used which were useful but far inferior to current techniques, and that did NOT just mean lower resolution.

>> No.5111392

>>5111371
>Going from a full car to wheels and frames really isn't a change of scale.
Of course it is. The new model has internal moving parts that the old model didn't. It's not a very large change of scale, but it absolutely is *a* change of scale.

>> No.5111404

>>5111392
Yeah well sure, if you want to. I still don't see how that's relevant.

>> No.5111422

>>5111404
It's relevant because you get more accurate predictions by zooming in on the model. You say "this isn't just a static 'car', it's a collection of smaller parts with well-understood interactions", and this model gets you additional information that the old one didn't, and moreover includes all predictions of the old model - which makes the old model superfluous, except of course as an approximation for the sake of economics of computer power. And that is exactly what reductionism is.

>> No.5111431
File: 50 KB, 430x405, this guy here.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5111431

mfw conciousness is an electromagnetic process running Darwinian iterated algorithms in superposition that breaks the wave function for all particles observed, that then interferes with all other brains realities by further electromagnetic interaction creating a mean common conciousnes between you and your peers.

>> No.5111440

>>5111422
You're assuming since it works for car -> car components, it will work for a real change in order of magnitude, like car components -> atoms.
The truth is it doesn't (see fluid and solid mechanics).

It's 2am, I'm going to bed, but I'll say Peter Laughlin wrote extensively on that matter under the keyword "emergence".

>> No.5111459

>>5111440
>The truth is it doesn't (see fluid and solid mechanics).
I have not seen a single scrap of evidence indicating this. This thread included.
>It's 2am, I'm going to bed, but I'll say Peter Laughlin wrote extensively on that matter under the keyword "emergence".
As have others, with less retarded opinions (the fact that they don't wrote under the keyword "emergence" should be a pretty big hint).

>> No.5111506 [DELETED] 

>>5111431
>Working from the amsmeteors.org database and researching prior reports going back a century, it was found that the reported fireball incidence has held steady at around 1.2-1.3 per day for a very long time. This is now changing.

>>>/x/

>> No.5111510

>>5111431

>>>/x/

>> No.5111513

>>5111378
>Consciousness - state of being self aware of own entity and external objects
Why is this important?

>Free will - the ability to make choices (determinate) from thoughts (indeterminate)
Choices are determinate? Thoughts aren't?
Can one choose what thoughts to think? What does "choose" in this sense mean?

>> No.5111539

>>5111459
What do you mean, "evidence"? Whether calculations work or not is not a matter of speculation.
Nobody owes you an education in material science.

>> No.5111543

>>5111459
>As have others, with less retarded opinion
such as?

>> No.5111552

hey guise

guise listen

What if multiverse theory is true? Would there be a universe where Carl isn't the most awesome person alive? That would break all of logic, wouldn't it?

dis is very philolosofagal questun

pls respong :DDDD

>> No.5111558

>>5111539
I mean >>5111440 claims that it doesn't work without anything to back up his claim.
>Nobody owes you an education in material science.
But anyone making such unlikely claims owes the rest of the world an explanation if he wants to be taken at all seriously.

>>5111543
Such as Eliezer Yudkowsky. See http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29

>> No.5111578

I cannot believe /sci/ is this fucking retarded. The lack of free will is an illusion caused by the sole fact that it is impossible to go back and change decisions or alter events. Since you're stuck with the choice you made, it looks like it was "meant to be."

>> No.5111581
File: 58 KB, 529x500, implying.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5111581

>>5111552

>> No.5111588

>>5111581
>implying
>implying
>implying
Imply my ANUS.

>> No.5111594

>>5111588

you're not my real carl

>> No.5111599

>>5110307
No its not their free will they were "born" gay, like, before puberty.

Right?
No way this is postrationalisation.

>> No.5111600

>>5111594
Listen bitch. I'm as Carl as a Carl can be.

>> No.5111664

What do you mean by "free will"? In the philosophical sense, the brain is a classical system. Decoherence destroys the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix, thus the biomolecules and the neurons will all follow classical laws of physics.