[ 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: 44 KB, 427x348, 1388420752834.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6259885 No.6259885[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Does free will exist?

>> No.6259891

official /sci/ trolling list:
>consciousness
>free will
>IQ
>0.999...

what else am I missing?

>> No.6259895

>>6259891
Jacob Barnett

>> No.6259894

>>6259891
Im not sure how talking about consciousness and free will is trolling

So does it exist or not?

>> No.6259897

>>6259894
I'm not sure how questioning 0.999... is trolling.

So are they equal or not?

>> No.6259900

>>6259894
I'm not sure how intelligence tests are trolling.

What's your IQ?

>> No.6259899

>>6259894
Because this is a science board, and the question you posed is a poor one, at least scientifically speaking.

>> No.6259902

>>6259899
Well scientificly speaking, does free will exist or not?

>> No.6259906

>>6259902
Well scientifically speaking why don't you fucking google it?

>> No.6259912

>>6259906

So i can clearly see you dont really have the answear but full of emotion instead

why bother posting?

>> No.6259915

>>6259912
So I can clearly see you dont really have the education but are full of shit instead.

Why bother posting?

>> No.6259917

>>6259902
You're asking a philosophical question but trying to frame it scientifically. It's akin to saying "scientifically, why did the boy cry when his mother didn't buy the toy." While I highly doubt this, do you have any educational background in the cognitive sciences?

>> No.6259920

>>6259917
>"scientifically, why did the boy cry when his mother didn't buy the toy."

This is a very scientific question. Do you even developmental psychology?

>> No.6259919

>>6259891
attacking biology and computer science

>> No.6259921

>>6259919
The criticism against CS is justified.

>> No.6259922

>>6259915
Emotions and more emotions.

Dont bother to post in a logical thread with ego and emotions rather than rational though

>> No.6259926

>>6259917
I do, i wanted to see if you do and perhaps create a discussion

So i ask again, do you think free will exists or not?

>> No.6259928

>>6259922
>doesn't know how to recognize emotions correctly

Your autism is showing.

>> No.6259923

>>6259921
don't you feel even a tiny bit of irony about telling me that in a computer, to a computer?

>> No.6259930

>>6259923
Isn't it ironic that you say this, given the fact that CS students constantly say "CS is all math and not computers"?

>> No.6259934

>>6259928
No my dear, im afraid the autism is strong in YOU

>Ask question

>Get insulted from emotional trigger

>Continues to name call me

>>>/out/

>> No.6259936

>>6259926
>do you think

I do not think.

>> No.6259937

>>6259930
it must be an issue of the behaviour of the CS students you have met or the ones that talk here and I haven't really read then.

they seemed like they had a bunch of math based subjects, but then again I know few CS students.

>> No.6259939

>>6259934
>projecting

>> No.6259942

>>6259926
Once again, this is a question that belongs in the realm of philosophy, not science (at least now). The fact that you say "do you think it exists or not" is telling, for it would exist separately rather if we *thought* it did or not. Using fMRIs and PET scans to try to determine free will is not a reality.

>> No.6259947

>>6259942
But i saw fields of science dealing with the subject

Why do you insist on claiming it is not scientifical?

>> No.6259951

>>6259947

It's not, faggot

>> No.6259953

Fuck off. Stop flooding /sci/ with low quality b8 threads every day, you deranged loser.

>> No.6259964

>>6259947
"But I saw..."this is not how evidence in science works. You're essentially saying "they said it so it must be true." Empirical proof has not been found supporting this hypothesis.

>> No.6259965
File: 76 KB, 500x380, 1388423119474.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6259965

>>6259951
wow

such science

much knowlege

so reply

>> No.6259971

Define "exist".

>> No.6259974

>>6259964
So you're saying that free will *doesnt* exist?

>> No.6259981

>implying it makes a difference

case 1: free will exists
In this case it is women's free decision to reject OP.

case 2: free will doesn't exist
In this case women are biologically determined to reject OP.

Either way OP remains a virgin.

>> No.6259984
File: 97 KB, 996x360, 1388423565521.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6259984

fuck u shillbot

>> No.6259987

>>6259984

>>4420997

Nice samefag

>> No.6259990

>>6259974
I'm saying we don't know, and asking such a broad question *on a science board* is a horrid decision. You mentioned nothing about the molecular chemistry in the brain, nothing about wiring etc., you just asked does this "philosophical principle exist, now explain scientifically." Would you ask a physicist to explain why Joyce is better than Nabokov?

>> No.6259989

>>6259965

>knowledge*

haha. Read some of the post-structuralists, pleb.

>> No.6260000

>>6259990
But you just said

>Empirical proof has not been found supporting this hypothesis.

So you just declared that free will doesnt exist, care to back up your claim?

>> No.6260005

>>6259885
>>6259990

Scientifically, prove that Hegel was correct about his conception of universal self-consciousness

>> No.6260009

>>6259990
>Would you ask a physicist to explain why Joyce is better than Nabokov?

Sure, why not? Everyone who read books of both authors is qualified to have an opinion.

>> No.6260011

>>6260009

via the scientific method, you idiot.

>> No.6260012

How can free will exist if humans don't exist?

>> No.6260016

>>6260011
Comparative literature is a very challenging field of research and rigorously applies the scientific method.

>> No.6260015

>>6260012

/thread

>> No.6260018
File: 54 KB, 433x434, 1388424384002.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6260018

>>6260005
Easy, everything in the universe which exists, is consciouss, i.e sentient

Sounds make things arrange themselves differently, heck, even orbiting planets follow a patern

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w

>> No.6260019
File: 41 KB, 563x548, 1388424446174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6260019

>>6260012

>> No.6260021

>>6260016

examples. that claim is extremely dubious

>> No.6260022

I don't see how my statement contradicted anything. It may exist, it may not, but we have no empirical evidence saying it does, i.e "we don't know." I recommend studying at least basic neuroscience before coming back with another question, because at this point it seems like your groping in the dark. Your question isn't eave falsifiable. "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observation"

>> No.6260036

>>6260022
stating something doesnt exist is different than saying "we dont know" because the later would imply that you tried to discover it but ultimatly failed

>> No.6260045

>>6260018
How is everything conscious?

>> No.6260051

>>6260045

It's not. That person is a fool. They don't understand Hegel at all.

>> No.6260056

>>6260051
Thats a cool refutation bro

>> No.6260058
File: 17 KB, 297x431, 1388425640321.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6260058

>philosophy

>>>/x/

>> No.6260065

>>6260056
Can you explain the position?

>> No.6260063

>>6260056

Well, I am the person asking them to prove universal Self-consiousness via the scientific method. Yet, that person failed to argue about Hegel nor substantiate that bullshit claim that everything is conscious. SO, there was nothing to refute, faggot.

>> No.6260068

>>6260058

Math is philosophy, you idiot. Obviously, you lack mental acuity to even entertain philosophical problems.

>> No.6260071

>>6260068
Pure math is anti-intellectual.

>> No.6260073

>>6260063
So you're actually going to argue that everything which exists isnt sentient? and instead appeal to authority?

weak

>> No.6260076

>>6260068
Math isn't philosophy. Philosotards are lacking the intelligence to understand math.

>> No.6260074

>>6260065

They cannot.

>> No.6260075

Does 0.999~ have enough IQ to produce a consciousness with free will?

>> No.6260078

>>6260075
This question is very profound and deserves a thread on its own.

>> No.6260077

>>6260073

That is not the correct understanding of the Hegelian conception of universal Self-consciousness is, you fool.

>> No.6260081

>>6260077
Burden of proof is on you im afraid

>> No.6260086

>>6260081

likewise

>> No.6260087

>>6260081
You are making the positive statement that everything is sentient.

>> No.6260091

>>6260087

It is the right of all sentient beings to be free - Kurl Sargan "Big Bang Theory ep. 56"

>> No.6260092

>>6260087
Shows me something which lives and isnt sentient

>> No.6260093

>>6260092
I live and I am not sentient.

>> No.6260094

>>6260092
So you are now only claiming living things are sentient?

>> No.6260101

>>6260093
Yet here you are acknowledging my post and taking the emotional effort to reply

>> No.6260098
File: 16 KB, 196x160, 1388426343612.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6260098

>>6260091

>> No.6260115

>>6260101
As a biological machine I had no other choice.

>> No.6260116

>>6260115
Biological machines can be sentient. Just as highly advanced machines may one day be.

>> No.6260117
File: 136 KB, 625x424, 1388426797251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6260117

>>6260116

>> No.6260119
File: 133 KB, 573x402, 1388426867572.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6260119

>>6260117

>> No.6260122

>>6260119
As a rational scientist I do not have emotions.

>> No.6260123

>>6260081


Universal Self-consciousness is when self-consciousness intuits itself as a self-existant universal self, which is both recognized and recognizes other self-consciousnesses in themselves. In other words, it is an universal self-realization. It becomes an object to itself, then recognizes itself to be this object, i.e. Being-for-another, and Being-for-itself

>> No.6260125

>>6260122
It's fun to pretend.

>> No.6260128

>>6260125
What does "fun" mean? I looked it up in a dictionary and I don't understand.

>> No.6260129

>>6260123
I dont see how this is hard to explain as you can see evidence of it all around in our reality by simple observation

>> No.6260140

>>6260129

who said it was difficult to explain? I just asked anon to prove it via scientific method. My point was that the anon who proposed that one can explain the difference in quality between Joyce and Nabokov was completely bullshit. I was implicating that the poster is an idiot.

>> No.6260146

>>6260140
You can check out Dr.Thomas Campbell and his TOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgCb85PG-A&list=FL2a5DsCdYL5JcVKHIKVUEPQ&index=7

He explains it via the scientific method of how everything that surrounds us is consciousness, and the rest is a virtual reality

>> No.6260970

We just don't know.

>> No.6261917

Free will exists if and only if 0.999... = 1.

>> No.6262570

>>6259920
>psychology
>science
get out

>> No.6262598

>>6262570
Psychology uses the scientific method.

>> No.6262596

Two systems which make predictions cannot agree on the totality of predictions that they can make. So whether or not the universe is deterministic, we cannot predict the totality of our own actions. I think of this more of an independence of theories rather than free will.

>> No.6265069

>>6259895
Jacob Barnett... my hero..

>> No.6265171

>>6262570
You deny the existence of psychological phenomena (emotions, mental illnesses, cognition)? Or do you perhaps believe those are social constructs? Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.6265220

>>6259885
If it does then we have it. If it doesn't, then what's the point of questioning something that doesn't exist?

Personally, I believe that while our biochemical process is rather strongly influenced by external stimuli, it is also a definably separate chemical system that makes us up and thus IS us. Each body, with all the biochemical systems that make it up, IS that person and it's reactions to external stimuli are it's own. With all this in mind, I'd say yes, we have free will and are the primary reason for how we act and react to situations. If you react the "wrong way", it would be understandable that someone might want to expose you to "corrective stimuli" to ensure you don't act or react that way again.

This means that you can't get out of your prison sentence with an "I don't technically have free will" argument.

>> No.6265232

>>6265220
what are you going on about? you seem to just be talking about conciousness, not free will

>> No.6266557

>>6265232
Those are the same thing.

>> No.6266561

>>6259885
Nobody can even come up with a rigorous definition of free will.

>> No.6266564

>>6266561
Nobody can up with a rigorous definition of "quantum" either, yet we are doing hard science with it.

>> No.6266566

>>6266564
QUANTUM: A discrete packet of energy.

>> No.6266567

>>6266566
Energy isn't well defined.

>> No.6266580

>>6266567
I'm sorry, this is what I meant. What, specifically, is it that has free will? It can't be your body. It can't be your thoughts, as those arise from applying what you've learned to your current situation. It can't be your feelings, as those are automatic reactions. So what is it that has "free will"?

>> No.6266603

>>6259885

I. If any condition is sufficient for the occurrence of some other condition at time X or any other time, then the former cannot occur without the latter occurring also.

II. An individual's act cannot be performed without some later act being a necessary condition of the former.

III. The passage of time does not give an individual the ability to influence actions without their corresponding conditions.

>> No.6266606

>>6266603

It follows that we have no free will.

>> No.6266646

>>6266603
>>6266606
What follows by that piece of incoherent blabber is the reinforcement of my belief that philosopers are useless retards. I mean really? You are just making stuff up that has no grounds in logic, that really rustled my jimmies.

>> No.6266649

>>6266646
Apply Hanlon's razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

>> No.6266650

>>6259917
Because synapses. Boy feels stressed by the event, this triggers an action potential in the neurons of his limbic system (if I remember correctly, that's supposedly the part of the brain responsible for emotions, been a while since I studied.) The action potential depolarizes the membrane of the neuron by opening voltage gated ion channels which release calcium and sodium, the action potential travels down the neuron and to the synaptic terminal, opening the channels as it goes, and the vesicles containing the molecules/neurotransmitters related to stress (like cortisol, for example) and sadness (don't know that one) fuse to the membrane, break through with calcium and sodium ions, which open the ion channels and continue into the next neuron doing the same thing while the neurotransmitters attach to the receptors and send information. That's why the boy cries when his mom doesn't buy him a toy, at least on the physical level, I'm pretty sure.

>> No.6266661

>>6260123
Alright, so what you're saying is: the universe, assuming it is sentient, has split personality disorder. Fan-fucking-tastic.

>> No.6266692

>>6266646

one ought not confuse subjective incomprehensibility with objective incomprehensibility. you acknowledge that you didn't understand what was written, but rather than immediately discarding it and fallaciously antagonizing a broad range of professionals for it, would it not be better to understand what was being said and point out its deficiencies?

A likely response to this post is "philosophers aren't professionals" or a comment explaining how my post was in fact deficient and you are able to comprehend all of what you've come across, so the likelihood that you don't understand my post is slim. You'll then continue calling me "stupid" and explaining that there's no merit to what I've written, arguing that your feelings have strengthened further.

>just making stuff up

oh dear, my sides~~

you clearly state my piece is "incoherent blabber" then so-eloquently say "you are just making stuff up". I suppose we ought to blame your rustled jimmies and not your inferior intellect.

top_kek.jpg

>> No.6266733

>>6266692
Should be obvious why your post made no sense at all, but let me hear you try to rationalize your original argument, I'll pick apart your logic then.
>An individual's act cannot be performed without some later act being a necessary condition of the former.
This for an example, how on earth did you come up with it? I am actually curious.

>> No.6266769

>>6266733

If some condition's occurrence is necessary for the occurrence of another condition at any time, then the latter's occurrence cannot exist without the former's occurrence. If one condition is sufficient for another, then the other is necessary for it, and conversely, if one condition is necessary for another, then that other is sufficient for it. No agent can perform any given act if there is missing, at any time, some condition necessary for that act's occurrence.

>> No.6266786

>>6266692
*tips fedora*

>> No.6266792

>>6266769
>If one condition is sufficient for another, then the other is necessary for it
No, one does not imply the other. Your intellect is not fitting for a discussion of this kind.

>> No.6266798
File: 30 KB, 480x356, 1388719167884.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6266798

>>6266769
>my sides when you can't into logic

>> No.6266800

>>6266792
not original commenter, but I hope you're trolling.

>> No.6266805

>>6266800
I hope YOU are trolling.

>> No.6266811

>>6266798
>>6266792
>>6266805
don't understand sufficient and necessary conditions

dear god, /sci/, I am disappoint.

>> No.6266819

>>6266811
How low is your IQ? Why do you fail at something as fundamental as the semantics of propositional logic?

>> No.6266829

>>6266811
My condition is sufficient to perfom a lot of tasks, doesn't imply for it to happen though. This is retarded and not at all related to the free will discussion.

>> No.6266839

>>6266819
>>6266805
>>6266800
>>6266798
>>6266792

this is exceedingly humorous for the following reasons:

the original commenter - who was very critical of my post - asked me to explain myself; when I did, quite naturally, he likely doesn't understand it and so points out the most clearly-stated, obvious premise and denies it so as to seem as though he's trolling - for who could deny something of that sort? he'll ultimately follow his inane game with a "ur autistic u got troll'd lulz lelzzz" and retract all of his nonsensical comments.

What's to come:

"YOU CANT EVEN DO LOGIC LOL I CANT SPEAK TO YOU LOLZZZ"

"You're too stupid for me to continue this discussion"

It's pretty clear to me and everyone else that you have no idea what I said and would like me to explain it more clearly, yes?

>> No.6266851

>>6266829
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

>> No.6266854

>>6266839
Keep entertaining us with your ignorance and your failure at babby's first logic. My lels are moving on their own.

>> No.6266865

>>6266854
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

>> No.6266876

>>6266865
Why don't you fucking read it and see for yourself why you were wrong?

>> No.6266888

>>6266851
I second this notion >>6266876
It states in the link that "A condition can be either necessary or sufficient without being the other."
You god damn moron.

>> No.6267089

>>6266557
you are living in a fantasy land, tell me how awareness is synonymous with control.

>> No.6267104

>>6259885
>qualia
>>>/lit/


into the trash it goes

>> No.6267167

>>6267104
Fuck off, shitposter.

>> No.6267169

>>6267167
mom?

>> No.6267177

>>6267169
son?

>> No.6267183

>>6267177
>>6267169

>Doubles
>69 get

Spidey where are you? (8)

>> No.6267190

>>6267183
rolling

>> No.6267192

>>6267190
if post ends in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 God don't exist.

>> No.6267197

>>6267192
re-rolling for Jesus

>> No.6267337

>>6260076
Your connotations of philosophy are skewed and malicious. You're probably a pompous STEM major who thinks science only lies in the applied/discrete. Math, pure or applied, is no doubt pure logic. Just because "philosophers can't understand math", doesn't mean mathematicians aren't philsophers, and a philosopher/philsophy major can't be good at math. shut up fegit

>> No.6267340

Nope.

Determinism yo

>> No.6267346

>>6267340
>deterministic physics
>absolute
Look at this jokester

>> No.6268620

>>6267340
Have you never heard of quantum mechanics?

>> No.6270927

>>6267337
Math doesn't involve any metaphysics.

>> No.6270947

>>6270927
>A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist[4] or a metaphysician.[5] The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.

Sounds a lot like what some mathematicians do.

>> No.6272630

>>6270947
"Some" mathematicians are not "all" mathematicians. Nice logic fail.

>> No.6272632

>>6259885
nope
lrn2determinism, faggot