[ 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: 51 KB, 568x300, lamenteyelautocontrol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6667403 No.6667403 [Reply] [Original]

Hi, guys! I have a interesting question:

What do you think about "free-will"? Is all that fake?
Recently I have read about this, and really I can't believe it... is free will fake? I love science, but since I read this I've been very worried. Are we just like a robot? We can't have self-control? Is all this just an ilussion? I've fallen in a terrible depression, I cant see all the people of the same way anymore... I cant sleep... This is so sad. How can we incriminate to a killer if he cant do anything about that?

(my English isnt perfect, so sorry)

>> No.6667406 [DELETED] 

Centrifugal force is a fake force but still useful in certain reference frame. So do free will

Go sleep.

>> No.6667407

Sam Harris scientifically disproved free will.

>> No.6667408

>>6667403
Centrifugal force is a fake force but still useful in certain reference frame. So is free will

Go sleep.

>> No.6667420

>>6667403
The mind is a deterministic system. So it doesn't exist out side of philosophy.

>>6667407
Really?
Link please

>> No.6667425

>>6667420
He wrote a whole fucking book titled "Free Will".

>> No.6667426

>>6667425
Oh okay, thanks.

>> No.6667431

The volition of entities is of course not entirely free. You are constrained by your biology, enviroment and other circumstances when making decisions. Your wants and needs are all part of what you are: you crave food when you are hungry and you feel a need for sexual release when aroused. It's true that we are little more than biological machines, but at the same time we are social creatures who have evolved the ability to handle tools, language and complex decision making. So I guess our will is a whole lot more free than you seem to imply.

>> No.6667433

>>6667420
So... We cant do anything if we want do it? What about mind reflection?

>> No.6667440

>observing a random quantum event
>dunno if still no free will
>go make a big ass nuclear bomb
>kill everything
>nothing alive, no free will
Question about the free will is something philosophical and therefore stupidly useless. End of the story.

>> No.6667443
File: 59 KB, 468x382, free will.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6667443

Determinism and free will aren't mutually exclusive. The idea of a brain being not deterministic is completely absurd. Sure, the future follows entirely from the past, but why would that mean that the choices someone makes aren't "genuine"?

What is free will, anyway?

>> No.6667445
File: 23 KB, 600x600, shiggy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6667445

>>6667433
Have any of you idiots actually sat down and think?

Just think, how do we come to conclusions and choices? Think about it and it will all make sense.

Just think.
Peace and kill yourself
>>>/lit/

>> No.6667447

>>6667403
>What do you think about "free-will"?
Does not exist
>>Is all that fake?
Yes
>>Are we just like a robot?
Molecular robots. Really fucking complex molecular robots. If both robots and we are complex systems which obey the physical laws of the universe, then yes we are robots. But maybe that is just an argument over definitions. I'm not gonna get into that argument.
>>We can't have self-control?
Depends on your definition of self-control. Have you ever met a person who has self-control? If yes, then absence of free will sometimes allows for self-control.
>>Is all this just an ilussion?
If you are talking about free will being an illusion, then yes. If you are talking about some other illusion... then i dont know what you are talking about.
>>How can we incriminate to a killer if he cant do anything about that?
Judges and jury members and law makers don't have free will either. And law courts around the world send killers to jail almost every day, and they "can't do anything about that" as well (to use your own words). So what is the dilemma here?

>> No.6667453

>>6667431
But that paper says some like: "will doesnt exist, is just an illussion" I dont know if that is complety right... I know that we are a complex kind. OK, this confuse me.

>> No.6667454

I do what I want but I choose to oscillate.

>> No.6667458

>>6667403
Define free will, and you will then be able to see that it doesn't exist or it doesn't mean anything special.

>> No.6667460

>>6667453
It's the most retarded thing when people say "it doesn't exist, it is an illusion", the fuck does it mean if something is an illusion? Same thing with consciousness.

>> No.6667464

>>6667460
Most people can't define words they use everyday on their own, much less a concept like free will. This doesn't really prove anything.

>> No.6667466

If you believe in cause and effect then you can't believe in free will, which is the idea that choices can be made independently of cause and effect i.e that choices you make can be free from causality.

>> No.6667469

>>6667460
>when people say "it doesn't exist, it is an illusion", the fuck does it mean if something is an illusion?
Maybe it is an illusion to those who believe it exists. To those who know it doesn't exist, like myself, I guess there is no illusion.

>> No.6667476

We don't have free will. But the meaning behind our actions and thoughts is so ridiculously complex (to us) that is virtually is free will. Because we can't understand it and see the patterns, there's the illusion of choice and randomness.

>> No.6667490

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will

>> No.6667496

What if all the people know about this? Something can change? Or is the same thing?

>> No.6667510

>>6667496
Everyone knows free will doesn't exist, except idiots.

>> No.6667514

>>6667496

An awareness of the lack of free will undoubtedly have an effect on someone, and effect that is beyond their control. For example, someone might choose to rob a bank because they know they don't have free will and thus aren't really responsible. Or someone might kill themself if they feel they have no control, or they might stop caring about life. If we were studying animals who had this effect, we might say that too much awareness about their freedom of choice often "overwlehms" them and makes them less able to function. Of course, the most common response would probably be either denial, or cognitive dissonance. If we were again studying animals, we might say when learning about their lack of free will, they will rapidly try to convince themselves it's not that true, in order to keep sane.

>> No.6667520

>>6667510
Maybe I have a wrong definition about "free-will", but I cant formulate a complex question if I don't speak English. I speak Spanish, so maybe you all cant understand all that I'm saying

>> No.6667526

Define "free will" first. If you want to talk about fuzzy things like this, you need to define exactly what you are talking about, which is the mistake people constantly make.

In any case, the will does not seem to be absolutely free, because I can't turn into a horse even if I really want to.

>> No.6667572

I believe the brain is deterministic but due to quantum processes and "randomness" the trajectory of an individual through time can change. So, free will if it exists is due to randomness on the quantum level in regards to phenomena in your brain. Largely determined with variations possible due to quantum fluctuations.

>> No.6667576

>>6667403
Fucking hell, one of these philosophy threads again. Just you guys wait until this guy ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ comes into this thread.

>> No.6667578

>>6667425
if he proved it, why are we still debating whether it exists? "scientifically-proven" a philosophical concept, sounds fishy.

>> No.6667581

>>6667576
Arrow fag is a girl.

>> No.6667584

>>6667581
arrowfag might as well be cancer, for all i care. if she can't tell the difference behind the most basic metaethical theories, there's no way in hell she can come close to providing anything useful to a conversation about free will.

>> No.6667589

>>6667584
Are you that idiot from the other thread who doesn't know the difference between emotivism, nihilism and relativism? Fuck off back to >>>/lit/.

>> No.6667593

universe needs killers to balance itself out, it proves that free will exists

>> No.6667604

>>6667589
nah honey, you're the cunt who tried to use Kant's categorical imperative as evidence for emotivism. i had to explain the basics of emotivism (i.e. what Sam Harris didn't tell you, i suppose) to you.

and i won't go to /lit/. my primary interests are physics and mathematics.

>> No.6667610

>>6667604
⇒tried to use Kant's categorical imperative as evidence for emotivism
What the hell? Seriously, how could anyone misread my posts in such a bizarre way to reach this utterly foolish conclusion?

⇒i had to explain the basics of emotivism
You linked to a wikipedia article confirming my point and refuting yours.

>> No.6667611

As far as I'm concerned, "free will" means that your actions depend in a sensitive way on your thoughts. Which they do.

>> No.6667622

>>6667526
Why would you want to turn into horse?
>inb4 beastiality

>> No.6667651

>>6667578
Because he's a pop psychologist, not a real scientist and none of his bullshit is peer reviewed.

>> No.6667832

Ought implies can.

If I push you into someone else and that person falls off a balcony to their death, technically you are the cause of their death. We don't hold you responsible because you couldn't stop what happened.

In a world with no free will, no one is responsible for anything.

>> No.6668828

>>6667407
No he didn't.
>>6667460
you show potential.
>>6667469
so consciousness has tricked itself into believing it is conscious.... please tell me more about ontological danglers and self referencing illusions.
>>6667572
If the random element of our behavior is from quantum variation we're determined by it and don't have free will. If consciousness determines those variations you have a consistent idea.
>>6667610
I think I might like you, but I need to read more arrowfag.
>>6667651
DING DING DING

Consciousness must exist because I'm doing it, and, theoretically, you are too. I think free will is real because otherwise consciousness is an ontological dangler. There is NO OTHER PHENOMENA known to science that sits at the end of a causality chain doing nothing, not making other happenings happening. I think Spinoza was on the right track with his idea about there having to be some lower level "thing" that makes up material things and subjective things, by which they are able to interact, but at the moment this is not scientifically verifiable. I also believe that it will never be scientifically verifiable because of the other minds problem. Unfortunately, this is philosophy, not science so back to /lit/ you go.

>>6667510
o wow an ad hominem! Such a high level of discourse we have here on /sci/

>> No.6669104

>>6667832
>In a world with no free will, no one is responsible for anything.
More like
>In a world with no free will, everyone is responsible for everything.