[ 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: 64 KB, 376x424, god-is-there-free-will.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7087140 No.7087140 [Reply] [Original]

If you were invited to a debate about free will and were suposed to argue against its existence, what points would you bring up?

>> No.7087143

1] If a process is deterministic, then it doesn't contain free will.
2] If a process is random, then it doesn't contain free will.
3] If a process is a mixture of 1 and 2, then it doesn't contain free will.
4] Every known law of nature is either 1, 2 or 3.

>> No.7087145

>>7087140
I would argue FOR free will and when they got mad I would yell "checkmate!"

>> No.7087147

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

>> No.7087150

Toxoplasma gondii

>> No.7087151

that it doesn't make a difference

>> No.7087158

>>7087140
I decline.

>> No.7087164

>>7087143
Actually everything is #1. There is no possibility for any randomness. There are 12 particles in nature. Each reacts in a certain way with others. Knowing the of each particle in the universe at a specific time would give one the ability to know what would occur next.

>> No.7087174

>>7087164
Dude, do you even quantum mechanics? When a conscious observer observes a wave function, it collapses randomly.

>> No.7087175
File: 51 KB, 720x480, 1404202805672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7087175

>>7087164

>> No.7087179

>>7087174
> it collapses randomly.

Nice attempt to slap 'randomly' out of nowhere. But no it doesn't do it randomly. Infact they claim it only happens when a conscious observer is present, so it's %100 deterministic.

Plus where is the evidence for that wavefunction collapse ? Is there any credible source for that ?

>> No.7087180

>>7087164
>if i knew the states of all particles in a system, i could predict quantum probabilistic outcomes

so i see you haven't taken a course in quantum mechanics. please come back and post after your second year at university.

>> No.7087181

We don't even need to assume materialism or any sort of science, free will is a problematic term purely in its definition.

Suppose there is an immaterial soul detached from laws of physics or biology. Suppose this soul is rational, then it would always reach the same conclusion from the same situation, thus it's deterministic. Now suppose it's irrational, in that it can give different conclusions from the same situation. If this irrationality or flexibility is decided by any rule (say that of probability) then it also isn't a "free will". If this irrationality instead is totally irrational and not bound by any rule at all, then it is completely random, thus it's not a free will either. So in short it's not really even clear what we mean when we think there's something that is "free" governing us.

>> No.7087191

you kind of have it easy.
you're arguing against the existence, so all you have to do is introduce doubt and burden of proof is on him to prove its existence.
simple way to do this is take a materialist approach. Our brains are simply the product of physical processes and therefore so are our actions. you can also add to that by bringing up the fact that chemical balances can affect our emotions. There were also studies by jose' delgado where he was able to elicit emotions like love by simply by using a crude device that delivered electrical impulses to certain parts of the brain. Also, brain damage or diseases can affect personality from something as simple as being easy to anger to as radical as not being able to function anymore. To suggest our brains are somehow above the deterministic processes that make it up puts a huge task on the guy to prove that suggestion.
also, know that arguments are rarely about who is right or wrong. Being well versed in sophistry is often more helpful than being right. Don't be afraid to reject a premise that he would otherwise have no basis for just because you personally agree with it. just be a devil's advocate.
>>7087164
>There is no possibility for any randomness
even high school kids know about quantum mechanics.
>Knowing the of each particle in the universe at a specific time would give one the ability to know what would occur next.
no, it wouldn't

>> No.7087194

>>7087174
Wigner's fag pls go

>> No.7087195

>>7087181
You've defined free will to be a contradiction. You suggest that if an irrationality is decided by a rule, then it isn't free will. Setting such a rule given a choice of outcomes is the actual concept of free will itself. You say that it's not 'free' since it's decided by a 'rule' but how was the rule chosen? You've done nothing but shifted the concept slightly. Now the question isn't "Am I free to make a choice?", but "Am I free to set a rule which governs the choices?" - which really does nothing.

>> No.7087196

>>7087179
>Infact they claim it only happens when a conscious observer is present
no, "they don't".
>so it's %100 deterministic
even if it was true though, how does that in any way imply determinism?

retards like this actually exist on /sci/...

>> No.7087198

>>7087143
>>7087143
>1] If a process is deterministic, then it doesn't contain free will.
See, this is why free will debates are retarded. Half the people define free will as "the opposite of determinism/logic/physics/anything that makes sense" and then argue that there is no free will because the world is deterministic/logical/obeying the laws of physics/making sense. The people who argue in favour of free will state that it can exist under deterministic/&c. circumstances, but the other people are too dumb to realize this so they just repeat their retarded no-soul bullshit without even thinking.
Not to mention the new-age sektarians who say "hurr durr quantum consciousness collapse cat's schrödinger microtuberculosis ergo there is free will" who don't even get made fun of because everybody attending the debate is already a retard, or the fact that *sometimes* (very rarely) someone has the proper sense to speak up and try to at least define free will before arguing about its existence, which then either gets ignored, or one of two things happens:
1.) everyone realizes that this definition of free will makes no sense at all and it's not even free or will (this never happens)
or 2.) everyone realizes that this definition of free will makes perfect sense and it's not mysterious at all and also perfectly compatible with the universe we live in and there's no need to argue (this also never happens)

So I would decline the invitation, but still go visit the debate because they have free cake and coffee afterwards.

>> No.7087201

For an academic purpose, this question is an important one with no real answer. But even if we will do what we will do, the mentality of it all matters. Things are deterministic, and without the belief in free will, all thats left is cynicism, nihilism, and a general victim mentality. This would be very bad for society and the persons well being, so since we act as if we have free will, we ought to act as if we have free will. Doesnt matter if you feel ok about it, others dont, and the effect would be disasterous. Wed be slaves to what we tbink will happen, so it will probably happen (in terms of sciety, not nature.) We are creatures of action and understanding, not slaves to our own patterns.(i very much hope.)

>> No.7087202

>>7087196
> if it only happens when a conscious observer is present, how does that in any way imply determinism?

Ironic that you call people retard after asking a question like this...

>> No.7087206

>>7087195
>Setting such a rule given a choice of outcomes is the actual concept of free will itself.
And how is that rule decided? Either there is a deterministic process determining your actions, or there is a random process determining your actions. Either way, you have no control and no free will.

>> No.7087207

>>7087181
>then it would always reach the same conclusion from the same situation, thus it's deterministic.
no, it would just mean it isn't random
free will just means the choice can be made by "you" whether that "you" is corporeal or some immaterial soul. the important thing is the choice was made by "you" not something out of your control like deterministic physical processes.

>> No.7087209

>>7087191
>Our brains are simply the product of physical processes and therefore so are our actions.
That's all good and well, but what does this have to do with free will? All you've shown is that our free will originates from the brain, which everyone knew already.

>> No.7087210

>>7087198
Free will debates are retarded because pro-free will people refuse to coherently define free will. This is because free will simply does not make sense if you try to explain it. So yes, the debate is retarded because the concept being argued over is nonsense.

>> No.7087212

>>7087198
>and then argue that there is no free will because the world is deterministic/logical/obeying the laws of physics/making sense
but that's pretty much true. determinism implies no free will, although non-determinism doesn't necessarily imply free will.
>but the other people are too dumb to realize this
no, you're just to autistic to realize people don't accept your meaningless definition of free will.

>> No.7087217

>>7087207
Well that idea of free will is certainly easier to defend, and I'd wager most "determinist" also agree with it. Only schizophreniacs would say their actions are out of their control.

>> No.7087222

>>7087209
>All you've shown is that our free will originates from the brain
which is governed by deterministic processes...

>> No.7087228

>>7087202
>Ironic that you call people retard after asking a question like this...
sorry i'm not retarded, so i can't understand your retard logic.

>> No.7087229

>>7087207
>free will just means the choice can be made by "you" whether that "you" is corporeal or some immaterial soul. the important thing is the choice was made by "you" not something out of your control like deterministic physical processes.
Why is it so hard to accept that "you" is a result of deterministic physical processes? Why does it make "you" any less free if we understand how "you" works?

>> No.7087231

>>7087217
OK, so a puppet has free will because it has hinges that control it's movement.

You've defined will, not *free* will, dummies.

>> No.7087236

>>7087222
>which is governed by deterministic processes...
...yeah
and how does that prove that the brain's actions are not free?

>> No.7087238

>>7087201
>>7087231
Not i interesting enough to merit a response? :( why dont we focus less on what it is, but more on what it does.

>> No.7087240

>>7087231
Well that's what he's arguing about, the radical definition of "Free will" (that is, the system is entirely free from any rule or outside influence) makes no sense, so it shouldn't even be up for debate. Instead we should argue "Free will" as some sort pragmatic concept about responsability.

>> No.7087242

>>7087236
Because deterministic processes don't originate in the brain retard. It's like saying a puppet has free will because its arms move.

>> No.7087243

>>7087229
>Why is it so hard to accept that "you" is a result of deterministic physical processes
when did I ever state that I did/didn't accept that? I was simply pointing out that his reasoning about your immaterial soul always making the same decision implying non-free will was wrong.
barking up the wrong tree buddy

>> No.7087246

>>7087231
>You've defined will, not *free* will, dummies.
What else is *free* then, genius? In general, free means unconstrained. The mechanism that allows a will to even exist is not a constraint, it's a requirement.

>> No.7087247

>>7087238
See >>7087210

>> No.7087249

>>7087236
>and how does that prove that the brain's actions are not free?
because it's deterministic...

>> No.7087251

Free will is left adjoint to forgetful will.

>> No.7087252

>>7087246
Exactly. Unconstrained. Your actions are not unconstrained, they are completely determined by forces outside of your control. Again, I think we can all agree that a puppet does not have "free will".

>> No.7087253

>>7087238
It just doesn't make sense, why would we suddenly become cynical suicidal non-beings once we acknowledge that the brain is a physical process?

>> No.7087254

>>7087140
I would start by asking for a clear definition of "free will," and why it can't coincides with a deterministic model (even if I don't think the universe is inherently deterministic).

>> No.7087262

>>7087243
I must've missed something then, thought your post was quite contradictory since first you said "you" could be corporeal, but then you opposed "you" to a deterministic physical process (i.e. corporeal).

>> No.7087267

>>7087201
>all thats left is cynicism, nihilism, and a general victim mentality
but muh feelings
Reality doesn't change according to what you think is nice.

>> No.7087274

>>7087262
there is a clear difference between a machine that achieves free will through deterministic processes and one that is governed by those processes is there not? in one, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. the latter is not.

>> No.7087280

>>7087252
>Your actions are not unconstrained, they are completely determined by forces outside of your control
My actions are only constrained by me. I am not constrained by physics, I am defined by it.

>> No.7087282

>>7087249
Congratulations, you've shown that humans don't have non-deterministic will.
That was interesting, you've made me very curious about what you have to say on free will.

>> No.7087283

>>7087253>>7087253
Didn't say it wasn't physical, just that from what i know of humanity, a lot of people who are parasite, the majority, would simply believe that that is what would have happened, and will, because there is no free will, so therefore they cannot choose to not be parasites. Nihilistic, not suicidal, but without purpose, as something without free will, or a designer, cannot assign itself meaning or purpose. It thus will have no reason to exist other than its own programming. So yea, if people thought like that theyd probably become a little cynical of people who are selfless, though in a lot of cases they should be skeptical.

>> No.7087284

>>7087280
That's poetic nonsense. You are completely controlled by forces outside your control.

>> No.7087285

>>7087280
>My actions are only constrained by me
they're still constrained. playing semantics and including the deterministic physical processes in the definition of "me" does not solve this problem.

>> No.7087289

>>7087282
How is your will free if it is determined by forces outside of your control?

>> No.7087290

>>7087283
And thus the world would be more callous, less forgiving, and more painful. Less progress, less happiness.so yes we ought to believe we have free will, or at least act like it.

>> No.7087292

>>7087274
There is not, the first machine is governed by those processes just as well.
>greater than the sum of its parts
is nothing more than cloudy /lit/speak. parts+more parts=sum of parts, deal with it.

>> No.7087295

>>7087282
>you've shown that humans don't have non-deterministic will
congratulations, you've shown to be a retard by thinking deterministic free will is a coherent subject.

>> No.7087300

>>7087290
But we don't have free will, so talking about what we should do is meaningless. People are going to do whatever they are going to do and the world is going to be the world it's going to be. You are going to say the next thing you are going to say, and so am I. But there is no "should be done", only "will be done".

>> No.7087301

>>7087292
Not him, but "more than the some of its parts" is a perfectly valid statement that has been formalized in integrated information theory by using the information theoretic concept of relative entropy. Try to look it up. I have to warn you though. It's hard math. You'll need to know logarithms.

>> No.7087306

>>7087289
>How is a tomato red if it is determined by forces outside of its control?

>> No.7087309

>>7087306
OK, so what is free will?

>> No.7087312

>>7087300
Lets accept your premise. Regardless of your belief of the matter, others "will" believe that we "should" act a certain way. So then "should" effects "will be" because people believe that they should, thus affecting the "will be." If thats all that matters of course.

>> No.7087314

I think free will has different tier's.

You have alone, which is do or not do.

Then you have group which has restriction.

There is always man made restriction.. Which is OK.

But in the context of the thread, REAL free will is debatable.

It's not like people are inert.

But its funny because.. And get this..

The lack of free will is an almost implication in religion..

Seriously, think about it.

Even if mankind has free will.. As described in monotheism.

God still knows and controls everything.

So it is the illusion of free will which is for all intents free will.

Until god turns up and tells you otherwise.

Insane.

But you guys are scientists so theory's

>> No.7087316

>>7087292
>There is not, the first machine is governed by those processes just as well.
no it's not, that's the point...whether you think this occurring is possible is a different matter, but you're failing to understand something very basic.
>parts+more parts=sum of parts
this is just childish. parts can combine to achieve a purpose as a whole that none of its parts can do. a clock can tell you the time of the day, the closest any of its parts can come is telling you how long a second is. I'm not even being poetic with the saying, it's a simple concept of synergy.

>> No.7087317

>>7087312
You are confusing a belief in something with its objective existence. Free will does not exist simply because people act like it does. Moral imperatives don't exist simply because people act like they do.

>> No.7087319

>>7087283
>so therefore they cannot choose to not be parasites.
But this is simply not true. Even if there is no free will, you can choose to not be a parasite. Just look at all the people who used to be parasites and then became non-parasites.

>> No.7087326

>>7087285
>they're still constrained.
Now you're saying actions are only free if the actor they belong to has no influence on them. But if an actor has no control over their actions, it is clearly not a free actor.

>> No.7087328

>>7087319
Given they believe they can stop due to their own choice and free will. Or else they will see no reason to change, unlessthey assume that they will stop being parasites

>> No.7087329

>>7087206
lol yeah, that wasn't an argument. You're begging the question. That is the POINT of free will, YOU ARE the one determining your actions; not some rule, and not some random process. You've done nothing to argue that point. Note that I don't believe in free will either, but your argument is not sound..

>> No.7087331

>>7087326
Where did he say that? The point is that the deterministic process has inputs from outside yourself and is completely determined by those inputs. There is also an internal mechanism but that has nothing to with free will.

>> No.7087333

>>7087301
I've looked into integrated information theory, didn't think there was much in it. But if you will, please give me the mathematical definition of "more than the sum of its parts".

>> No.7087334

>>7087217
Many people, for various reasons, would claim to have no more control over their actions than water has control over flowing downhill. This is not an insane perspective to have and personal responsibility can be formulated without referring to free will.

>> No.7087336

>>7087329
>That is the POINT of free will, YOU ARE the one determining your actions; not some rule, and not some random process.
No, that has nothing to do with the point. Again, that is just will, the internal process determining your actions. But free will implies that that process is independent of external factors. In reality, the external factors determine everything. Again, saying that the puppet has hinges does not mean it has free will.

>> No.7087337

>>7087309
The same as any old will, duh.
>Will, in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed. Actions made according to a person's will are called “willing” or “voluntary” and sometimes pejoratively “willful” or “at will”. In general, "will" does not refer to one particular or most preferred desire but rather to the general capacity to have such desires and act decisively based on them, according to whatever criteria the willing agent applies. The will is in turn important within philosophy because a person's will is one of the most distinct parts of their mind, along with reason and understanding.

>> No.7087341

>>7087337
>The same as any old will, duh.
So you don't believe in free will, just will. Thanks for proving my point.

>> No.7087342

Let's take language as an example, say someone is just shooting the breeze.

It differs to when a person is actively persueing something.

Think about it. The level of conscious thought needed increases.

And yet most people would not associate any dissociation between the two.

Or how that many words can be put into any sort of dialogue instantaneously.

>> No.7087353

>>7087316
>no it's not, that's the point...whether you think this occurring is possible is a different matter, but you're failing to understand something very basic.
Yes it is. You're failing to understand something very basic.

> this is just childish. parts can combine to achieve a purpose as a whole that none of its parts can do. a clock can tell you the time of the day, the closest any of its parts can come is telling you how long a second is. I'm not even being poetic with the saying, it's a simple concept of synergy.
Yeah, the whole point of adding parts together is that a system with two parts can do more than a system with just one of those parts. One part + one part = two parts, not one or three. Is there a difference between a clock that achieves time-telling through deterministic processes, and a clock that is governed by deterministic processes?

>> No.7087357

>>7087331
He said it in the post I replied to.

>> No.7087361

>>7087336
Please look up what "begging the question" means.
You said >>7087181
>If this irrationality or flexibility is decided by any rule (say that of probability) then it also isn't a "free will"
This is simply a non-answer. What is free will other than choosing an outcome? There is no difference between choosing a rule to decide outcomes and choosing an outcome. Your entire argument hinges on this exact sentence, yet you've done nothing to argue it. You've simply sidestepped the issue. How does one conclude irrational action are still determined? "Because you determine them" is not an answer, but it is what you've given.

Anyways, like I said, I'm still in your same camp. Just trying to get you to realize you've written things that you clearly don't understand well enough to argue. I'm outta here.

>> No.7087364

>>7087251
kek'd

>> No.7087368

>>7087341
I believe in both, I also believe they are the same thing. You can not meaningfully define will and free will as two separate things.

>> No.7087387

>>7087357
Nowhere did he say anything like "actions are only free if the actor they belong to has no influence on them". You just misunderstood the point.

>>7087361
How am I begging the question? If you think free will simply means "will" then there is nothing to discuss as you have defined it away. We are not arguing about will, we are arguing about free will, which means unconstrained and independent from external factors.

>You said >>7087181
No I didn't.

>What is free will other than choosing an outcome?
Choosing an outcome FREELY. If you think I am arguing against people having a will then you should get the fuck out.

>> No.7087389

>>7087368
That's pure semantics. When people talk about free will they don't mean will. They would just say will if they meant will. Get the fuck out.

>> No.7087394

>>7087353
>Yeah, the whole point of adding parts together is that a system with two parts can do more than a system with just one of those parts

but then you follow with this?
>One part + one part = two parts, not one or three
I can't dumb it down for you any further, if you don't understand it even after saying it yourself then i can't help you.

>Is there a difference between a clock that achieves time-telling through deterministic processes, and a clock that is governed by deterministic processes?
strawman.
but to feed your autism, there is a difference between a clock that tells the time of the day, which none of its parts can do, and a clock that tells you every time a second passes.

>> No.7087406

>>7087387
Well that's who I was arguing with you dolt, and that's the statement I was arguing, which you tried to defend. Yes, I understand it is choosing an outcome freely. And setting a rule freely is a choice in itself, if you have that choice, then you have the choice to choose an outcome. Also since the action is irrational one can set the rule and then not obey it. You're fucking retarded.

>> No.7087416

>>7087406
>And setting a rule freely is a choice in itself, if you have that choice, then you have the choice to choose an outcome.
You can't set a rule freely or make any choice freely. Either your choices are determined completely by external factors, or they are random, which means you don't have control over them. It's that simple. Try to refute this please.

>> No.7087425

>>7087416
>Either your choices are determined completely by external factors, or they are random, which means you don't have control over them. It's that simple. Try to refute this please.
They don't because I feel like I'm making decisions based on both internal and external factors rather than at random.

Which, while I'm sure you'll note is a nonsensical statement completely unbacked by any reasoning, is on par with your own claim in terms of its validity.

>> No.7087430
File: 13 KB, 147x187, 1365719214930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7087430

>>7087140
"Free" There's your first point, it is free you just have to aquire it, generally I'd say people with the drive to do things generally have the better thinking abilities- but at that point, they're quicker to respond with instinct and intuition which can be said to be a derelict form of unformed freewill... basically no matter where you go, were not trees, were sticks with the choices we make breaking off the excess branches

>> No.7087431

>>7087389
They do mean will but they don't realize it cuz they're retards.

>>7087394
>I can't dumb it down for you any further, if you don't understand it even after saying it yourself then i can't help you.
Of course I understand it, I just don't think the concept of "synergy" makes any sense in the context of math or determinism.

>strawman.
Lame cop-out. If that's a strawman, then either your own clock example is too, or the original mention of "sum of parts" had nothing to do with the rest of the post it appeared in.

>but to feed your autism, there is a difference between a clock that tells the time of the day, which none of its parts can do, and a clock that tells you every time a second passes.
..which is not what I asked about. Both clocks are achieving their purpose through deterministic purposes AND both clocks are governed by deterministic purposes.

This is the post we're arguing about:
>>7087274
I still don't see how it's not a load of BS.

>> No.7087434

>>7087425
>They don't because I feel like I'm making decisions based on both internal and external factors rather than at random.
Muh feelings refutes nothing.

>Which, while I'm sure you'll note is a nonsensical statement completely unbacked by any reasoning, is on par with your own claim in terms of its validity.
Bahaha, you wish. I'm out of here.

>> No.7087446

>>7087387
>Nowhere did he say anything like "actions are only free if the actor they belong to has no influence on them". You just misunderstood the point.
What was the point then? I said
>In general, free means unconstrained. The mechanism that allows a will to even exist is not a constraint, it's a requirement.
he said
>Exactly. Unconstrained. Your actions are not unconstrained, they are completely determined by forces outside of your control.
This I take to mean that he argues that actions are not free if they are constrained.
I said
>My actions are only constrained by me.
he said
>they're still constrained.
Which I take to mean that
a) he accepts that my actions are only constrained by me
and b) the existence of free will can be denied on the basis of this constraint alone.
I don't think I'm missing the point.

>> No.7087450
File: 30 KB, 503x228, consciousness3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7087450

Libet´s experiments. No way to get around them.

>> No.7087454

>>7087450
You get around them by accepting your subconscious as a part of yourself.

>> No.7087456

>>7087140
For me discussion about free will isn't possible. I see it like the quantum observer effect. How should we discuss if we have free will or not if we are under influence of it?

>> No.7087480
File: 1.07 MB, 250x166, arguing with people who think free will exists.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7087480

As long as the inevitable compatibilists who will show up are forced to sign waivers detailing that they can't participate until they are actually able to understand what the definition of "free will" is, and how it is different from "agency" which is what they call free will.

The best point I would make is that you Can't Even IMAGINE a logical and self-consistent model that allows free will to exist. You can use whatever you want to try, even a soul, but you can't do it.

The only models you could ever come up with have to be non-logical and functionally incoherent.

I absolutely love getting into a discussion about free will because it's not an open philosophical question. It's completely locked up and solved. The only thing to do is get people to understand it.

>> No.7087481

>>7087446
>Which I take to mean that
>a) he accepts that my actions are only constrained by me
As I said before, they are constrained by factors outside of yourself. That is the entire fucking point. The internal mechanism is irrelevant. Free will implies independence from EXTERNAL factors.

>> No.7087487

OK last post,

Take this exercise and try it for yourselves.

Using will.

Only give good news and impart good feeling in action and conversation.

...the point of the exercise.

Is to prove how hard that is.

If it can be done... Free will.

And for those that don't believe in free will...

Exactly how you have affected the outcome by partaking in the exercise.

Do you see any point in the exercise?

>> No.7087496

>>7087487
are you 12 or just incredibly stupid?

>> No.7087498

>>7087496
He's just another schizophrenic "every line is a paragraph" poster. Don't mind him.

>> No.7087535

>>7087454
Ye, but you have to throw free will out. Which was what OP was requesting.

>> No.7087624

>>7087498
Oh god those are the worst. This guy types like a 12 year old emo girl who thinks her twilight-MLP fanfiction crossover is "deep".

>> No.7087664

>>7087624
your mom's vagina is deep

fggt

ass

fag

>> No.7087731

>>7087140
>If you were invited to a debate about free will and were suposed to argue against its existence, what points would you bring up?
OP, you might as well try to prove God doesn't exist.
Awful hard to prove a negative.

>> No.7087890

>>7087143
Doesn't being conscious grant us the ability to be aware of this allowing us to guide ourselves through many small actions? I'm talking about becoming aware of our habits and mindsets and influencing them through deliberate action. If you get in a bad mood, rationalize what out you there, and why you're ruminating on it, is it worth ruminating on, is there anything to be gained by thinking about it? Going through this process enough times allows one to directly influence the way they interact with the world implying a sense of control.

This is how I've approached life after becoming sick of who I was. It's much easier to live life day to day, taking tiny steps towards becoming the person I want to be. A stable, approachable, empathetic, and reliable person with eclectic interests, plenty of passion to develop said interests, and some thrill seeking tendencies. Many, many things can be approached as a skill that can be developed if you can accept that is okay and necessary to suck ass at things. Being self aware but not overly self critical (to the point where one is thinking more damaging thoughts than reaching helpful conclusions) can give one a lot of control over their direction in life.

>> No.7087920

>>7087140
Consciousness.

>> No.7088326

>>7087481
Yea but you're just gonna call everything an external factor now. If there were no external factors (in your definition) there would be no life possible.

>>7087535
No you don't.

>>7087890
> I'm talking about becoming aware of our habits and mindsets and influencing them through deliberate action.
Kek, it doesn't matter, cuz the deliberate action was also determined by some physical process which makes it not a deliberate action any more.

>> No.7088343

>>7087174
9/10 got me

>> No.7088381

>>7088343
>>7087164

Samefag

>> No.7088401

>>7087143
/thread

Why are you faggots still arguing about this? The only entity that could possibly have "free will" (i.e. a "pure will" that is not random nor ruled by causality) is a Creator. Why? Well, because a Creator is the only entity that supposedly created "something" out of "nothing" with pure, unadultered will bound by nothing.

>> No.7088413

Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett

>> No.7088542
File: 225 KB, 550x413, f00e54f892eb88834-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7088542

>>7087140

"My mind is known interiorly "by acquaintance," but my brain is known exteriorly "by description" (William James, Bertrand Russell).

That is why I can always to some degree see my own mind, but I can never see my own brain (without cutting open my skull and getting a mirror)."

I can know a dead person's brain by simply cutting open the skull and looking at it – but then I am not knowing or sharing that person's mind, am I? or how he felt and perceived and thought about the world.

The brain is the outside, the mind is the inside. The empirical systems sciences or ecological sciences, even though they claim to be holistic, in fact cover only one half of the story."

>> No.7088591

>>7087140
This thread made me truly euphoric

>> No.7088627

>>7087140
I wouldn't argue for or against it in the sense of winning a debate; I'd try to show that the concept and question of free will doesn't make sense in the first place. It goes away without being or needing to be resolved, being a Jabberwocky-kind-of-question.

>> No.7088760

>>7088326
Work within the boundaries of your limits, and you'll find you can control quite a bit. We're limited by our perceptions of reality and our physical bodies, yes, but there is a degree of control.

>> No.7088800

>>7088542
"A bird is an animal with an inside and an outside

"Remove the outside, there's the inside

"Remove the inside and you see the soul"

>> No.7088936

>>7087140
Free willies are a possibility. Just go to random gay bar in your local big city.

>> No.7089007

we have to assume free will exists and try to work our way up from there
otherwise what's the point?

>> No.7089054

>>7087140

Providing solid arguments against the idea of free will is easy. Convincing a zealot that God doesn't exist, is impossible. Therefore, it's not really about what you can say, if others want to believe in their fantasies, they will. Regardless of your arguments.

That said, there's ample evidence in biology, psychology, sociology and anthropology in general that who we are is determined by what we were, and what we were first and foremost before we're even born, is the sum of our genes and the potential and aptitudes they contain. After that, before our psyche even has a chance to evolve, it's molded by our environment (parents, experiences, random events). Later the environment gets more detailed from your education, whether you were abused, if you were raised in a slum or not, etc. And of course then there's any random disease and trauma which at worst can cause permanent neurological damage, leaving very little room for any free will.

The sum of this all, again, is that who we are at any given moment is the product of events preceding that moment. So at the very least, our "free will" is heavily influenced by any events preceding that will. In this case, "free" would not be the proper term. "Guided", "coerced", or "bound" will, would be closer to the mark. That's the bare minimum. The other end of the spectrum would be that we have no free will at all; we're just extremely complicated biological software, enabled by our hardware (genes), and programmed by life.

But at the end of the day, this question is a little bit like religion. You either believe it or you don't, doesn't really matter either way. So far, we don't have the understanding of human physiology and neural structure to prove it either way. So free will or not, pick whatever works for you.

>> No.7089060

>>7087174
Quantum Kek

>> No.7089063

>>7087180
You are a moron, the whole point behind QM is attempting to explain seemingly random interactions between particles

>> No.7089081
File: 18 KB, 400x225, hwga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7089081

>>7087140
> If you were invited to a debate about free will
Invitation implies that I can choose whether or not to go.

Checkmate.

>> No.7089100

>>7088542
You can get a bretty gud approximation with data mining on the interwubz, maaaan.

>> No.7089127

>>7089081
But your "choice" is predetermined.

>> No.7089128

>>7087140
For there to be free will wouldnt you need to think about what you're thinking about before you think it?

Thoughts just emerge in consciousness, we don't control it, they just do. We like to think we control it, but we dont.

>> No.7089224

>>7089127
It is only predetermined if you can't perceive who would want to make you pick a particular choice.

>> No.7089277

>>7087450
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/12/rats-free-will/#.VOz3EvmDkW9

>> No.7089306

>>7087450
What exactly does that prove. That a single neuron fires given some condition? What about millions of neurons? Which one is the kingmaker?

>> No.7089312

>>7087454
Auditory sensory inputs are the last to not be registered. Even coma patients can register sounds - so clearly sleeping people can ;)

>> No.7089316
File: 42 KB, 680x518, 4f1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7089316

>tfw no one realizes that the conflict is solely on differences in defining free will, not the actual existence of the thing itself

>> No.7089579

I have a question and I'm honestly not sure where to ask it but maybe you guys can help.

What do I read when I'm having daily existential crises? I know what it is and all that basic stuff but I mean, what do I /do/?

>> No.7089650

>>7087143
this

i think "free will" is just a good illusion that helped us to survive as a species. just a combination of internal (memories, emotion) and external stimuli which leads to an illusion of "free thought, creating your own thoughts" e.g. free will.

i know there is still nothing to distribute to prove this hypothesis but still, i think it's a neat thought.

>> No.7089716

dude, just one word....

John-fucking-Titor.

tell them that after starting (or stopping) medication, that this is all 10% factually true, and contains no errors whatsoever and if they think about it for just one minute they will thank you. (also try to pause for one minute for effect!)

>> No.7089730

>>7087140
Genes that affect behavior. We GATTACA now.

He's not a violent criminal. He's a deGENErate.

>> No.7090094

>>7087140
That determinism only precludes (or indicates lack of) causal influence from outside the universe. The universe itself could possibly be one entity with free will.

>> No.7090129

>>7087179
The wave form doesn't collapse because you "observed" it. The waveform collapses because you tried to measure it, with something that interacts with it, and there's no way to get information about it otherwise.

Consciousness has nothing to do with wave forms collapsing. You can't actually physically observe individual particles. If you setup the machine to measure the wave form, and no one's around to watch it, it'll still collapse the wave form just fine. The only time the wave form doesn't collapse, is if nothing interferes with it.

TL;DR: You are measuring a balloon with a needle. Balloon pops whether you're there to observe it or not.

>> No.7090135

>>7089650
The predictability or lack of predictability behind your decision, has no bearing on whether or not you can make a decision. The fact that, under identical situations, you make identical decisions, has no bearing on your ability to make decisions.

If one defines free will as your ability to make decisions, then neither causality or randomness has any bearing on that ability. You have free will, only from an external and omniscient perspective, would it appear otherwise, and as any such perspective only exists in hypothetical fiction, within the scope of reality, you have free will.

Unless, of course, there's an omniscient god running about, but even then, the illusion holds for all mortals bound to reality.

>> No.7090173

>>7087140
If free wil should exist, you would first have to imply, that whatever decisions you're making is not a result of things like your upbringing as such, as to make sure, that the decision is not pre-determined.

>> No.7091037

>>7087143
The presence of survival and reproductive instincts, without saying anything about all the other instincts that shape our behaviour, deny or at best diminish the magnitude of the possibility of free will.

>> No.7091101

>>7091037
I wonder if a man who starves himself to death to prove the existence of "free will" will prove his point.

My first thought is "No, he simply regarded winning an argument as more desirable/powerful in formulating his actions than the pains of going without food and even more valuable than his life." But is that correct? Is there any way to test that? Is there any possible way at all to test "freedom"? I don't think you can test and conclude freedom, but you could in fact test and conclude correlation.

Whether or not he won the argument, there's an objective truth that argument and anecdote alone cannot account for. As far as I can tell, you can only test and conclude correlation/deterministic processes.

This is just a fleeting thought spurred by your post, so don't feel obligated to reply.

>> No.7091109

>>7091101
Well one might say that he proved the point. Another might say that he saw the survival of his ideal (Free will) more important than his own survival. I do not think you can test humans for free will. We'll have to wait for AIs for that.

>> No.7092166

>>7089579
Smoke some weed and chill.

>> No.7093134

>>7089306
It means that unconscious processes precede the assumed decision to perform movement. When free will is the instigator of movement, we would expect to find that moment (d) before or at the start of the readiness potentials. Certainly not 500 ms after RP as the finding is here. This strongly suggests that that unknown brain processes give rise to relevant thoughts of presumed decision. Because those relevant thoughts are closely followed by movement, we assume those caused the movement (post hoc, ergo propter hoc). Hence there is now free will.

>> No.7093149

isn't it crazy that i was destined to post this post in this thread at this very time?

>> No.7093223

>>7089579
realize ur a retard and move on

>> No.7093260

>>7087140
I still have the choice to kill myself

[spoiler] : ^ ) [spoiler]