[ 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: 112 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[3].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8124182 No.8124182 [Reply] [Original]

Post your arguments in favor of determinism or free will. Construct yout logic within the frames of casualty, the quantum world and the laws of physics that govern the entire universe.

>> No.8124200

>>8124182
Denying free will is like denying the earth is round

>> No.8124216

>>8124200
Not an argument.

>> No.8124221

1. If you have free will then you can control the behaviour of atoms from an outside source and you must be a god
2. You are not a god

Free will disproved

>> No.8124226

>>8124221
But man was created in God's imagine.

>> No.8124308

>>8124182
>implying those are the only two options
Global self-determinism is the answer.

>> No.8124327

>>8124308
> Global self-determinism
What is this fresh autism ?

>> No.8124337
File: 7 KB, 219x219, 1456528982556.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8124337

>>8124182
>determinism
>the quantum world

>> No.8124341

>>8124327
Langan, actually. He explains it in his CTMU.

>> No.8124354

>>8124337
Some people use the argument that the randomness in the quantum world means that quantum particles act on random properties which disproves determinisim. While they are completely unaware that the very basic fact that they are random means they can NOT be controllable, which means they have no free will over it.

>>8124341
mind explaining ?

>> No.8124363

>>8124308
>>8124341
Has someone actually read CTMU?
Is it worth the read? Do you need much math background to be able to understand it?

>> No.8124460

The whole question is irrelevant and heavily reliant on what "free" means. If you're free if you do what you want to do, then there is nothing contradictory between free will and determinism, because what you want can be influenced by the world. If "free" is to be understood in unrestrained, absolute way than it fails by definition. You can't be absolutely free because you can't choose not to be free. Therefore the first definition of freedom should be used, that is not opposed to determinism.

>> No.8124463

False dilemma

>> No.8124464

>>8124363
I struggled with his CTMU for years, actually, before I finally saw the forest for the trees a few weeks ago, and the whole thing suddenly made sense. It truly is genius. Another anon here had the same experience, and similarly remarked that it is completely brilliant.

You probably do need a very strong math background to understand it. It's a philosophical work that abstracts understanding of mathematical concepts from model theory to algebraic topology to, most centrally, duality principles. One needs to understand these on an intuitive level. He also regularly uses philosophical abstractions of mathematical terms.

>>8124354
It is extremely difficult to explain self-determinism -- in a sense it is the primary enterprise of the CTMU. However, I can recapitulate Langan's very succinct arguments for why neither determinism nor randomness (acausality) can be the core ontological nature of the universe. Determinism assumes a real set of laws somehow external to reality which govern it: but having real things external to reality is obviously inconsistent. As Langan would say, this violates the "closure principle" of the reality predicate. On the other hand, randomness requires an external probabilistic framework, likewise violating the closure principle. It is almost tautological from the fact that the predicate "reality" is "autological", or self-descriptive, as reality is the set of all real things.

(In fact, its tautological nature is precisely what Langan would claim. But now we require a precise understand of the nature of autology, which is intricately linked with that of self-determinism itself, so we are back to web of the CTMU.)

>> No.8124468

>>8124464
0/10

>> No.8124471

First we must determine definitions. Free will is the actor's own determined choice rather than another actor's determined choice for another actor. Either you have free will or not, 50% chance. In other words, sometimes you have free will and sometimes you don't. The proof is trivial. QEF

>> No.8124476

ITT: science wannabees

>> No.8124491

>>8124468
That's nice.

Interestingly, Langan ultimately gives an extremely subtle understanding of what freedom even is, to the end of self-determinism resolving the determinism/free-will dichotomy through their identification as dualities. While our actions are in a sense entirely determined by the highest nature of reality, we can dually view ourselves as freely shaping that highest nature itself.

>> No.8124510

>>8124337
Yeah dude, quantum world is the same as macroscopic scale. I guess I can wake up on the moon tomorrow because of quantum uncertainty.

>> No.8124516

>>8124491
So what you're saying is that whatever "you" are, which you've yet to define, is something out of the realm of the universe which doesn't abide the laws of physics whereas the entire matter in the universe does.
Which is why it's a 0/10

>> No.8124535

>>8124182
Determinism isn't true because there are events that are fundamental random which results cannot be predicted no matter how many information you have.
Souls or other metaphysics entities doesn't exists. Human's consciousness is caused only by activity inside the brain and the rest of the body.
I understand free will as ability to make decisions, which means at least human, animals and any truing complete machine have free will. Starting with common definitions is base for reasonable argument. If you use different definition, post it.

>>8124510
No you can't.

>> No.8124540

>>8124535
> If I can't predict it, it means that its random and not predetermined.

Just because your tiny brain and your puny human technology fails to predict the outcome of an event, doesn't mean that it's random.

Can you predict if the coin will be heads or tails ? You can't ? Well I guess that just disproves determinism right ?

>> No.8124548

>>8124182
Quantum Physics is spooky /thread

>> No.8124554

>>8124540
>what fundamental means
>you can't predict coin flip
Are you retarded or only pretending?

>> No.8124571

>>8124221
what if we are an outside force, but just haven't realized yet?

>> No.8124573

>>8124516
I abide completely by the laws of physics. You obviously do not understand at all, though I can vaguely see how you might have interpreted things that way.

>> No.8124582

>>8124554
Thats a huge claim to be making since all the particles we do know abide the laws of physics. I'll wait for your evidence though.

>>8124571
> outside force
outside of what ?

>>8124573
Nope, you just made vague claims with unscientific terminology. State your argument which should clearly prove free will exists.

>> No.8124593

>>8124582
>Thats a huge claim to be making since all the particles we do know abide the laws of physics. I'll wait for your evidence though.
What is the huge claim? That there are fundamental random events which are against laws of physics?
I've never heard about law like that. Which law of physics prevents random events from occurring?

>> No.8124608

>>8124593
Second law of thermodynamics & Newtons law of motion. There is no reaction wihout a prior action. Things act on causality, they don't just happen out of nowhere.

Also by saying "I don't know any laws of physics that prevent this", you are not proving anything related to what you said. Learn physics 101 before coming to this thread please.

>> No.8124614

>>8124337
>literally arguing for quantum consciousness

>> No.8124615

>>8124593
define random

>> No.8124618

>>8124582
>Nope, you just made vague claims with unscientific terminology. State your argument which should clearly prove free will exists.
"Free will" is not scientific terminology, so it is impossible to meet your criteria.

But here is the very brief, almost tautological rebuttal of determinism in favor of something that looks like free will:

• Definition: "Reality" is the class of all real things.
• Definition: "Determinism" says reality is determined by some (real) set of laws L.
• Deduction: L is therefore within reality.
• Deduction: L is determined by L
• Conclusion: L is self-determinative.

>> No.8124620

>>8124608
None of these laws prevents events from having undetermined results.

>>8124615
I meant events which results fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.

>> No.8124624

>>8124618
L governs reality. These are no numbers or groups that you can make a graphic out of. This is pure semantics and not an argument even related to the subject of determinism.

>> No.8124628

>>8124582
outside of the physical universe we are able to measure

>> No.8124632

>>8124620
how would that happen ? How would an action happen by itself without a reaction, and what are the laws you put on the table that prove things happen randomly and nat by causality

>> No.8124647

>>8124632
No it wouldn't happen without a reaction.
It also wouldn't happen randomly.
I've never said(or never meant to say) there are events that happen randomly without causality. I'm saying that there are events which results are random, ie. fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.

>> No.8124662

>>8124624
By ignoring that L is tautologically self-determining, you ignore a fundamental truth. But suit yourself.

>> No.8124663

>>8124647
how the hell do they create a random outcome ? The energy that goes into the input is explicit, as well as the output.

> cannot be determined
determined by who ? You know there is no human involvement in the origin of causality right ? Even if we didn't exist, everything would still abide the laws of physics, even though there is nobody around trying to determine them.

>> No.8124666

>>8124662
I wish I could accept more semantics as evidence, but unfortunately I can't.

>> No.8124674

>>8124663
>how the hell do they create a random outcome ? The energy that goes into the input is explicit, as well as the output.
Using quantum indeterminacy.
>determined by who ?
Determined by any observer. If it's fundamental, then it's independent on competence, intelligence, technology, resource of human observers.

>> No.8124679

>>8124674
> Using quantum indeterminacy
and how is that prove that reality works by randomness ? You're gonna need more than a sentence fragment to prove and explain your point.

Sidenote : randomness is a theory that opposes free will

>> No.8124683

>>8124182
I have pictures of gorillas on my computer. Argument closed.

>> No.8124687
File: 46 KB, 513x478, 451151515115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8124687

CTMU got blown the fuck out by Kant hundreds of years ago.

Conceptual possibility isn't real possibility

Free Will can only be hypothetically posited as a force outside the empirical series of conditions of everyday reality, but it is only posited as a thing that would not be contradictory if it did exist outside the series of empirical conditions. It is not therefore posited a real thing within the realm of possible experience but a thing that wouldn't contradict our empirical reality if it existed outside of it causing the conditioned empirical state of affairs we experience here.

>> No.8124698

>>8124666
I don't even know what you mean by this being semantics. It is objectively the case that L determines itself, as proved in >>8124618.

>> No.8124701

>>8124182
I find it telling that proponents of free will inevitably resort to ominously saying
>quantum

It's like, if at any point anyone disagrees with your obvious bullshit opinion, you need only point out that there is a physical theory of the universe that defies intuitive reasoning, whence your own bullshit reasoning must be correct

>uuuuuuhhhhhh ... quaaaantuuum

>> No.8124706

>>8124698
No, reality is within L, not the other way around. and I have no clue how is this supposed to be a rebuttal of determinism, let alone anything more than semantics gibberish.

>> No.8124717

Your marriage

>> No.8124729

>>8124698
It's clearly semantics in that it hinges on the semantic assumption that the laws governing reality are "things in reality". No one says laws governing reality are "in reality," they are simply descriptions of how reality works. You just obscured the tautology that deterministic reality determines itself to make it seem like this was somehow a rebuttal of determinism.

>> No.8124734

>>8124679
>and how is that prove that reality works by randomness ?
What do you mean by that?
All what I'm saying is that there are events which results fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time. This is against determinism since it assumes everything can be determined.
>You're gonna need more than a sentence fragment to prove and explain your point.
Path of photon in double-slit experiments is an example of result that can't be determined. We can only determine the probability of photon getting detected in any area, but we can never determine at which point it will be detected.
Some people explain it by using hidden variables, but Bell has shown that they don't exists.
>randomness is a theory that opposes free will
Define free will.

>> No.8124751

>>8124734

Universe is not defined by what you can or cannot determine, which makes your argument invalid since the only thing you're clinging on is to repeat "we can't determine". Our technology for measurement is very limited and naturally we can't predict the outcome of things.

You've yet to define randomness and how it happens by breaking the rules of physics known to mankind and introduced by great physicists like einstein.

>> No.8124753

>>8124734
>Define free will.
Not him, but shouldn't these things be defined *before* you start the discussion?

>> No.8124771

>>8124729
What you get at actually limns an important semantic issue.

The law governing reality is real if it exists, as anything that exists is real. As reality contains all real things, reality must contain its law. But even though this is a tautological fact, you disagree, ultimately because you cannot reconcile your interpretation of that with how you interpret "containment".

This is resolved by Langan's stratification of the containment predicate into two dual aspects: "topological" containment [math]\subset_T[/math], and "descriptive" containment [math]\subset_D[/math], both of which are ultimately identified as mutually dual.

>>8124706 seems to be using the [math]\subset_D[/math] notion, as the syntax descriptively contains the state, while you seem to be using the [math]\subset_T[/math] notion by thinking of reality as a collection of material things.

It actually is the case that the syntax is topologically contained within the state it describes, as otherwise, just as with an automata-theoretic transducer, it has no procedure to follow in its processing of its state.

>> No.8124773

>>8124753
thats the problem with this so called 'free will'.
It's so absurd a concept that people just start blathering, because if they first thought about precisely defining what they're blathering about, their idiocy would be illuminated to themselves

>> No.8124783

>>8124771
> let me try to debunk determinism by completely irrelevant semantics autism that has nothing to do with investigating laws of physics, causality, quantum mechanics or the laws of thermodynamics
still 0/10 sorry

>> No.8124789

>>8124773
They are afraid to define it because their definition will indirectly state that free will is something like a soul that exists beyond the physical reality of the universe. Free will is the pretext for spiritualism and metaphysics, which is not remotely the subjet of science.

>> No.8124790

>>8124783
this

>>8124771
Read Kant if you like philosophy . You're trying to do metaphysics with semantics and/or conceptual possibility. You're letting reason loose.

>> No.8124792

>>8124751
>Universe is not defined by what you can or cannot determine, which makes your argument invalid since the only thing you're clinging on is to repeat "we can't determine".
Universe is is all of time and space and its contents. Its definition is independent on what I personally can or cannot determine. Yet, this fact doesn't make my argument invalid.
>Our technology for measurement is very limited and naturally we can't predict the outcome of things.
It's fundamental, so it's independent on competence, intelligence, technology, resource of human observers.
>You've yet to define randomness
I've already defined event with random result as an event which outcome fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.
>how it happens by breaking the rules of physics known to mankind and introduced
You've not provided any law that prevents events from having outcome that fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time though.
>by great physicists like einstein.
>Argument from authority
Einsein believed that determinism is true, but it doesn't mean he proved it or that it's true.

>>8124753
I already defined free will as
>ability to make decisions, which means at least human, animals and any truing complete machine have free will
in >>8124535
And asked him to provide different definition in case if he disagree. He did not provide any and now said something that goes against my definition, so I asked him to provide definition once again.

>> No.8124807

>Post your arguments in favor of determinism or free will.
What is there to argue?

You didn't give any specific definitions, but as I understand it, "free will" means that the action taken by me (in particular, my body) is sensitively affected by the decision made by me (in particular, my brain). In particular, it means that a different decision by my brain would have resulted in a different action taken by my body. This is evidently the way human bodies work, so I see little to argue about.

The best current conceptions of physics are deterministic. This, too, seems straightforward.

What's there to argue about?

>> No.8124810

>>8124792
its not argument from authority, it's the work of einstein which has been tested and observed to be true for over decades by hundreds of reputable scientists. And we're still waiting for you to stop repeating "no its not true" and actually put countering evidence on the table so your claims have a bit of weight and not go into the trash as empty semantics about a hypothetical metaphysical entity.

>> No.8124813

Get this pholisophical NOT science off my 4chan

>> No.8124841

>>8124363
Considering langan is a pretentious hack and his followers are in essence a cult of personality, I wouldn't imagine it's a particularly difficult read if you can get past all of the glittering generalities.

>> No.8124852

>>8124464
Describing a concept as difficult to understand basically discredits that concept.

Good job, fucko

>> No.8124869

>>8124810
>it's the work of einstein which has been tested and observed to be true for over decades by hundreds of reputable scientists
Work of eninstein focuses on parts of physics that are deterministic or non deterministic effects were so insignificant that they were not noticeable.
>And we're still waiting for you to stop repeating "no its not true" and actually put countering evidence on the table so your claims have a bit of weight and not go into the trash as empty semantics about a hypothetical metaphysical entity.
I've already provided evidence, here: >>8124734
>Path of photon in double-slit experiments is an example of result that can't be determined. We can only determine the probability of photon getting detected in any area, but we can never determine at which point it will be detected.
Some people explain it by using hidden variables, but Bell has shown that they don't exists.

>> No.8124887

>>8124852
That's absolutely laughable.

I suppose that describing set-theoretic forcing as difficult to understand discredits it too, eh?

>>8124783
It sounds like by "investigating the laws of physics" you refer to investigating established theories such as QM and GR. It is nonsense to assume unproven hypotheses in one's metaphysics.

>>8124790
In traditional philosophy, one could argue for absolutely anything. It's all gibberish. Why isn't this possible in mathematics? Because mathematical deduction [math]is[/math] semantic deduction. Semantic deduction from formal definitions, as in >>8124618, is the philosophical equivalent of mathematical ratiocination.

You may as well dismiss formal Hilbert-style proofs for being nothing but semantic deduction.

>> No.8124901

>>8124887
Math is based on objective rules and equations. Philosophy is gibberish. Not only they are very different, they sit at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

>>8124869
Your "proof" is still based on humans inability to determine it, rather than arguing wit the usage of a physical law.

>> No.8124909

The integral whole of the universe is made up of many components. Each component, derived from the whole, has a different tangent to the whole. These tangents are relative to each component. Each component does what it wills to do, freely relatively. This is the universe splitting up into a multiverse, and the expansion of the universe. The limit of knowledge: the area of the trigonometric function with y as consciousness, x as automata/nomy//platform, and pi as rational integration of will and knowledge; is elementary to that which we are slaves/servants of. This is the entropy.

>> No.8124918

>>8124771
>As reality contains all real things, reality must contain its law.
I already explained why this is wrong. Laws are not "things", they are just *how* things behave. Reality is the way it is. That's the only truth in what you're saying and there is no meaning in your words beyond that trivial tautology. It has absolutely nothing to do with determinism, yet you are using innuendo to make it seem so.

>Langan
LOL, nice troll.

>> No.8124932

>>8124771
I have a bunch of apples, grapes and oranges. I can group the apples to one side and oranges to another. All apples, oranges and grapes abide the laws of gravity, but gravity is not a subset of apples, nor apples are a subset of gravity.

If you really can't comprehend the basic distinction that physical properties and matter are on different formats, then you shouldn't really try to form any opinions on determinism or anything related to physics before you get an elementary education on physics.

>> No.8124945

>>8124918
I use the word "thing" as a free variable, like one would use the variable "x" in first-order logic. To be clear:
"Reality is the set of all real [math]x[/math]".
Then the formal deduction follows, as "law" is something that can be instantiated by a free variable.

And thank you, I am glad that everything I have said is tautological. That means it is true.

>>8124932
You are philosophically operating in a sort of type theory that precludes universal quantification. Append to your type theory a "universal type" (type: real) that all things are, and proceed from there.

>> No.8124949

>>8124751
If the law is with respect to variable time, then time is variable and the law changes.

>> No.8124958

>>8124901
>Your "proof" is still based on humans inability to determine it
No, as I said, it's fundamental inability, not related to used technology, resources and competence.
As Bell has shown there is no hidden variables that make these experiments determined.
>rather than arguing wit the usage of a physical law.
You've not provided any law that prevents events from having outcome that fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.

>> No.8124992

>>8124464
Can you try to explain what kind of "big picture" you saw without going too much into the underlying math, and what makes it brilliant?

>> No.8124996

>>8124992
just give up, Langan is a complete hack.

>> No.8125012

>>8124460
Well you can choose to not be free and stop being free from that moemnt on, there is no contradiction here. (Of course you can't choose to get back to being free again). The contradiction only happens if you're supposed to be always free.

>> No.8125023

>>8124182
Literally doesnt matter either way because everything only happens once so you cant prove either.

>> No.8125035 [DELETED] 

[To crudely translate the big-picture technical notions in and consequences of the CTMU to common English requires theological concepts. After understanding the CTMU, all of the things Langan has said about God make sense.]

>>8124992
A very crude translation of a tiny aspect of the big picture. Keep in mind that your understanding of the below as an explanation of an aspect of the CTMU is like a layperson's understanding of String Theory obtained from listening to Michio Kaku:

Reality as God with an timeless omnipotent self-determinative agency, and each of us as smaller closed reality-loops that on the one hand freely self-determine in a limited way, yet which can be dually regarded as being configured by God.

>> No.8125036

>>8124992
To crudely translate the big-picture technical notions in and consequences of the CTMU to common English requires theological concepts. After understanding the CTMU, all of the things Langan has said about God make sense.

Keep in mind that your understanding of the below as an explanation of an aspect of the CTMU is like a layperson's understanding of String Theory obtained from listening to Michio Kaku:

Reality as God with an timeless omnipotent self-determinative agency, and each of us as smaller closed reality-loops that on the one hand freely self-determine in a limited way, yet which can be dually regarded as being configured by God.

>> No.8125040

(>>8125036)
And that is just a very tiny aspect.

>> No.8125041

>>8124945
>"Reality is the set of all real x".
This clarifies nothing, you're just switching around words. Try to substantiate some *meaning* into what you are writing. What does "real x" mean? Why is reality a set of it?

>Then the formal deduction follows, as "law" is something that can be instantiated by a free variable.
"All bachelors are single. I can describe one apple as single. Therefore bachelors are apples." If you are not a troll, I hope you have someone that's taking care of you. How you could survive on your own with such illogical thinking is puzzling.

>And thank you, I am glad that everything I have said is tautological. That means it is true.
And you're apparently illiterate as well. I did not say that what you said is tautological, I said that the only truth in what you said is tautological. Most of your posts are just obfuscations in order to make an unsound argument.

>> No.8125059

>>8125036
That only explains what the big picture is. I want to understand why you came to so intuitively understand it and how all the math fits together with it.

>> No.8125067

>>8124460
Basically this, the question is ultimately a paradox. Why cant it be determined that we have free will? Rather that our freedom can appear to be exactly that, and still be determined?

>> No.8125069

>>8125041
You're right, I had misread you about the tautology.

I hear what you are saying in >>8124918, but I am confused by your stance. Does the law determining reality exist, or does it not? Is it real, or not real? If it is real, then it is an aspect of reality, and thus determines itself. If it is not real, then what are we even talking about?

>>8125041
To reply appropriately to this would require the style of quoting individual things and then replying separately to each of them. I find this a terrible 4chan practice that is guaranteed to result in nothing but derailment of successive misunderstandings of tiny elements while failing to discuss the original topic at all. I will just say that everything you refer to as a not-thing is thing to me, because in my vocabulary all aspects of reality are things. And I have absolutely zero idea what your bachelors-apple false-syllogism has to do with absolutely anything; it is seems that it is impossible for you to understand me because we seem to speak different languages. To me, you don't even know what "thing" means. So given that, I think we're done.

>> No.8125096

>>8125069
>Does the law determining reality exist, or does it not?
It does or it does not, depending on what you mean by exist. Ultimately the distinction is pointless as it is merely semantics until you substantiate it with meaning. Reality is the way it is. Does this mean that "reality determines itself"? Again, what does that mean? It's a very common game to write things in a poetic sense so that they are too vague to be criticized and then treat this as a hard fact that other things can be deduced from. This seems to be mainly what Chris Langan is trying to do with CTMU. It's simply obfuscated language and poetics in an attempt to conveniently reach conclusions about "God" that amazingly are right in line with Christianity. If one actually looks at what he is saying one realizes that the argument is so vague as to make these feel-good conclusions practically meaningless. What thousands of years of failed metaphysics has shown us is that you can't define your way into understanding reality. It simply doesn't work, except as a rhetoric.

>> No.8125580
File: 106 KB, 640x360, br4[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8125580

>>8124901
>>Math is based on objective rules and equations. Philosophy is gibberish. Not only they are very different, they sit at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

please speak to me after class, and tell your waifu to see me in my office after my office hours

>> No.8125589

>>8124182
In a social sense. We have free will.
For the sake of semantics and science, we do not have free will.

Not sure why this is still an argument.

>> No.8125655

>>8124221
>2. You are not a god
citation needed

>> No.8125660

>>8125589
>In a social sense. We have free will.
>social
into the garbage it goes.

>> No.8125664

Determinism is king, free will is an illusion.
Explained:

I have a hypothesis that consciousness isn't what people think it is; meaning it's a trick of biology caused by a random mutation and there is no "I" or "you" in the sense of a continuous existing entity and the identity is based on residual memories, most of which are slightly distorted [confabulation].
Basically, there is no self in the sense of "I think therefore I am".
A small program can be programed to say such a thing; does it make the program conscious? Hardly. Does it prove the process was built of consciousness or choice?
Not necessarily:

Basically animals developed a complicated system of neural networking that allowed for data to be stored, however the data is sorted into area of positive and negative relationships and conceptual relationships.

So, your body goes through all sorts of changes, but the neural network refuses to remember particular negatives because the brain itself would detect that as a loss and going into survival mode, which WAS useful.
Then someone randomly developed a gene that allowed for Logic Loops in the brain that modify memories and understanding of one's environment, so that they don't overreact in crowded areas [what later became social circumstances].

These Logic Loops are what we would call "the self" or "consciousness".
It explains everything from mental illness [dissociation is caused when these loops are broken; mood disorders when part of the loop is disturbed, etc.] to religious thinking [magical thinking, confirmation bias, anchoring, etc.].

Consciousness and choice are in the same level; they both illusions caused by incomplete and skewed understanding of data and reality.

We're reactive, but our input and memory?
It's mostly fiction folks.
Sorry.

>> No.8125667
File: 816 B, 11x12, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8125667

dude quantum mechanics lmao
dude we cunt no nuffin lmao
dude quantum spookyness lmao
dude free will lmao

>> No.8125743

>>8125660
>muh intellectual edge
>muh transcendence from society
Two sides of the argument and you still can't help being a faggot.
Good luck getting out of pretension and actually doing something with your life you fucking sac of 70% water.

>> No.8125759

>>8125664
does having the illusion of free will explain human technological advances as well as actually having free will does?

Consciousness could indeed be a Gouldian spandrel, but then how to explain the current success of humanity? The computers we're communicating on weren't engineered by an illusion.

>> No.8125767

>>8125759
"Resultism"; the complex inevitability that is part of complex evolution.
We evolved to survive, and then we evolved a complex neural network, which we applied to survive. Eventually that headed towards technology.

>> No.8125809

>>8125767
then why did no animals that lack the illusion of consciousness do the same thing?

Instinct doesn't explain human behavior, eventually you have to give a name to that thing which makes us different from every other animal.

if the ability to invent something that has never existed before doesn't spring from free will, then where's it coming from?

>> No.8125810

>>8125667
I've never seen a picture smaller than a KB on here.

>> No.8125814

>>8125809
There are different level of logic loops and intelligence because of random genetic mutations, and intelligence [or that is, awareness] isn't always beneficial [may trigger counter-productive reactive behaviors].
So not all animals evolve to the state humans have.

>> No.8125823

>>8125814
>or that is, awareness
the anon claimed that "consciousness" is an illusion- awareness is synonymous with consciousness.

>So not all animals evolve to the state humans have
None have outside of our lineage and there's no reason to think any will.

I notice you haven't addressed the actual point. What drives this unique ability if not free will? Is it in our genetic makeup to mindlessly invent computers and then pretend we did it consciously? If so, what other magical innovations does our DNA encode that we haven't yet produced by the deterministic process you claim we excuse?

>> No.8125843

>>8125810
must be because quantum spookyness

>> No.8125875

From a human perspective free will is indistinguishable from the illusion of free will so it doesn't really matter.

>> No.8125889

>>8125875
except one is explanatory from an adaptationist standpoint while the other is not.

Also believing free will is an illusion measurably harms people's productivity and happiness. Which would seem to indicate it's not.

>> No.8125908

>>8125889
Personal belief does not matter when it comes to the very nature of the consciousness that believes it. An AI could be programmed to believe it has free will but that wouldn't make it so.

It makes no difference what people think, or whether they believe themselves free - on a fundamental level, the human brain is nothing but an organic computer, and any thought that comes out of it is no more the product of a free will than the musings of a chatbot are. The only difference between a computer and a human mind is the level of complexity and thus there is no free will - only the illusion of it. Input -> output. That's it. That's the entirety of human consciousness.

>> No.8125910

>>8125823
I am that anon and nom awareness and consciousness are not the same thing in an academic/scientific sense, only in regards to common layman useage of the words.

You can program an AI to respond to it's environment. That's awareness.

However, consciousness in the sense
>biological individual is only the "shell" that holds the true individual
>as discussed above
is the illusion of having a complete picture one's own existence in the biological sense.

>None have outside of our lineage and there's no reason to think any will.
That's an argument from ignorance fallacy.
The correct answer is:
>We don't know, but we have one model to go on

>I notice you haven't addressed the actual point. What drives this unique ability if not free will? Is it in our genetic makeup to mindlessly invent computers and then pretend we did it consciously? If so, what other magical innovations does our DNA encode that we haven't yet produced by the deterministic process you claim we excuse?

It's just pure determinism.
Subatomic -> Atomic -> Molecular -> Proteins -> DNA -> Life -> Complex Life -> Tools -> Complex Tools

But we believe we CHOSE to do this.
We didn't. We're just reacting and reacting and reacting as evolution kills off what doesn't work; both biological evolution, and it's progiy, technological evolution.

Biological evolution has many other types of evolutionary progenies itself.
Any system humans interact with that improve are another set of evolutionary deterministic progenies.

>> No.8125919

>>8124182
It's not possible to construct an argument to prove either side.
The best you can do is constructing an argument showing that Free Will is possible, by showing that denying it would requires devil's proof.

>> No.8125921

>>8125910
>Subatomic -> Atomic -> Molecular -> Proteins -> DNA -> Life -> Complex Life -> Tools -> Complex Tools
Can you prove that that the subatomic is not caused by a metaphysical entity, the "spirit" of a person, if you want to call it that.

>> No.8126152
File: 3.49 MB, 5800x3990, iceberg-08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8126152

>>8124182
the universe is not deterministic
the universe is not anything like a computer simulation
this doesn't mean you should feel bad for all of those hours you spent jerking off to anime girls (even though you should)

if the universe were deterministic, nothing random should ever happen, but random things happen all the time.
An event is random if it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine EXACTLY when it will happen, like the spontaneous decay of a single nucleus.
The fact chains of events can be analyzed does not imply that nothing is random. You can use the law of averages and determine that over a certain amount of time, a proportional amount of your sample should decay, but your sample was made of a shitload of unique particles that you know nothing about, can know nothing about, and never ever will know anything about, individually.

For all we know, radioactive isotopes are self-aware atoms that kill themselves because they get too fat. But that's retarded, so here's a better idea:

If there is no free will, then my thoughts are caused by particles doing their thing somewhere in the universe. However, at that point, they are no longer thoughts, because I'm not thinking them; I'm observing them. And that's super-duper retarded.

>> No.8126162

>>8126152
> but random things happen all the time
Yeah. Last night I was watching TV and some blue glowing rabbits just appeared near the television and jumped off into a space shuttle, then I opened my eyes on Pluto, dancing with Will Ferrell.
I mean none of these things happened in my control but it still proves free will duude. Random things happen all the time.
Where's the weed stash ? I'm gonna smoke another one.

>> No.8126931

Anyone even have an explaination for how a "random" thing can happen without being dependant on prior causes ?

>> No.8126967

>>8124464
>>8124341
>>8124491
jesus fucking christ the memers are out in full force today boys

>> No.8126981

>>8126931
It's impossible because "thing" is defined in part by its causal nature.

not that random things can't exist, just that we wouldn't consider them things. We wouldn't recognize them because our definition of "thing" excludes them.

>> No.8126984

>>8124226
so we just look like god but have none of his abilities?

>> No.8126989

>>8124182
>logic

Determinism seems to be falling out of favor in certain areas:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246621/

>> No.8126996

>>8126989
Biology has never accepted determinism.
Emergent properties are inherently non-deterministic.

just because all the parts of a system behave deterministically doesn't imply the system as a whole will.

Determinism is usually a mistake made by physicists.

>> No.8127010

>>8126996
>Biology has never accepted determinism.

You're right there in an absolute sense. I'll change "falling out of favor" to "starting to fall out of favor". That is, in the sense that more and more people are finding that deterministic systems are inadequate for describing complex phenomena.

>Determinism is usually a mistake made by physicists.

Can you explain this?

>> No.8127026

>>8127010
>>Determinism is usually a mistake made by physicists.
>Can you explain this?
Not him, but...
Determinism is very appealing to physicists.
Even to the extent that they will ignore evidence to the contrary.
We've known the universe isn't deterministic for almost a century now, but look at the denial:
"I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe" - Einstein
Or spend some time browsing /sci/.
Most people here endorse the Newtonian-Brownian model because they like it.
It's appealing. It's like geometry itself came to life.
Never mind that the Newtonian-Brown model was debunked in the early 20th century.
Never mind that it's time-reversible.
This last one is a huge issue, and should really rub /sci/entists the wrong way, but it doesn't.
If the underlying mechanics of the universe are time-reversible, where does the arrow of time come from?
Why does causality only work in one direction?
...but /sci/ loves classical physics so much that they'll just ignore this glaring flaw.

>> No.8127061

>>8127026
>Why does causality only work in one direction?
It doesn't - the future causes the past as much as the past causes the future.

>> No.8127064

>>8127026
alright thanks. I'll think about that.

>> No.8127076

>>8127010
>That is, in the sense that more and more people are finding that deterministic systems are inadequate for describing complex phenomena.

While they may be best approximated as nondeterministic (simplification is necessary for complex systems), this does not contradict the fact that they emerge from a deterministic foundation.

>> No.8127081

>>8127026
Determinism does not imply time-reversibility

>> No.8127084

>>8127081
>Determinism does not imply time-reversibility

No, but the Newtonian model has both, and I'm trying to answer this question in particular:

>>8127010
>>Determinism is usually a mistake made by physicists.
>Can you explain this?

My point is that some people love the deterministic classical physic so much they ignore its flaws.

>> No.8127090

>>8127081
>Determinism does not imply time-reversibility
p.s.:
A good example of this would be the "len" function in most programming languages.
It's 100% deterministic, but not time reversible.
len("cat") = 3
len("dog") = 3

>> No.8127093

>>8127010
>Can you explain this?
I think the sort of person that can't handle non-deterministic processes will steer themselves towards fields of study that not only don't deal with them but often deny them.

Conversely those with the ability to live with chaos will move towards studies of more complex things.

Physicists don't learn things that make them reject complexity, rather their rejection of complexity steers them into physics.

>> No.8127115

>get brain damage
>act differently

There, proof there is no free will

>> No.8127137

>>8127115
>proof there is no free will
that's only proof that some human processes are strictly caused.

though the entire debate is silly.
science has people looking for deterministic proofs that non-deterministic things exist.

some things don't behave deterministically, and there's no deterministic reason for that.

>> No.8127140

>>8127115
>>get brain damage
>>act differently
>There, proof there is no free will


Ah, the classic argument.
"It's not YOU making the decisions, it's your
BRAIN!".

So, does my brain have free will even if I don't?

>> No.8127265

>>8127140
Your brain doesn't have free will, it's a never ending state machine determined by the initial values of the systems (DNA), physical and chemical reaction, and signal input from your antennas, none of which you have control over.

There's no place for "you" to enter the process, unless of course our universe is a projection of another, in which physics is different, so we experience this universe but we actually "exist" in a different one, but that's not science.

>> No.8127289

>>8127265
>unless of course our universe is a projection of another, in which physics is different, so we experience this universe but we actually "exist" in a different one

I like your style. Interesting.

>> No.8127302

>>8127265
>There's no place for "you" to enter the process
you are the process.

we are positing that one part of the process affects other parts and vice versa. The results of billions of systems interact and this interaction in turn changes the results.

>> No.8127380

>>8127302
By "you" I mean the act of choice, free will, I do agree that this chain of events, chain of interactions, is me.

>>8127289
It's the best explanation I could gather that is for the "spirit" or the "mind" without sounding like complete hogwash that utterly undermines science so far, and it's as valid as the deterministic position, as far as I can see that is.

>> No.8127409

Every atom since the big bang eventually comes back around to repeat the pattern, determining where it will travel next. If we could put every single atom at the moment of the big bang into a computer and calculate of their patterns simultaneously then we can predict the future.

in other words, no free will

>> No.8127511

>>8127140
So if someone manipulated my brain would you still say I have free will?

>> No.8127558

>>8127409
the problem is none of this is known to be true.

sure, some events can be traced. That doesn't imply that all events can be.

Science very strictly ignores things that can't be understood because it can't say anything about them. That doesn't mean they don't exist. There are things that science cannot explain.

>> No.8127585

>>8127409
if free will is not real, you will install gentoo

>> No.8127587
File: 32 KB, 460x397, JTpsz9B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8127587

>>8127265
>, it's a never ending state machine determined by the initial values of the systems (DNA), physical and chemical reaction, and signal input from your antennas, none of which you have control over.

>you don't make decisions
>decisions are made by a combination of your genetic predispositions and your life experiences

If I'm not a combination of my genetic predispositions and my life experiences, then what the fuck am I?
Clearly SOMETHING is making my decisions.
If that something isn't me, then what am I?
Are you positing a soul?

>> No.8127593
File: 34 KB, 540x555, r3qOgd9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8127593

>>8127409
>If we could put every single atom at the moment of the big bang into a computer and calculate of their patterns simultaneously then we can predict the future.
Nope.
That's not how the universe works.
even the collision of two electrons is not predictable.
https://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+mechanics
https://www.google.com/search?q=uncertainty+principle
>The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know simultaneously the exact position and momentum of a particle.
>That is, the more exactly the position is determined, the less known the momentum, and vice versa.
We've know this since the late 1920's.
How is /sci/ so full of scientifically illiterate Luddites?

>> No.8127605
File: 28 KB, 620x465, brain_collector_trump_24575419.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8127605

>>8127511
>So if someone manipulated my brain would you still say I have free will?
Let me know if that happens.
But if someone decided to do that to you, clearly they have free will.

>> No.8127615

>>8127587
Are you dense? Is a bullet MAKING a decision to fly in a specific trajectory? Is my phone MAKING a decision when ringing because someone called? Are you MAKING a decision when a set of neurons fired in a certain way because electrons propagated due to signals from your eyeballs?

>> No.8127626 [DELETED] 
File: 5 KB, 233x267, Coleman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8127626

>>8127615
>Are you MAKING a decision when a set of neurons fired
Yes. Clearly.

>in a certain way because electrons propagated due to signals from your eyeballs?
It's bviousl;y far more complex than that.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stosctic
https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+neurons+in+the+human+brain
>The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells) which serve to support and protect the neurons
Write back when you have the vaguest notion of how the human brain works, retard.

>> No.8127631
File: 5 KB, 233x267, Coleman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8127631

>>8127615
>Are you MAKING a decision when a set of neurons fired
Yes. Clearly.

>in a certain way because electrons propagated due to signals from your eyeballs?
It's obviously far more complex than that.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stosctic
https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+neurons+in+the+human+brain
>The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells) which serve to support and protect the neurons
Write back when you have the vaguest notion of how the human brain works, retard.

>> No.8127637 [DELETED] 

>>8127615
p.s.: If anyone understood this shot the way you pretend to, they could answer the hard problem of consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hard+problem+of+consciousness
So please explain just now consciousness works?

>> No.8127641

>>8127615
p.s.: If anyone understood this shit the way you pretend to, they could answer the hard problem of consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hard+problem+of+consciousness
So please explain just now consciousness works?

>> No.8127702

>>8127641
biology is pretty close to explaining it entirely, and a lot of the explanation has been voiced itt.

strictly speaking there is no hard problem of consciousness, the emergence of the perception of qualia is easily enough explained.

the intricate mechanics of it are less well known but neurology will have that soon.

none of which comments on free will though.
To appeal to authority, I think if we took a survey of people that actually study the thing we'd find almost all biologists believe in free will.

>> No.8127925

Determinism is an illusion, as is causality. Schrodinger's equation spells it out, experiment proves it.

>> No.8128016

>>8127925
How can you prove that it's random if you can't measure it ? Because when you measure it, you can prove that it's not random.

>> No.8128027

>>8128016

If it wasn't random, you could accurately predict where it would be when it was measured. Yet that is impossible. Deal with it realist scum.

>> No.8128033

>>8127702
>biology is pretty close to explaining it entirely

That's not even wrong. Biology has absolutely no concept of what consciousness is or how it works. Experimental observation shows that the subconscious mind makes all the decisions before the conscious mind is even aware of them. If anything the conscious mind is a passenger living an illusion fed to it by the automaton it's riding in.

>> No.8128043

>>8124182
>Post your arguments in favor of determinism or free will.

>Determinism

Everything appears to be made of stuff that acts predictably

>Free will

Things stop acting predictably when dealing with complex organizations of things.

>Which is right?

Nobody knows because biology is complicated.

>> No.8128049

>>8128027
> you could accurately predict
By your logic, if you can't predict if the coin you're flipping is heads or tails, it proves that it's random.

In reality ofcourse it's only the result of your inability to measure the outcome of even a basic thing like a coinflip with your puny autistic brain.

>> No.8128059

free will is worth every penny

>> No.8128067

>>8128049
>your inability to measure the outcome
inability to predict (not measure) the outcome
is the determinator of randomness, Lagrange

>> No.8128078
File: 191 KB, 1366x768, 30044224211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128078

>>8124887
>Because mathematical deduction is semantic deduction.
Yeah but math isn't working with concepts in the air. It's working with concepts that it constructs using space and time as preconceived constructs. Mathematical concepts are simultaneously constructed with their definitions. What you're doing is philosophy and it's sort of silly to go on to say that it is silly. Your cock tease Langan isn't doing math but constructing philosophical constructs from concepts alone. Which is not the case with math, which constructs its definitions synthetically through a priori intuitions. Philosophy can only discursively work through its concepts, in fact, it TRYS to end with a complete definition of its concept because it starts with a hazy concept and tries to distill it into more clear elements. Math, on the other hand, starts with its definition and ends with its concept, they're pretty much simultaneous. Mathematicians already know what they want to say before they say it, they're just looking for symbolic representations. It's a little bit more complicated than that, because they can eventually infer new information, but still, they are under the tutelage of their a priori space-time constructs. Your argument is stupid because you're assuming that mathematics is different from philosophy (which it is), but then you go on to use that logic to affirm Langan's metaphysical system, which is done purely through a priori concepts alone. He's not doing math or semantics, he's doing metaphysics under the pretense of objective mathematical inquiry. In the end, it is merely dogmatic.

In the end, mathematical proofs of nature are confirmed through empirical evidence, which shows that when we do math our math is actually saying something about nature. Math without that informative quality -- something langan does not have -- is just illusion under the guise of 2deep4u-mathematical-physico-theological-philosophy

>> No.8128079

>>8124182
Information is a physical quantity.
Free will is a lack thereof.
Perfect information always yields deterministic predictions, and information asymmetry induces free will.

>> No.8128087

>>8128067
So when humans weren't around and nobody was here to predict anything, everything was happening randomly and not by the laws of physics ? Things just popped in and out ? Started flying around ? changed shape and all that ?

>> No.8128094

>>8128049

Wow man you seem pretty confused and angry. Don't worry even Einstein was butthurt about this and he wasn't a retarded faggot like you.

>> No.8128097

>>8128087

Things happen according to probability.

>> No.8128105

>>8128094
> projecting his butthurt because he knows his autistic brain is incapable of predicting even the smallest things
there there...

>> No.8128122

>>8128087
>everything was happening randomly and not by the laws of physics ?
it's the same problem we have with a future we can't predict-

i.e. multiple possible pasts could produce the same present, and we don't effectively know which one did, so from our standpoint it's the same as if all of them did.

Once we observe a thing that allows us better resolution the multiple pasts crystalize into a real past. Or so it seems.

>> No.8128130

>>8128122
The fundamental problem with your logic is that everything you claim to exist are unfalsifiable by default... Just like religion lol

>> No.8128150

>>8128130
it's not my logic, it's a current and very alive viewpoint in theoretical physics. I read about it in an article on Hawking, though it wasn't attributed to him. He just voiced a view I assume is common.

things we don't know are unfalsifiable by definition.

>> No.8128152

>>8128150
Citation Needed

>> No.8128154

>>8128152
hold on, I think Wikipedia covers it.

>> No.8128164

>>8128152
this page and the two that follow it outline the concept:
>https://books.google.com/books?id=2n4iBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=past+crystalizes&source=bl&ots=5so7QiaSWa&sig=4w-AV3OkSzbsa1Rrkpt1EjaUDas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnm8KktJXNAhVJw4MKHXRjAckQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=past%20crystalizes&f=false

>> No.8128183

>>8128150

True that. It's pretty much popsci at this point. Only dumbshits and fags can't get their minds around this new paradigm, even though it's a century old discovery.

>> No.8128184

>>8128087
>nobody was here to predict anything
then nobody determined randomness
that's all, Voltaire

>> No.8128210

>>8128164
That citation doesn't pan out.
It's a hypothesis about time congruency.
Also, Hawking isn't the King of Science.
"Reading something somewhere" isn't exactly science either, and a hypothesis isn't mainstream just because it's been published, even if it's by a mainstream author.
Consensus support is what makes an idea mainstream... even though consensus doesn't dictate reality.

>> No.8128213

>>8128210

Many things are unknowably in this reality, but one thing's for certain: ur a faget.

>> No.8128225

>>8128210
>That citation doesn't pan out.
or you can't read.

which I guess would explain why you haven't come across the idea in the first place, and why you think I came up with it myself.

believe what you like.

>> No.8128234

>>8124608
You can't use Physics 101 to understand quantum mechanics and randomness.

Bell's theorem doesn't have to apply to certain aspects of quantum mechanis such as entanglement of 2 particles for example.

>> No.8128239

>>8124608

>laws
>implying immutable facts and not mainstream theory
Last I heard, observation BTFO of theory, and current QM experiment confirms the most whacked out controversial paradigms from copenhagen.

>> No.8128285
File: 126 KB, 1079x2143, coliq.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128285

wow for a board that trashes philosophy you guys sure do a shit ton of it.

Hmm oh shit, that's right, philosophical questions pervade everywhere.

>> No.8128301

Free will only works if you take time into consideration.

>> No.8128374

>>8128033
>Experimental observation shows that the subconscious mind makes all the decisions before the conscious mind is even aware of them.
>If anything the conscious mind is a passenger living an illusion fed to it by the automaton it's riding in.
So we're back to: "you don't make the decisions, your brain does"?

What I'd like to know is, why are realists so desperate to deny free will's existence?

>> No.8128375

>>8128374
You've yet to define free will first...

>> No.8128383

>>8124182
There are only two options: Pure determinism, or something like the deterministism of a C program with the ability to call a true-random number generator. Any other option is incoherent. The invocation of soul does nothing to solve this problem because either the soul itself behaves deterministically, or it behaves deterministically like a C program with calls to a true-random number generator - there is no other logical option.

I am a compatibilist, which means that I define and understand the term "free will" in a manner that is compatible with determinism.

>> No.8128396

>>8128374

Man talk about obtuse.

>> No.8128398
File: 93 KB, 342x509, DanielWebster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128398

>>8128375
>You've yet to define free will first...
See what I mean?
"Free Will" has been in every dictionary ever printed, but let's add it to the list anyway:
>no definition of free will
>qm is wrong, reality is deterministic
>it's not you making the decisions, it's your brain (which somehow isn't a part of you)
>it's not you making the decisions, it's your genetic predispositions (which somehow isn't a part of you)
>it's not you making the decisions, it's the sum of your life experiences (which somehow isn't a part of you)
>it's not you making the decisions, it's your subconscious (which somehow isn't a part of you)

Did I miss any?
Are there any arguments against free will in this thread that aren't on this list?

>> No.8128400

>>8128396
>Man talk about obtuse.
OK, so I left "ad hominem" off the list.
My bad

>> No.8128402

>>8128398
I don't see yours on the list here:
>>8128383

Again, in short, you are part of reality. Either that reality is predictable by Laplace's demon, or it's not. And if it's not, then that part of reality has some degree of true-randomness. Neither is libertarian free will which is an incoherent concept. Both can be compatibilist free will.

>> No.8128414

>>8128398
Just because something is a part of you doesn't mean you have control over it. I will state that we are an amalgamation of external factors and genetics as well as incredibly subtle effects of gravity and difficult to predict atomic motion, and you will contradict me by stating that we have control over this somehow.

>> No.8128422

>>8128402
Wow, in one long, run-on sentence, you covered half the list: maybe qm doesn't real, no definition, it's not you, it's your brain.
You did add a new twist in that you've introduced two conflicting definitions of free will.
But you used one of them to label me a "libertarian", so I'm gonna call that an ad hominem.


>I don't see yours on the list here:
>>>8128383
That's not me.
Believe it or not, there's more than one person that disagrees with you.
Oh noes!

>> No.8128426
File: 170 KB, 2127x1644, spookyGhosts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128426

>>8128414
>Just because something is a part of you doesn't mean you have control over it.
If that part of me is doing something, that IS the control.
Unless you want to insist that the only part of me that's really *me* is my higher level intellectual thoughts?
Or maybe you'd like to posit the existence of a soul?
Do you believe in spooky ghosts, too?

>> No.8128427

>>8128396
>talk about obtuse
okay, it's an angle greater than a quarter-turn, and less than a half-turn

>> No.8128428

>>8128422
I don't understand your reply.

Quantum mechanics vs determinism is a side-show. That question is irrelevant for discussing libertarian free will. Libertarian free will by definition is something other than 1- determinism, and 2- determinism + true random like a C program that also makes calls to a true-random number generator. Neither of those is libertarian free will. Surely you agree. Surely you agree determinism is not libertarian free will, and being true-random is not libertarian free will.

My contention simply is that those are the only two available choices, because there is no other choices, /by definition/. That is what the words mean. Either something is predictable in advance by someone who knows the rules of the game and the starting conditions, i.e. Laplace's demon, aka determinism, or it's not, which is the definition of "true random": something that cannot be predicted by a Laplace's demon.

What is your counter? You haven't given one. Are you defending libertarian free will?

>> No.8128442

>>8124182
Belief in free will is an integral part of the human condition for most people it seems, people get so worked up about it I don't like arguing about it anymore.

>> No.8128445
File: 95 KB, 500x375, strawman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128445

>>8128428
>Quantum mechanics vs determinism is a side-show.
It's the realists that keep bringing it up.

>Neither of those is libertarian free will. Surely you agree.
I'm not familiar with the definition of "libertarian free will".
I just Googled it, and it looks like a case of moving the goalposts.
It's a very limiting definition of free will, apparently designed to undermine the arguments for free will.
So it also seems like a strawman.

>Are you defending libertarian free will?
OK, you *did* move the goalposts, but you're really pushing the strawman angle.
So I'll post my "strawman" jpeg, even though "movingthegoalposts.jpg" seems relevant too.

>> No.8128447
File: 64 KB, 500x281, movingthegoalposts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128447

>>8128428
>>8128445
Oh, what the heck...
Here: have both.

>> No.8128452

>>8128445
>>8128447
I'm stating my position, and asking you questions. What the hell is your position? How do you define free will? Are you a compatibilist? Is your definition of free will compatible with determinism + true-random ala a C program that calls a true-random number generator function? Do you believe that there is a third option besides determinism and true-random, and if so what is it, because it seems logically incoherent to claim that there is a third option.

>> No.8128458
File: 55 KB, 402x386, 1451106294857.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128458

You claim to have free will?

Fine, then please explain the mechanism by which you make decisions.

Case 1: You can describe it. Thus you are following an algorithm and are not free.

Case 2: You don't know the mechanism. Hence decisions more or less randomly come to you and are obviously not made within your control.

>> No.8128465

Yawn, another batch of butthurt fags can't deal with the fact that there is no free will.

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

>> No.8128466
File: 1.46 MB, 1732x2162, 1438092597253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128466

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

BASED Sam Harris

>> No.8128468

>>8128466
Dan Dennett is better.

>> No.8128470

>>8128426
>If that part of me is doing something, that IS the control
And that part of you has been influenced by everything around you, external, measurable factors, that you had no control over. Also, what an interesting way to deflect an argument, implying the other person believes in souls and such, almost on par with posting smug anime faces in response.

>> No.8128472

>>8128452
>What the hell is your position?
As I've stated several times: as long as I'm making the decisions, I have free will.
And that my higher level intellectual thought process is only one part of who I am.

>How do you define free will?
I don't have to, it's been well defined since before I was born.

...but I've already said this several times.

bye!

>> No.8128476

>>8128472
You still haven't answered my questions to any reasonable standard of honesty. Are you a compatibilist?

>> No.8128477

>tfw you're sure that some retarded AI hijacked this thread

>> No.8128486

>>8128477
Well, it would be appropriate for the board, maybe once it's complete it will migrate to /g/ to shitpost about Apple.

>> No.8128487

>>8128477
You do know that the "I" in AI stands for intelligence? Because that retarded tripfag is certainly the opposite of intelligent.

>> No.8128488

>>8128487
Oh come on, don't get butthurt that a computer can pose a better argument than you, it was inevitable.

>> No.8128491

>>8128488
Did you literally take your trip off, only to evade my filter?

>> No.8128493

>>8128491
Does it really matter who I am? You are upset because you can't pose a good argument in favor of free will. At least if you cited religious dogma it would be much harder to disprove.

>> No.8128494

>>8128472
>bye!
>>8128491
>Did you literally take your trip off, only to evade my filter?
Oh look. The idiot filtered me because he didn't want to have a conversation, and because he's a pretentious prick. (I am a pretentious prick too, but at least I have integrity and at least I'm honest.)

And in case it's not obvious, no, there are other anons that recognize your bullshittery and intellectual dishonesty.

>> No.8128495

>>8128493
>in favor of free will
What the fuck? Free will is a logical impossibility.

>> No.8128499

>>8128495
Excuse me, I assumed you were criticizing the tripbot on it's support of determinism. This has been an excellent fucking bait thread by the way, if the OP were a fisherman and we were the fish he'd eat for months.

>> No.8128500

>>8128499
>tripbot on it's support of determinism
I did no such thing.

Also, it's "its", not "it's".

>> No.8128502
File: 81 KB, 773x773, 1438849048517.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128502

>>8128499
>/sci/ 2016
>people are jumping to the defense of shitposting tripfags
Holy fuck, this board has really gone to shit.

>> No.8128504

>>8128502
>shitposting tripfags
>shitposting
Really?

>> No.8128515

>>8128504
Yes, now please explain (as eloquently as possible) how determinism is compatible with free will. I'd tell you that you couldn't, but I'm sure you have some kind of meme to spout at us uneducated masses.

>> No.8128521

>>8128515
>how determinism is compatible with free will
You might as well ask him to name a negative number greater than 5.

>> No.8128523

>>8128515
I'd just suggest Dan Dennett. In short, the everyday common notion of "free will" is wrong, and such a thing does not exist, but if you tweak that common understanding just a little, then you can have something that matches pretty well what people mean by "free will', "moral competency", etc., and which exists. This is not unusual. There are plenty of things in the world that the common everyday notion is not exactly right, and as we learn more about it, our ideas have to be refined to match the evidence.

It's dry as hell, and long as hell, but I do suggest the following youtube video if you don't want to read his book "consciousness explained".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSgVgrC-6Y

PS: If you're looking for a solution to Chalmer's hard problem, Dan Dennett is not your person.

>> No.8128525

We've known that the underpinnings of the universe are probabilistic not deterministic for going on a century now. It's telling of the state of education that people will come on /sci/ and defend determinism in the current year of our Lord.

>> No.8128526

Debating free will vs determinism is implicitly accepting absolutism, which is not how science works.

Dualism transitions across a spectrum, there is both some free will and some determinism. You would need to look at a specific case and discuss it further.

Scientific method:
There is a lot of determinism in science, as the outcome of an experiment which has to be determined overrides some theory which can be freely formulated.

Political process:
There is a lot of free will in democratic elections, as the outcome has to be determined by the (un)manipulated choice of the individual voters. No complete system of manipulation has been devised yet, hence why we don't have an immortal permanent dictator.
One off events tend to be more willful. Repeatable events tend to be more determinable.

Cosmic and galactic events tend to be very deterministic. Subatomic particle interactions and quantum effects tend to be very probabilistic.

Seems like as you get bigger it's easier to tell what's going to happen. Which is why guys rocking 8" plus are always getting laid, and the weeny 5" club is always in a hazy cloud of potential lifelong virginity.

>> No.8128528

>>8128525
I'm utterly confused as to how our current inability to directly observe most subatomic particles proves free will, if you'd politely explain it to me, I'll listen.

>> No.8128529

>>8124618
Congratulations! You just almost rediscovered Russell's paradox.

Determinism is the claim that there such a thing as a "state" of the physical/observable universe at a snapshot in time, and this state of conditions which in principle can be specified, and a set of rules which provide a unique way that the universe changes from that state to unique future states.

These rules govern physical / observable objects. The rules of physics themselves are not physical / observable objects. You just made a category error.

>> No.8128530

>>8128525
I just skimmed the thread. I didn't see anyone defending determinism. Could you point out the posts that do, please?

>> No.8128531

>>8128528
Quantum mechanics makes free will even more impossible because nobody has control over the random collapse of the wavefunction.

>> No.8128533

>>8128528
>proves free will
I never said that. You don't have to take a stance on free will (which is a fuzzily defined philosophical concept I don't give a shit about) in order to let go of the outdated concept of determinism.
>our current inability
That isn't how any of this works.

>> No.8128539

>>8128529
>>8124618
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation#.22The_map_is_not_the_territory.22

>> No.8128540
File: 17 KB, 208x250, people are just a game to me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8128540

>>8128531
I don't know what they think, maybe they are gods among us and have control over these in-observable forces that ultimately define everything, yet are somehow independent of them. Perhaps they exist to laugh at all us stupid ROACHES. If they had nothing else to do, they'd probably just will themselves out of existence. I think that would be nice, I'm not a big fan of gods and masters myself.

>> No.8128543

>>8128540
You know, the big misconception about consciousness and quantum mechanics is that consciousness actively collapses the wavefunction. As if consciousness was a powerful observer and initiated the collapse. In reality, the wavefunction collapsing IS consciousness. The informational reductions (qualia) ARE the process of collapsing wavefunctions.