free will

[Anonymous No.9848552]

Why would people argue for free will by stating indeterminacy in quantum mechanics? The outcome of measurements is independent of willpower.

[Anonymous No.9848567]

>>9848552
Standard model (aka quantum mechanics) is just a theory for entities with definable position and momentum

Unless you can define momentum and position as a function of time for "consciousness", "thoughts", "will", and "feelings", you cant answer questions about them.

[Anonymous No.9848599]

>>9848567
>Unless you can define momentum and position as a function of time for "consciousness", "thoughts", "will", and "feelings"
assuming there exists no higher entity like a soul, this is in theory possible.
And if all those human traits arise from qm, or more specifically electrodynamics, how should a decoherent state like the human brain influence that which seems up until now truly random?

[Anonymous No.9850107]

>>9848552
Because this is the last desperate attempt they make to cling onto a comfortable illusion. There is ZERO scientific evidence for free will, or any form of human agency as a whole, so people search for the smallest thing they can cling onto before submitting to the truth.

[Anonymous No.9850146]

>>9850107
> ZERO scientific evidence
For or against

[Anonymous No.9850164]

[Anonymous No.9850166]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches

[Anonymous No.9850169]

>>9850146
For its existence.

[Anonymous No.9850174]

>>9850146
But it makes more sense that we don’t have free will. Either every action has a cause, or it is random. If it is random, then this isn’t free will, as randomness can not be controlled. And if all our actions have causes, then if those causes are due to nature, as in physics, chemistry, biology, and so on, we also don’t have free will, since everything we do is the result of previous causes outside of our control. So, the only way we can be free is if we have the ability to self-cause, to bring into the world effects that could have not been predicted, and that aren’t random. But how is this possible? What is the self, but the assembly of natural causes? And if free will exists, why do all actions conveniently correspond to natural explanations, rather than the infinite possibilities from free, self-causation? Also, if all our wills are free, and we are in control of them, then why is addiction a problem? Why do we still choose to be lazy when we know that being productive is more beneficial in the long run? Everything can be explained through the view that we have no free will, whereas the opposite view has so many holes, and not even a foundation to begin with.

[Anonymous No.9850188]

>>9850174
>Either every action has a cause, or it is random.
False dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.9850189]

[Anonymous No.9850193]

>>9850188
Correct it, then

[Anonymous No.9850195]

using philosophical/scientific arguments to make inferences about a practical application of free will is the ultimate expression of being a raging incel
nothing you can say about free will changes the fact that in the span of human observation we have no shortage of people being more successful and trying harder than you simply as an expression of their willpower

[Anonymous No.9850197]

>>9850193
>Correct it, then
"Every action either has a cause or is random."

[Anonymous No.9850198]

>>9850197
I agree, then, a grammar mistake.

[Anonymous No.9850199]

>>9848552
A man can choose to do what he wants, but he cannot choose what it is that he wants.
Hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.9850200]

>>9850197
>"Every action either has a cause or is random."
False dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.9850235]

>>9850195
There's no such thing as willpower. People with "willpower" are just lucky in a slightly more abstract way than good looking people are so it confuses your tiny brain. No one would say good looking people earn anything they have, so why people with "willpower." Because you're stupid.

[Anonymous No.9850268]

>>9850235
raging incel detected

[Anonymous No.9850277]

>>9850199

A man can play with his own mind quite a bit, but tampering with emotional energy/instinctual drive is like trying to interfere with god. There a dire consequences of the mental illness type

[Anonymous No.9850283]

>>9850277

I myself have been fighting this fight for at least 15years, iI'm 28 now. I am desperate for free will, but I have experienced enough emotional energy and instinctual drive to know for damn sure that free will is possible, but you truly have to go down the path of insanity. You have to accept you are a monster capable of anything because that is what is absolutely necesarry for life to go further down the line of progress

[Anonymous No.9850285]

>there are people ITT who were unironically born without free will
it must be like being born blind

[Anonymous No.9850290]

>>9850277
it stresses you out to repress yourself and stress leads to mental illness
nothing esoteric here
but you can't just let your emotions carry you and if you're successful you've been repressing yourself carefully whether you admit or not

[Anonymous No.9850294]

Will is a function of several variables of the mind/body. If you think you can choose "yes"'when the variables determine the function value of "no", you are wrong. However, by the power of God and reason you can add new variables to the function and in that sense you do have free will. Hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.9850298]

>>9850290

Do you live in the same world i do? Probably not. If i didnt repress/suppress i'd be a raping murdering whining animal

[Anonymous No.9850301]

>>9850294


Kinda, except I look at these calculating variables and recognize they can lead to undesirable outcomes, and I actually consider it gods mistake which needs to be corrected

[Anonymous No.9850308]

>>9850301
God gave man reason, which is the only way men have free will in the way I just described. Basically, your decisions are a function of chemicals in your mind that spring from desire and instinct. But by keeping God in your mind and reasoning you can add weight to the function and determine the outcome, although this is impossible in some cases

[Anonymous No.9850314]

>>9850308

Bullshit its impossible, thats why I consider it gods mistake. God is not our friend, he is a mad scientist using us

[Anonymous No.9850338]

>>9850314
Look up the Burning Monk. That's the power of God and reason in overcoming pain and pleasure

[Anonymous No.9850348]

>>9850338


I dont believe there's any reason to burning yourself alive just to overcome it other than self indulgent bullshit

[Anonymous No.9850359]

Why do we accept that biological organisms can do some things that other things in the universe cant, such as procreate, but do not believe it is possible for them to have other functions that other things in the universe do not have, such as the capability to have at least SOME agency?

[Anonymous No.9850367]

>>9850348

My apologies, im still working to get over my abrasive nature. I see your point, im just interested in more value such as overcoming addiction or any trauma and living a valuable life

[Anonymous No.9850368]

>>9850359

What is this agency speak ive

[Anonymous No.9850371]

>>9850367
I recommend some Hindu/Buddhist literature, my man. Works like The Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Dhammapada always help with my depression. My dad died and my brother is a heroin addict, so I'm no stranger to suffering

[Anonymous No.9850376]

>>9850371


Sorry bout your father bro, mine meant a lot to me. Thanks for the lit

[Anonymous No.9850400]

>>9850200
How so?
Can you describe an uncaused event that isn't random?

[Anonymous No.9850401]

>>9850359
What is agency? Can you define it physically?

[Anonymous No.9850442]

>>9850401
Veto on subconscious decisions. I am no brainologist but I am pretty sure there were some popular studies that suggested it.

[Anonymous No.9850453]

>>9850442
Who is enacting the "veto"? Isn't it just another part of the brain? And isn't the "vetoing" part of the brain just as dependent on the laws of cause-and-effect as any other part?

[Anonymous No.9850471]

>>9850400
>Can you describe an uncaused event that isn't random?
The universe.

[Anonymous No.9850493]

>>9850471
Non-existence needs no cause, but the universe was caused by non-existence by necessity. No effects are uncaused unless that effect is nothing.

[Anonymous No.9850495]

>>9848567
>he have never heard of quantum psychology

btter shut your trap

[Anonymous No.9850507]

>>9850493
>the universe was caused by non-existence by necessity.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9850510]

>>9850471
How is the spontaneous appearance of a universe not random?

[Anonymous No.9850548]

>>9850510
>How is the spontaneous appearance of a universe not random?
What makes you think it was spontaneous?

[Anonymous No.9850559]

>>9850548
Previous poster implied it was un-caused.
Having no cause -> no reason to occur -> occurred spontaneously. It's really simple.

[Anonymous No.9850570]

>>9850453
I told you I am no brainologist and dont know how this shit works. I am just telling you its possible that some biological processes let us do shit other non-biological things cant do. At least all the studies I managed to find and the critiques on them suggested that while simple movements and actions can be easily predicted since they require a lot of processes to activate before the motion happens, they havent yet managed to produce an experiment that lets them predict what people will do in more complex situations where extensive decision-making is required. I am a complete layman, though, so I have no idea what I am talking about other than reading a couple of papers.

[Anonymous No.9850572]

>>9850507
For non-existence to exist there is a contradiction. The problem is solved by the positing of existence, so that non-existence can become fully actual, what it really is, non-existence. You can’t have nothing without something, and vice verse. Also, for any change to occur, the cause must be distinct from the effect. But all effects have the quality of existence. Therefore the ultimate cause of all existence is non-existence.

[Anonymous No.9850575]

>>9850572
>For non-existence to exist there is a contradiction.
Then how can non-existence cause existence?

[Anonymous No.9850578]

>>9850471
>The universe.
The universe was caused by God.

[Anonymous No.9850580]

>>9850572
>You can’t have nothing without something, and vice verse.
This isn't actually saying anything.

[Anonymous No.9850594]

>>9850578
What caused God

[Anonymous No.9850596]

>>9850294
the only thing that influences reasoning in your head is input from the outside and your genetical architecture. The only thing that would give rise to free will would be a supernatural phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.9850600]

>>9850442
i remember one that was refuted multiple times.
Even assuming you can veto a decision, the decision to use it must come from somewhere in your brain.

[Anonymous No.9850603]

>>9850495
decoherence effects are far too vast to allow for a coherent state as consciousness. And again, even if, it boils down to randomness, unless you can refute what physicists have been trying to for decades now.

[Anonymous No.9850606]

You are your brain, not a mystical ghost residing above or within it.
Free will is true and you are a deterministic/stochastic process which none the less acts accordingly with it's functional parameters. The sensation of choice is not an illusion.

[Anonymous No.9850617]

>>9850606
The decision making process occurs - that's not an illusion.
The thought that you could have made any choice occurs - that's not an illusion.
But observing the decision making process closely is no different than observing any other process over which you have no control. Only retroactively do you claim ownership of the process.

[Anonymous No.9850619]

>>9850575
>Then how can non-existence cause existence?
This is beyond the realm of science. The first formation of existence has no determinate qualities, it is pure Being. It is exactly the same as nothing, except it exists. So, the only problem that needed to be overcome was non-existence -> existence, which solves itself by necessity since non-existence implies existence.

[Anonymous No.9850621]

>>9850617
You are the process. There is no you outside it.

[Anonymous No.9850623]

If your argument is "Physics is deterministic therefore free will doesn't exist" then pointing out that physics is not deterministic kind of ruins your argument.
Yes it doesn't mean that free will exists, but you haven't shown it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9850628]

>>9850621
Not that anon but how are you sure your brain isn't a sort of deterministic information processor? It takes in multiple sets of stimuli and gives incentive outputs.
On your way home, you see and smell delicious food. You end up deciding you want to buy some food from a restaurant further down, even though from your perspective you didn't think twice about the food you saw earlier. Your brain took in the context and incentivized you to want food.
Can you prove that isn't the case, and that you MUST be an active agent that has the ability to make arbitrary choices?

[Anonymous No.9850634]

>>9850623
Free will is an incoherent concept. To have free will is to self-cause non-randomly. It can be argued that God (void) self-causes, but even this is of necessity. The lack of free will + determinism, or even indeterminists, at least can be believed with a fully developed system, whereas there are no arguments for how free will is possible.

[Anonymous No.9850637]

>consciousness is the source of agency
>claim the physical universe is what completely drives our consciousness
>when its documented by and perceived as it is as a result of our consciousness
The arrogance of some people who think they know everything there is to know never ceases to amuse me.

[Anonymous No.9850640]

>>9850628
I'm saying free will is fully compatible with deterministic/stochastic information processing if the other concepts and frame is properly defined.
Whatever our brain is or does, we are defined by it. There is no magic man which can retroactively take responsibility for past decisions. The very idea is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.9850641]

>>9850621
Yes, my use of "I' and "you" are just concessions to the limits of language.

[Anonymous No.9850642]

>>9850634
A lack of arguments explaining a system of free will doesn't mean a lack of free will. It's entirely possible free will exists and we don't/can't understand how it works.
I'd even say it's logically impossible to objectively describe a conscious mind. Even if you knew the state of their brain perfectly down to the planck units, you must still absorb that information through your subjective experience. Knowing their experience accurately would require you to become them, and that'd still end up being subjective.
How can anyone ever say whether or not free will exists if we can't even objectively model the mind?

[Anonymous No.9850644]

>>9850640
I think what that anon meant is that you only believe you were the decision maker, when in reality your brain would have made you feel that way if the situation were to occur exactly as it did before.

[Anonymous No.9850646]

>>9850644
Again, we start talking about magic men which don't exist and assign them personalities. You are the brain and the process.

[Anonymous No.9850648]

>>9850559
No cause does not necessarily mean random. (I'm not using the universe, that's a stupid example) But if free will does exist, then it says that we use free will to make decisions, when the benefits seem equal and we don't choose randomly.

[Anonymous No.9850649]

>>9850646
What's a "you"?

[Anonymous No.9850655]

>>9850649
A kind of gradient of complex hierarchy which is maximized in your thalamus

[Anonymous No.9850666]

>>9850655
Hierarchal models of the mind tend to become far too complex for what is physically possible with the amount of cells in the brain.
But I only "know" that because I remember watching a lecture about past approaches. I'm not going to pretend I know what I'm talking about in this context, sorry.

[Anonymous No.9850667]

>>9850648
If two choices seem equal and you make a choice, why did you pick one vs. the other? It would be a total coin toss - a.k.a. random

[Anonymous No.9850679]

>>9850666
This relates to problems past and present in mapping the architecture of the human brain, not the brains functionality which is evident.
For this topic of free will, all we need to know is that the damn thing somehow works.

[Anonymous No.9850726]

>>9848599
Why would you make the assumption humans have no souls?

[Anonymous No.9850738]

>>9850726
Would you make the assumption that Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't actually exist?

[Anonymous No.9850739]

>>9850594
>What caused God

[Anonymous No.9850767]

>>9850739
I’m dumb, why does God need no cause?
Is God more necessary than non-existence?

[Anonymous No.9850976]

>>9850619
>This is beyond the realm of science.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9850986]

>>9850976
It’s not testifiable, but approached through reason. Natural science is just the observation of cause and effect and drawing inferences from there. But non-existence can not be observed, since any observer would contradict non-existence, so any scientific approach will be insufficient.

[Anonymous No.9850990]

>>9850986
>any observer would contradict non-existence
?

[Anonymous No.9850997]

>>9850990
You can’t create non-existence without destroying yourself in the process. I heard some scientist talk about vacuum experiments when a vacuum isn’t even non-existence, but empty space, which is something. And scientists seem to avoid theorizing how space and time arose from nothing, and not just how matted arose from empty space.

Even if you were able to reproduce non-existence, the results couldn’t be observed.

[Anonymous No.9851000]

>>9850997
>You can’t create non-existence without destroying yourself in the process.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9851007]

>>9851000
Non-existence and existence can not co-exist. How would you even plan to create non-existence, and then observe it?

[Anonymous No.9851014]

>>9851000
i'd like to hear your reasoning for how it's possible to co-exist with the absence of existence

[Anonymous No.9851016]

>>9851007
>Non-existence and existence can not co-exist.
Why not?

[Anonymous No.9851022]

>>9850997
>You can’t create non-existence
Non-existence and existence are properties assigned to something, neither are 'created'.

[Anonymous No.9851040]

>>9851016
Non-existence means lack of existence. And existence means lack of non-existence. But lack of non-existence is the same as saying existence. When there is only non-existence, existence doesn’t exist and non-existence exists, whereas when there is existence, existence exists and non-existence non-exists. It is easily seen that the latter case is preferable to the previous, hence the creation of something from nothing, and the fact that both can’t exist, or non-exist, at the same time.

[Anonymous No.9851041]

>>9851040
>But lack of non-existence is the same as saying existence.
Why are you so sure that the universe allows for double negation?

[Anonymous No.9851043]

>>9851040
>When there is only non-existence
Non-existence of what?

[Anonymous No.9851045]

>>9851040
>It is easily seen that the latter case is preferable to the previous
Preferable in what sense?

[Anonymous No.9851054]

>>9851041
>it is not the case that everything doesn’t exist
is the same as saying there exists something which exists. This is self-explanatory
>>9851043
>Non-existence of what?
Anything that exists, or existence itself.
>>9851045
Preferable in what sense?
Consistency, logic, coherence. Non-existence can’t BE, or then it would exist. It must be negated by its opposite, existence, because what is existence when nothing exists? The question can’t be answered. What is non-existence without existence?
>”simply the absence of existence”
But what is existence?

But when existence IS, then we can answer, that existence is what is, and non-existence is what is not.

[Anonymous No.9851064]

>>9851054
>>it is not the case that everything doesn’t exist
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.9851069]

>>9851054
>Consistency, logic, coherence.
Which logic?

[Anonymous No.9851076]

>>9851064
>Who are you quoting?
Myself.
>>9851040
The lack of existence is the same as saying all of existence doesn’t exist.
>>9851069
EITHER
What is, is,
and what is not, is not.
OR
What is, is not,
and what is not, is.

I don’t know for certain that the universe must follow the law of non-contradiction, but I’d rather believe that it does.

[Anonymous No.9851208]

>>9851040
You can only say “non-existence exists” when you’re perceiving it from existence, where the concept of non-existence clearly exists. Non-existence doesn’t “exist” in true non-existence.

[Anonymous No.9852051]

>>9848552
If there are truly random outcomes to certain events, then these events are not deterministic. This does not imply that humans have free will, but that's just dumdum logic

[Anonymous No.9852890]

>>9852051
This. But, is quantum physics really "random"?
For example, the decay of a Higgs boson. It has a 0,2% probability of decaying into a photon.

We look and see the boson decayed into a photon. Was this eevent really random? call me a brainlet, but i dont understand how randomness could exist. Everything has a cause... (or it doesn't)?

Well, the boson decayed into a photon, If we go back into time, at the beginning of the experiment (before the boson decayed);

Would the boson decay always into a photon or would decay into other particles? If it's truly 100% random, we would see the boson doesn't always decay into a photon, but gluons, other bosons etc

What would we see?

[Anonymous No.9852926]

>>9848552