[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: maxresdefault.jpg (49 KB, 1280x720)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?

Is there anything in nature that happens completely randomly? Would this give the free will argument some legitimacy?
>>
>>8682018
Lmao if you don't want ur free will i know someone that might
>>
>>8682018
>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?
No. Actually, many interpretations of quantum mechanics shed a wholly deterministic light on the universe. Determinism is more plausible than ever, contrary to many people's belief.

>>8682030
Apparently, philosophical questions are beyond this brainlet's scope of comprehension.
>>
>>8682018
>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?
quite the opposite is what we've found and if you have an IQ above 120, it's pretty easy to understand that the deeper you go, you will find a reason to why you did something at a physiological level, which is not free will and the only reason free will was ever an idea was because we did not know enough and that's where you go to some easy, simple conclusion of """free will""" instead of the reality, which points to an "absolutely not" conclusion.

This is also not math or science related.

>>>/his/
>>
>>8682018
>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?
Well, that depends on what exactly you mean by "free will". If you take the vague human intuition of that concept and try to cache it out into something meaningful, I would argue that the result is something that is indeed real. Other ways that you could interpret that intuition, which I would consider less sensible, are not real.

>Is there anything in nature that happens completely randomly?
It would seem that the answer is "no".

>Would this give the free will argument some legitimacy?
In my interpretation as above, no randomness is involved in any way, so no it doesn't.
>>
>>8682039
I ask because I read a book on the subject and it said that electrons jumping to a different orbit and gamma rays being produced by radiation were random processes. But the book is fairly old (from the 90s) so I suspected the info may be outdated. I'm not acquainted with the sciences in any way, so I thought I'd ask here.
>>
You can't just say free will without defining what you mean by the term.
>>
>>8682018
Define free will
>>
>>8682047
You can easily ignore your physiological needs and push through them, at least for a while. Mind you, I'm not disputing free will at the quantum level, but 'will' is definitely a thing for humans.

also >>>/lit/
>>
>>8682062
It was outdated in the 90s as well. But it IS what was genuinely thought in the 60s, yes. And pop science still has to catch up to the progress since the 60s in this area.
>>
>>8682075
>>8682074
I could have done or refrained from doing X at time Y if all conditions, internal and external, were the exact same.
>>
>>8682097
then the answer is categorically no if the universe is 100% deterministic
>>
>>8682097
You have hidden the unclear semantics in the word "could". I can still sensibly interpret your definition as being real or unreal depending on the vague intuition of "could".
>>
>>8682018

You can choose to believe in free will or choose not believe in free will. You can also not give a fuck.
>>
>>8682079
when you realise that body and mind are one in the same, you'll see that even your thoughts succumb to logical determinism
there's no escape, not even suicide will free you from nature
>>
this is why i'm starting to side with religions when it comes to fate
>>
>>8682018
free will isn't random shit, that's what the determinismfags can't seem to understand
>>
>>8682018
No, no, and no... next question!
>>
>>8682216
so what is it then?
>>
>>8682216
Yes, when something isn't deterministic then it's random, so free will would be random.
That doesn't mean that it's like throwing a dice, it just means it's unpredictable. Randomness is broader concept than most people intuitively think.
>>
Free will is, IMHO, not a thing that exists.

I don't know enough physics to back up this, but it seems to me it's very plausible that the world is completely deterministic. That would, of course, rule out free will.

Even if there are truly random events, free will isn't random. Does a (true, theoretical) random number generator have free will?
>>
>>8682257
>That would, of course, rule out free will.
That's not clear at all, and in fact is the whole crux of the disagreement. Please explain this part.
>>
free will would only be possible for a 4th dimensional and supernatural being and if such a thing ever existed, it would cease to be supernatural
>>
>>8682294
Not that anon but the way i see it is that things behave in ways dependent on their properties and the reaction of those properties to the median through which the thing occurs.

Based on the physical conditions of the atmosphere a tornado may turn towards a house and end up killing people, but you wouldn't say that the tornado decided to kill those people out of it's own free will.

Similarly, a man might grow up to become a killer, but like the tornado his behavior was simply the product of his physical properties and their reaction to physical conditions.
>>
I just read Free Will by Sam Harris, and he makes great arguments against the idea. The things that come closest to "free will" are things that simply happen randomly, like certain things that happen in the brain that can't be reliably predicted, but randomness is not the same thing as free will-- you're still controlled by background processes that you yourself did not consciously choose or were even aware of until they already happened. The fact that they were random doesn't give you an ounce more of free will.
>>
So if free will doesn't exist doesn't that mean whether or not I come to the conclusion it does or doesn't exist is already predetermined by mathematics, physics, and chemistry?
>>
>>8682425
of course and you can see how ridiculous that idea is. but determinismfags just can't admit how plastering determinism everywhere leads to paradoxes and is wholly unsatisfying
>>
>>8682425
Pretty much.

>>8682113
But you can't choose, that's the point. A man can do what he chooses, but he can't choose what he chooses. You have no more control of your life than I have control of how I "choose" to end this very sentence
>>
>>8682436
>A man can do what he chooses, but he can't choose what he chooses.
too bad reality decides to disagree with your assesment
>>
Free Will is a pseudo-problem. Who cares if you really have free will or not if the illusion/belief you do exists and can't be broken?
>>
>>8682018
Denial of free will seems to imply Irresponsibility: for people who won't accept accountability and consequences for the actions they chose. People who deny responsibility are unpredictable because they don't think. However, for much of their day they can be predicted to do many stupid, thoughtless things, because they choose to not think and choose to not learn. We have to accept responsibility for ourselves and choose what's best; no one else can do it for us.
>>
>>8682497
A lot of words for a shit explanation
>>
File: image.jpg (48 KB, 218x232)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>8682018
i have no choice in this matter

im compelled to call OP a faggot
>>
The question of free will is completely a definition problem.

I mean how would you define free will?
>>
>>8682434
>of course and you can see how ridiculous that idea is.
I don't see why this is ridiculous. Can you explain?

>plastering determinism everywhere leads to paradoxes
Can you explain the paradox for me, please? I don't see any.

>and is wholly unsatisfying
Whether or not you find a particular explanation pleasant does not really have any bearing on whether it is true...
>>
Questions for determinists:

If every action is determined, then why are people morally responsible for their actions?

If you subscribe to a current of determinism in which the "truth" becomes clearer the more information you have and, as such, "free will" disappears the more you know about the universe, how do you justify a person's decision to go against the most logical option they could opt for? Say you're playing a game of chess. One average played would think of 10 possible plays, all equally valid, but an experienced player would see that there's only one play that would win him the game. So, as such, that experienced player would be conditioned by his amount of information to perform the logical play, but what if instead opts to do something else, or just break the chessboard in half? Is that not free will?
>>
>>8682510
Having the choice of being able to perform action X differently at point in time Y if the conditions, both internal and external are the exact same as they were when the action was done.
>>
>>8682515
>then why are people morally responsible for their actions

To control behavior and avoid self-fulfilling prophecies.
>>
>>8682515
>If every action is determined, then why are people morally responsible for their actions?
Because things are determined, among other things, *by people taking actions*. Which means those people can be morally responsible.

>as such, "free will" disappears the more you know about the universe,
I don't follow you here.
>>
>>8682515
>why are people morally responsible for their actions?
They aren't, they can't be, and they ought not to be. Moral retribution is used as a tool to deal with trouble makers, and so we have designed a court system that is based on free will, based on the assumption that people have agency over their lives and will be punished if they "choose" to behave badly. But most people on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad environments, bad upbringings etc. Which of these quantities were they personally responsible for?

A grizzly bear can't be held morally responsible for mauling someone to death, because on some level you know a grizzly bear can't help but be a grizzly bear, and that's what they do.
A person with a tumor in their brain can't be held morally responsible for going on a killing spree, because that tumor affected their thoughts and actions in ways that they had no control over.

>why do people do illogical things, that must mean free will exists
Logical or illogical, decisions are always preceded by events that you did not consciously deliberate over-- if you looked at the entire lifespan of the experienced player up until he made that illogical decision, if you understood every synapse and every neuron and every atom that comprised his life up until that very moment, you would know exactly why he did what he did, and you could predict that he would do it before he even did it.
>>
>>8682546
>I don't follow you here.
I'm talking about the kind of determinism that roots itself in logical decisions. The one that believes that humans only perceive to have free will and that free will disappears the more information you have about the world.

If you have 10 choices in a chess game, you may perceive to have free will in choosing any one.

But if you're an experienced player, you'll know only one of them will win you the game. Thus, more information limits your perceived notion of having free will.

If that's the case, then why could that experience player choose to break the chessboard in half and go against the logical option?
>>
>>8682515
>then why are people morally responsible for their actions?
They aren't. There's a reason why the concept of "punishment" is phased out in civilized countries.
>>
>>8682563
>If you have 10 choices in a chess game, you may perceive to have free will in choosing any one.
But once you choose one, it was always the case that you would have chosen that one.
>>
>>8682563
>I'm talking about the kind of determinism that roots itself in logical decisions.
I have never heard about that concept, and I'm quite certain that's not what determinism means in physics contexts.
>>
>>8682591
There's scientific determinism, which is the one mostly debated and accepted now, and metaphysical determinism, which is the one anon was probably talking about.
>>
File: 1480405340651.gif (1.53 MB, 500x300)
1.53 MB
1.53 MB GIF
Is it logical that a person who thinks they have free will is likely to be a more useful human being?

I think so.

>>8682462
This is a nice line of thinking.

...

I personally do not believe in free will. The world operates on cause and effect. I still choose to operate on the belief that I have free will hahaha.

>A necessary illusion.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8&t=155s

I really enjoyed this video on the topic. I like Searle's point about evolution evolving complex brains as decent evidence against determinism.
>>
>>8682559

>Moral retribution is used as a tool to deal with trouble makers, and so we have designed a court system that is based on free will, based on the assumption that people have agency over their lives and will be punished if they "choose" to behave badly.

This really grinds my gears to be honest family.

I try explaining this to normies and they are just incapable of grasping this concept.
>>
>>8682603
A person with severe cognitive dissonance is a ticking time bomb, so no, they are not more useful.
>>
>>8682511
>I don't see why this is ridiculous. Can you explain?
it's pretty nice theory but it has no bearing on reality whatsoever. kinda like flat earthers and creationist can create nice theory but sadly for them reality disagress


>Can you explain the paradox for me, please? I don't see any.
in a deterministic universe you should be able to predict everything til the end of times if you know where every particle is. let's assume we knew that and could predict the future. that would raise a multitude of paradoxes.

>Whether or not you find a particular explanation pleasant does not really have any bearing on whether it is true...

someone should look up what unsatisfying means
>>
>>8682018
Yes and no. It honestly depends on your definition of science.

Using the scientific method we can't or at least haven't proved or disproved free will, it's extremely complex and there have probably been precious few studies on it. It's also deep, it involves a lot of complex information to solve, or information that we are missing.

The 'yes' answer comes from two points. If we use a general definition of science as 'knowledge' then we can reach outside of the field of the scientific community and find answers to this question in other fields that can't be scientifically tested. And the second point is, for all it matters we might as well say we have free will, even if it can't be proven, because our choices are so incredibly complex within the scope of the universe and all time that it renders whether or not our will is truly free as a moot point. We feel like it's free, it's severely complex, therefore it might as well be free.

If you want to speak strictly, say the universe is finite, and that time is finite, then we have finite choices, and therefore in that sense, our will is not 'free'. This is playing with the definition of 'free' in this case.

How free? So free it can do anything? Then obviously not, for example I am not God. I can't create a universe from sneezing. Etc. There are many choices I cannot make. So my will is not entirely free.

But the real question of free will means, are we free 'agents' or do we have a soul, basically, not whether or not our wills are entirely free.
>>
>>8682654
>no bearing on reality whatsoever
it has a bearing how how we view things such as morality and personal responsibility
>that would raise a multitude of paradoxes
such as?
>>
>>8682588
speculation at best
>>
>>8682674
>such as?
Not him, but if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it? If we're able to change it, then that means that we can't predict the future. And if we're not able to change it, then it means it was determined for us to predict the future and do nothing.
>>
>>8682654
>if you know where every particle is
That's impossible though so your statement is dumb. Something cannot contain all the information of the universe while being inside the universe because the presence of that information alters the universe and creates even more information.
>>
>>8682677
given you have two identical universes, where literally every atom was in the exact same state, the same choice would be made in every case-- there's no reason scientifically to believe that this wouldn't be true.
Mental events are the products of physical events. The brain is a system entirely beholden to the physical laws of the universe
>>
>>8682660
basically this.
>>
Does determinism basically mean that the universe is one big domino effect, that everything that has happen and will happen was "meant to be" are we basically just in for the ride with this illusion that we are making choices?

Even though the science doesn't support the big crunch could the universe been expanding and contracting for eternity causing the same events over and over?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8vNYZddU6A


I mean how many times have I really posted this?
>>
>>8682695
>illusion that we are making choices?
It's not an illusion, it's a misinterpretation.
>>
Asking about free will (or free agency) is the equivalent to asking whether or not there is a soul, or God. (Not that that's a bad thing.) And related, 'what is consciousness'.

Here is how: Do we have free will? If so, the part of us that chooses can't be bound by internal limitations, it has to have truly free agency. Nothing physical that we know of has free agency (atoms etc.) that we are aware of.

Therefore what is this chooser, what is the 'I' that chooses, what part of our body has agency if it's a physical thing? If not, is it something like a soul? etc.

The reason I have to say 'internal' limitations is because our will is obviously limited 'externally'. We have limited choices. I can't for example choose to wish Jupiter out of existence.
>>
>>8682683
>That's impossible though so your statement is dumb.
an argument determinismfags often bring is if we wound back the clock there's no reason to believe you wouldn't do the same thing again, and that's also impossible that's why it's a thought experiment. oh look it just so happens a fellow fag of your was making this same argument while i was typing
>>8682688
wow determinismfags are really predictable. maybe you're really deterministic after all

>there's no reason scientifically to believe that this wouldn't be true.
and that's still speculation
>>
>>8682678
>Not him, but if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it?
no, your question is a little paradoxical-- if we can predict the future, the only way for that to be possible is if the universe is deterministic and if we have sufficient knowledge/technology to look ahead-- it does not mean that we have the ability to change it. Perhaps it was us seeing the future that was the trigger event for us getting to that state(the state that we saw in the future), and if that's the case, then it was pre-determined for us to see the future and decide to do whatever it is that we did.
>>
The terrifying conclusion:
On paper, it's all predictable
Choice is just an illusion
It's all been written in stone
From the start

Wherever you are
On the path you walk along
You can't rewind
So how'll you ever prove me wrong?

The story told
As my day starts to unfold
Is filled with surprise

But with hindsight, so clear
Every fault
Every tear
>>
>>8682713
>Perhaps it was us seeing the future that was the trigger event for us getting to that state(the state that we saw in the future), and if that's the case, then it was pre-determined for us to see the future and decide to do whatever it is that we did.
terrible cop out. in fact didn't even come near to answer away the paradox
>>
>>8682703
Panpsychism already resolved this problem. The agent field is universal present, and is measured in limited space by human senses.
>>
>>8682703
the thing is, is wouldn't really matter if there was such thing as a soul, God, ectoplasm, or any other spooky concept you want to attribute to free will, because you STILL aren't responsible for your own actions, your soul is-- and you had no choice in the matter of what kind of soul you received and you can't decide to change how your soul behaves, and you can't take credit for the fact that you did not inherit the soul of a psychopath or serial killer. Instead of mysterious events that arise at the sub-atomic level and beyond, you're controlled by equally mysterious events that occur within your soul, which you have no agency over

>>8682710
the only 'evidence' free will fags have for free will is the thought of "Oh, but I could have made a different choice" AFTER they decided to do whatever it is that they did. And that thought itself arrived out of background causes over which you had no conscious deliberation.
>>
>ctrl+f quantum superposition 0 results
if you have particles in quantum superposition, and you collapse them to a certain state by measuring them, you get a different, random result every time. doesn't this make determinism impossible?
>>
>>8682736
It also potentially makes seeing the future possible(in the sense that it eliminates the paradoxes).
>>
>>8682740
what?
>>
>>8682736
I think all it does is add randomness, and randomness doesn't solve the core issue of free will. By definition, a chance event is something over which you can take no control over-- If I told you your choice to marry your wife was due to a roll of a dice, a certain chance probability, would you still feel as though it was your personal choice to marry her instead of not marrying her, or marrying some other girl instead?
>>
>>8682695
Can I get an answer to this?
>>
>>8682678
I'll try another go at your question:
> if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it?
in a deterministic universe, no. What would lead you to this conclusion? If free will doesn't exist(and it definitely does not exist, because in your example we have the ability to see the future, which depends on the universe being deterministic), in what way could we change the final outcome?
>If we're able to change it, then that means that we can't predict the future
but we could not change it. It was determined for us to be at that state, at that particular point.
>f we're not able to change it, then it means it was determined for us to predict the future and do nothing.
or it means everything we do is determined and cannot be changed out of free will
>>
>>8682018
>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?

Hard to say, I keep changing my mind.
>>
>>8682654
>it's pretty nice theory but it has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Wait, you mean determinism as a concept? Determinism is not a theory, it is a property that follows from our best current theories of physics. It is most definitely not a free-floating theory.

>in a deterministic universe you should be able to predict everything til the end of times if you know where every particle is.
To be pedantic about it (not to one-up you on technicalities, but to avoid miscommunication later), it specifically means that *something outside the universe with a global vantage point* -- say, someone running the computer simulating the universe, or somesuch -- should be able to predict everything until the end of time. This is not a position someone that is part of the universe can achieve; that would indeed lead to problems.

>that would raise a multitude of paradoxes.
I'm gonna repeat >>8682674's point here -- such as? Name one, please? Remember that per the above, we are NOT talking about someone who is part of the universe predicting perfectly what is going to happen inside it. That would indeed be contradictory for various reasons. But that's not what determinism is.
>>
>>8682750
If the universe works on probability, then your magical device that shows the future actually changes the future by measuring it. From all possibly futures, one is selected wherein which the result being shown to you won't create a contradiction.
>>
>>8682695
>>8682756
>we basically just in for the ride with this illusion that we are making choices?
No. We ARE making genuine choices. The future is determined through the laws of physics *of which you are a part*. If you had chosen something different, then different things would have happened in the world. The future is determined by all physics, including the part of physics that makes up your brain; physics decides what will happen next week, by (among others) consulting the piece of physics that implements your brain. Physics decided everything AND you decided parts of it, which is not contradictory because you are part of physics.
>>
>>8682731
just as much evidence as you have for determinism
>>
>>8682731
Whether or not you had a choice in existing is not talking about free will as free agency, but freedom of choices which was already addressed.

The 'soul' or whatever it was that was the 'chooser' if there is such a thing as free will, could still be bound by choices and have free agency. In other words, it could still freely choose with limited choices.

It could choose between a, b, or c, freely.

What the question 'is there free will' is really asking is not 'do we have unlimited freedom and choices' because we all know the answer to that is no. The question really means, 'is there a selector, a free agent that chooses, or is the choice made already predetermined by something like the laws of physics.'

Therefore, a 'soul' would be a way of naming this very thing, that's why I said asking whether or not there is a free will is the same as asking if there is a soul, or God, etc.

I wasn't arguing that there IS, or isn't, I was just pointing out it was the same as asking that. This free agent could be named 'the soul' or etc. That's a way of saying it isn't bound by predetermination in it's choices.

Whether or not it could choose all things, doesn't make it any less free of agency, only limited in it's choices.
>>
>>8682776
So the future and the things I have and will experience are basically set in stone?
>>
>>8682761
>in a deterministic universe, no. What would lead you to this conclusion? If free will doesn't exist(and it definitely does not exist, because in your example we have the ability to see the future, which depends on the universe being deterministic), in what way could we change the final outcome?
except that's not reality. you just disproved determinism thanks
>>
>>8682789
Yes, but they do depend on your choices and actions.
>>
>>8682789
Even though I make choices, my choices are influenced by my brain,environment and experiences. All which I'm not really in control of..
>>
>>8682097

You have an extremely outdated definition of free will.
>>
>>8682785
The problem with the idea of free choice is that it moves back the goal posts without it actually being necessary. The human anomaly isn't about what is conscious choice, it's about what is conscious action.
>>
>>8682765
>it specifically means that *something outside the universe with a global vantage point* -- say, someone running the computer simulating the universe, or somesuch -- should be able to predict everything until the end of time. This is not a position someone that is part of the universe can achieve; that would indeed lead to problems.
ok i'll grant you that. but to predict the behavior of an individual you wouldn't need to know the position of every single particle in the entire universe, just locally would be enough. so the paradox is still standing
>>
>>8682801
>but to predict the behavior of an individual you wouldn't need to know the position of every single particle in the entire universe, just locally would be enough.
Indeed.

>so the paradox is still standing
What paradox? Sorry, I may have lost track of the thread of argument here.
>>
Quantum Mechanics suggest the universe is probabalistic rather than completely deterministic. So there is some randomness. So maybe we don't have fate. So maybe we have free will.
>>
>>8682800
But I wasn't making an argument that free choice actually existed or didn't exist. I was only pointing out that it was like asking 'is there a soul'.

I believe you're correct, conscious action is a good definition for it.
>>
>>8682798
you are your brain dummy
>>
>>8682678
>>8682808
>>
>>8682811
The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does-- if a soul is still bounded by parameters, choices a b and c, and we are bounded by a soul of which we know nothing about and can never prove exists or understand objectively, what is the point of a question like that? That just crosses into being theology
>>
>>8682824
>>8682678
>Not him, but if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it?
No. Why? You could just have read-only access to the simulation. (Yes I know the simulation thing is a bit silly; it's not a serious theory, so much as an illustration of what determinism means.)

>And if we're not able to change it, then it means it was determined for us to predict the future and do nothing.
No. The being able to predict the future is not part of the universe, remember? Determinism applies to the universe, not the hypothetical thing with the global vantage point.
>>
>>8682818
Yes. But it seems like the choices I make, I was gonna end up making anyhow. I meant like genetics,personality and all the jazz that contributes to calculations you make.

So is reality already determined like a set of dominoes falling one after another right after the big bang? Does "meant to be" basically the truth of reality from planets, galaxies and life that exists within it.
>>
Here's an argument

How can one speak of counterfeit money if money never existed to begin with
>>
What arguments are there for what purpose the consciousness could serve if it's actually an illusion? How does believing this illusion provide any benefit to humans; why hasn't this trait been selected against?
>>
>>8682828
That explains it very well actually
>>
>>8682835
>Why? You could just have read-only access to the simulation.
the simulation predicts you're gonna drink the whole content of a glass of water in front of you in 10 seconds. so you're telling me you'd be compelled to do so in your opinion.
>>
>>8682828
Mister >>8682835 >>8682808 >>8682797 >>8682776 >>8682765 here. This seems exactly right.
>>
>>8682849
>the simulation predicts you're gonna drink the whole content of a glass of water in front of you in 10 seconds.
Okay.

>so you're telling me you'd be compelled to do so in your opinion.
No. I'm telling you the simulation has correctly predicted that I will choose to drink the glass of water, because I am in fact thirsty.
>>
>>8682836
>But it seems like the choices I make, I was gonna end up making anyhow.
it might seem that way to you but how much of it is confirmation bias? i could just say it's an illusion you're experience due to your strong faith in determinism .
>>
>>8682831
You didn't read either of my replies. I already told you I wasn't arguing for the existence of a soul in any of my posts. You're just using me to argue something with yourself. If you want that argument find someone else who does.

I don't mean that in a rude way, it's just annoying that you keep replying to me without reading what I'm saying as if we're having an argument.
>>
>>8682863
funny cop out but still the paradox is there
>>
>>8682877
What paradox? I don't see anything paradoxical about the situation.

I chose something. Someone who looked into my brain successfully predicted that I would choose it. What's the paradox?
>>
>>8682725

Okay, it must not have been clear in my original post but I did make it clear about one post later. I was not, nor have I ever, been arguing the soul exists, free will exists, or anything of the sort.

The ONLY point I was making was that asking if there is free will was equivalent to asking whether or not there was a soul etc.

Maybe by using the rhetorical device of 'if there is a chooser, then what would that be?' etc. made you guys think I was arguing there IS a chooser, but I wasn't. My post was not aimed in that direction. I'm not making an argument for free choice, a soul, etc. nor do I have any desire to have one.
>>
>>8682879
ok let's be more precise since you wanna play dumb.
let's suppose you're not a fervent believer in determinism and that you actually want to prove it wrong. you see the prediction. you've basically told me you'd be compelled to do what it says.
>>
>>8682868
Sorry, I did misread. I agree that it is like asking if there is some kind of "selector" , something separate from us that does have true agency, even if it only has a couple of options. But it would have to operate on a whole different plane of existence it seems like
>>
>>8682886
>something outside the universe predicts things in the universe
>something inside the universe can see the outside predictions

THINK before typing will you?
>>
>>8682890
>>8682808
>but to predict the behavior of an individual you wouldn't need to know the position of every single particle in the entire universe, just locally would be enough.
>Indeed.
make up your mind before typing ok sweetie?
>>
>>8682889
Yah, it's okay man. Sorry for getting worked up. What you just said was the point I meant to convey in my post.
>>
>>8682895
I'm not whatever retard you're having your play-pretend retard-tier pseudo-crackpottery arguments with, jackass

what you're saying is fucking nonsense
>>
>>8682898
intelligent post
that was sarcasm btw your post was worthless dogshit. should have put some trigger warning for you. i guess it's the first time someone questioned your faith openly
>>
>>8682018
The more time you spend self-reflecting the more free will you have.

There are stats where humans aren't acting in free will and there are states where humans are.
>>
>>8682899
yeah sorry you're such an accomplished physicist and philosopher

just kidding (witty sarcasm LMAO i kno rite?) I know you're a retarded highschooler playing "i talk smart hurr" in the internet

fuck off
>>
>>8682886
>you see the prediction.
Wait, what?

The prediction can be made by something OUTSIDE the universe. I am INSIDE the universe. I cannot see the prediction. If something outside the universe were to correctly predict me choosing to drink a glass of water, I could not be aware of them predicting that, as they are outside the universe.
>>
>>8682904
i'm neither of the things you said. you're a retarded tho baby.
>>
>>8682907
>>8682808
>but to predict the behavior of an individual you wouldn't need to know the position of every single particle in the entire universe, just locally would be enough.
>Indeed.
>>
>>8682912
>You can see someone who can make arbitrary predictions about anything because he's far
lmao kill yourself
>>
>>8682912
What does that have to do with anything? If something outside my local universe makes a prediction about me making a choice inside my local universe, I still cannot be aware of it. That's how locality works. Light cones, and all that.
>>
Um what about the old argument that if we don't have free will, it invalidates all the arguments about not having free will? And all the other 'reductio ad absurdum's?
>>
>>8682636
>2017
>Still thinking in 1D

Everyday, to a large degree you believe you will not die that day.

>Think about it before you respond.
>>
>>8682933
Those arguments are still just as silly non sequiturs as they were ages ago.
>>
>>8682953
You're just saying that because you were predetermined to.
>>
>>8682919
what? are you mentally impaired?
>>
>>8682924
you're misunderstanding or misconstruing my post
>>
>>8682990
Then explain the misunderstanding, please.
>>
I came to the conclusion that determinism is to pseudo scientists like God is to religious people.

Just as the answer to anything for a Christian is "God did it", for the psuedo intellectual it is "it was determined." If you do something that's determined, if you don't do something that's determined, no matter what happens it's always determined. Completely unfalsifiable.

And just as you can never prove the nonexistence or implausibility of God to a religious person because God is outside or beyond nature and the universe, the same is true for pseudo intellectuals as they require you to be outside our universe to possibly prove it wrong.
>>
>>8682751
Why wouldn't it? Physical determinism stems from the belief that every particle and its effects could hypothetically be measured in such a way that every single interaction of physical objects, from the smallest to the largest scale, could be predicted exactly. Randomness in how a particle collapses means that even if we had the capability to measure every particle and its effect on every other particle, we still wouldn't be able to exactly predict any future event because the way the particle will collapse can't be measured before it happens.
>>
>>8683621
To go further with this line of reasoning and its relation to free will, even if human beings will still always act in a reasonably predictable way, there is some semblance of real "choice" that exists in the universe. Maybe the universe itself has free will, and we attribute that ability to ourselves because we exist in it.
>>
>>8682751
>>8683621
>>8682018
It isn't true randomness, it's merely the product of a process so complex that it cannot be analyzed without altering it.

Free will still exists for any being with limited perspective though.

Since, materialistically, it is impossible for a single being to analyze, know, and predict the outcome of every interaction forward and backwards throughout time, free will is thus guaranteed for every single being of perspective within the universe, regardless of whether those outcomes are ultimately predetermined by an inexorable chain of events or not.

Only the omniscient lack free will, and omniscience is a fictional concept - or at least one not physically viable within the scope of the empirical universe.

So, until Laplace demons move from philosophical concept to reality, you can blame determinism all you want, but you're still stuck with free will. Even if, under the same conditions and with the same memories, you would perform the same act, each and every time, you are not privy to all the particulars in any moment, and are forever barred from fully knowing them by your very nature, and thus, you are still burdened by free will, even if you're fully cognizant as to the fact that you're, in the end, one of the tomatoes.
>>
File: we're_all_tomatos.jpg (13 KB, 360x360)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>8683680
>>
>>8682018
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm probably gonna be rehashing some shit.

Freedom is a construct of the imagination. Whether it's genetic constraints or environmental constraints, the idea that one has autonomy (freedom) of Will is illogical — there can only be varying degrees of DIFFICULTY of Will. Concerning ones environment, an individual's "freedom" has the potential to conflict with another’s. Regarding physiological constraints, your ability to choose is limited by your mental capacity and your relatively limited life experience.

The fact is, every event that takes place — whether it’s a thought or any other event in nature — is the result of a maelstrom of causal relations that we have no control over. And on top of that, time is transient and we live in the rear view. I don’t believe that choice is incompatible with determinism, but the assertion that we’re FREE to make those choices is inaccurate.

Just ask yourself whether you could have lived any other life than the one you've lived up to this point.. now this point... now this point etc. The answer, objectively, will always be "no".
>>
File: this is you.jpg (666 KB, 1280x1024)
666 KB
666 KB JPG
>>8682223
>>8682086
>>8682039
>>8682047
>IT TOTALLY 100% DOESN'T EXIST!
>provides zero proof or sources to back claim

This is why /sci/ fucking sucks. Just delete this shit board already.
>>
>>8683763
You can't prove determinism with 100% certainty, but that doesn't make the concept of freedom any more valid. We know that causality is a fact and that we don't have autonomy of Will; therefore, given that freedom is an absolute, varying degrees of it doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of nonsensical, supernatural things that will never be proven false, and so sometimes we have to settle on "beyond a reasonable doubt".

What's your angle on this?
>>
>134 replies
What the fuck is wrong with you dimwits? The intuitive free will that one feels as they're acting and making decisions is an incoherent concept and cannot exist by definition.

Given any possible mode of temporal dexistence, you're going to talk about some level of determinism and indeterminism. The issue is that "you" are not the author of events that happened without your input or even awareness, and tandomness speaks for itself. Random DOESN'T mean human-caused.

I think this is still a question in public discourse seem oblivious to this day of even the most basic facts of how our own brains work. Consciousness is not magic, it's an amalgamation of memory and pre-processed information coming from the subconscious parts of the brain. When "you" think you make a decision or feel something, that's something that your subconscious already did for you moments/seconds ago, you're just becoming aware of it. Consciousness is simply playing catch-up with the unconscious parts of the brain, there's no decision making involved.
>>
>>8683789
>What the fuck is wrong with you dimwits?

Congratulations, you just rephrased points that have already been made.
>>
Actually from your perspective you do have free will, even if the universe is deterministic.
>>
>>8682559
>>8682622
>>8682568

You can't be serious. The reason for a criminal committing a crime is a variety of factors stemming from his environment and ancestry, therefore he is absolved of his crimes? What horseshit. Punishment is there so when one guy with bad genes, bad upbringing etc. looks at another guy with the same who got hanged for murder, he stays his hand. This whimsical pseudo-philosophical argument that "well technically, the universe is deterministic", does not lend itself at all to a functioning and healthy society. This line of thinking would instantly cripple any justice or peace keeping system as those with more common sense than you lot would immediately take advantage of the fact that they aren't responsible for anything and would just do what they want, damn the consequences because they were "always meant to be". Such logic flies in the face of rationality or science.

>They aren't, they can't be, and they ought not to be [...] But most people on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad environments, bad upbringings etc. Which of these quantities were they personally responsible for?

They were responsible for committing the crime. Unless you perhaps compare them to baser animals with no greater cognitive capacity than pure instinct - a human being can always rationalise and accept his actions. Your grizzly bear fallacy fails as you cannot directly compare the mental faculties of a bear and a human. If a criminal knows not to commit murder from fear of justice, then the murder will not be committed, and the goal of the punishment has been achieved. How do you expect to keep a society where people can do what they want, and because they're not responsible for it, nothing happens to them? It's childish thinking, only good for maybe a thought exercise.

>They aren't. [...] phased out in civilized countries.

Except it's not, as anyone with any practical knowledge of dealing with and keeping society functioning can tell you.
>>
>>8683977
Good points

Due to the fact that we have a difficult time resisting our selfish instincts, we need mitigating factors (laws). And only the most selfish and literally autistic anarchists/libertarians don't seem to recognize this.

If we eliminated laws, whether our actions are determined or not, it would quickly become apparent that there are consequences for our actions and we'd soon end up with most of the same laws, based on the same general principles.
>>
>>8683751
>The answer, objectively, will always be "no"
objectively you're just making stuff up
>>
>>8683774
>There are plenty of nonsensical, supernatural things that will never be proven false
just like everything including humans and everything humans do is deterministic just like this guy pointed out
>>8683018
>>
>>8684033
So, could you have lived any other life, anon?
>>
>>8683789
>When "you" think you make a decision or feel something, that's something that your subconscious already did for you moments/seconds ago, you're just becoming aware of it
well you people have been trying to prove this forever and still failed to do so. i'm sure once you fail to prove this again you'll say it was determined to happen and make up a silly excuse like you have to be outside the universe to prove it so determinism will live to see another day
>>
>>8684051
impossible to say, unlike you i don't talk out of my ass with certainty. if i made different choices my life would would probably be different
>>
>>8684057
No one can prove it because we can't predict the future. And even if we could predict the future, you would have to factor that into our present determinism; therefore, the future would be determined by the fact that we can predict it.

Determinism will always be based on logic rather than empirical evidence. And if you think the lack of evidence bolsters the concept of freedom, then that perspective is really no different than the logical liberties that people apply when they use the concept of God to explain something.

Are you religious? Because I don't understand why non-Christfags have such an aversion to this.

>>8684062
Could you have made any other post than the one I'm reading? If so, why didn't you?

You could make the tentative assertion that you could have lived another life, but the fact is, you didn't. Time is linear and transient.
>>
>>8682018
Chaos theory.
Multiverse theory.
>>
>>8684087
>the theory of "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about"
Kidding

I'm a firm believer in determinism, but I think about that stuff too (multiverse, quantum indeterminacy etc.). The problem is that I don't understand the implications enough to factor that into my reasoning... and neither does anyone else.

Regardless of these theories, absolute freedom is impossible for a physical entity; therefore, the concept of freedom is merely a myopic product of our imaginations. I think it's basic common sense.
>>
>>8684085
>No one can prove it because we can't predict the future. And even if we could predict the future, you would have to factor that into our present determinism; therefore, the future would be determined by the fact that we can predict it.

so basically what he said >>8683018 i somehow expected that. determinismfags are really predictable this is probably your best case for determinism.

>Determinism will always be based on logic rather than empirical evidence.
faulty logic just like religion

>Are you religious? Because I don't understand why non-Christfags have such an aversion to this.
you're making certain claim with absolutely no evidence just because you chose to have faith in your particular idea and then you're upset when someone doesn't embrace your assertions. this is indeed religious like behavior

>Could you have made any other post than the one I'm reading?
impossible to say, maybe
>If so, why didn't you?
because i chose not


>You could make the tentative assertion that you could have lived another life, but the fact is, you didn't. Time is linear and transient.
wow you proved you can't travel back in time. too bad free will isn't about time traveling
>>
>>8684135
>faulty logic just like religion
Speaking of logic... if you're going to claim that my logic is faulty, then you should present an argument that at least attempts to refute it.

>you chose to have faith in your particular idea and then you're upset when someone doesn't embrace your assertions.
I'm completely open to be proven wrong, but instead of well-constructed arguments, I've come to expect variations of "nuh uh" -- much like the post I'm responding to.

>impossible to say, maybe
But it's not. I have proof.
See: >>8684062
>because I chose not to
I never said we didn't make choices.

>wow you proved you can't travel back in time.
If you weren't so busy being a smartass, you'd understand that this is part of the crux of the argument against free will.
>>
>>8684156
>>impossible to say, maybe
>>But it's not. I have proof.
>proceeds to show no proof

>If you weren't so busy being a smartass, you'd understand that this is part of the crux of the argument against free will.
it really isn't
>>
>>8684168
Alright, you're either really stupid or trolling.

Moving on...
>>
>>8684134
The implications of it can break you if you are not ready. I have seen some shit.
>>
>>8684169
>if you can't travel in time you have no free will
could say the same for you
>>
>>8684174
>if you can't travel in time...
No, you don't understand the argument. The fact that time is linear and transient is just one piece of the puzzle.

>could say the same for you
I don't even know what you mean by this.

>>8684170
Care to elaborate? And don't bother if you're just gonna tell me about some experience you had on acid or whatever.
>>
>>8684181
Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R

The detected frequency of two colliding black holes.

Destructive interference created by these behemoths has been measured. The wave can be exploited.
>>
>>8684181
>No, you don't understand the argument. The fact that time is linear and transient is just one piece of the puzzle.
the argument is dogshit and has no bearing on free will
>>
>>8684183
*tinfoil intensifies*

>>8684184
Every neurological event that takes place is a culmination of events that we have no control over. These neurological events are then manifested in external activities which, once acted upon, are instantaneously in the rear view. If we were able to essentially become omniscient and control time, then perhaps we would have something resembling Free Will.

This is more or less a thought experiment that you can use to illuminate determinism.

Based on my limited faculties and my life experience, this explanation is the best I could come up with.
>>
>>8684057
What the fuck even is this post? Did you even read the first part of it? I'll spell this out for you - determinism or not DOESN'T MATTER. Any temporal existence precludes free will.

What you quoted is the example of OUR universe where everything WE do is governed by our subconscious, something that free will spouting dimwits are completely oblivious to. And it doesn't even matter if it's fully deterministic or only somewhat.
>>
File: 1480709394641.jpg (23 KB, 320x236)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>8682018

Hey OP,

let's put the memes aside

I study biochemistry and I was leaning towards materialism as a philosophical view, the more I engage with my course, the more it makes sense to me that all we can see, all we're aware of, boils down to molecules, or even further positive/negative charge interactions of atoms.

I like to define free will as an ability to make a choice without any bias or influence, external, internal, physiological, psychological, whatever, you name it.
It already sounds like an impossible thing, and that's because it is.
Your genes and environment have set a path for you to follow. Even further, one could argue, that the particles that you're made out of are also following a predetermined path, electron transfers, neural connections, carbon cycles, metabolic cycles, etc.

Randomness is a subjective term, it seems that someone unaware of a pattern of which a thing can occur, will call it random.
In my opinion nothing is exactly random, as external forces are always affecting everything, even on a pico-scale so as cheesy as it is
>"there's a reason behind everything"


Also, lack of free will doesn't imply a murderer shouldn't be restricted of freedom, as he himself is a danger to freedom of others

is it his fault?
>no
should he be locked up
>absolutely
>>
>>8684395
>Any temporal existence precludes free will.
it doesn't.
>>
I chose to write this post
now I will choose not to write a reply if someone leaves a reply to this one

ergo free will exists
>>
>>8684595
no no if was determined.
check mate atheists
>>
>>8684593
Go ahead and explain the mechanics of free will, then, when it's a combination of
>predetermined factors I'm not the author of cause me to act this way
and
>stochastic factors I'm not the author of cause me to act this way
, i.e. existence somewhere on the scale of pure determinism to pure indeterminism.
>>
at the fundamental level our brains are also subjects to quantum mechanics so our thoughts aren't deterministic
easy
>>
>>8684600
it was a trap
I decided to change my previous will and do reply to your reply

the ultimate proof that I have free will

check and mate also God exists and everything has a reason
>>
>tfw determinist cucks still have to live their lives as if they have free will whether they want it or not
>>
File: DumpEverything.jpg (853 KB, 2304x1296)
853 KB
853 KB JPG
>>8682018
I could break my arm; doesn't mean you won't feel pain.
>>
>>8684603
it's not a combination of your false dichotomy
wow that was easy
>>
>>8684629
>live their lives as if they have free will
What did he mean by this?

Determinist "cucks" live their lives with the recognition that they are not the root cause of anything, and that's about it. There is no sense in the statement "living as if <insert incoherent concept here> is true".
>>
>>8684639
>be determinist cuck
>sit at a restaurant
>what can i bring you, sir?
>lady, I hope you're aware I'm 100% determined
>okay... so veal or steak?
>determinism rules
>>
>>8684200
What do you mean by tinfoil intensifies?
>>
>>8684637
Is too. You should look up what a false dichotomy is. Determinism and randomness opposite meanings, so in the broad sense they form true dichotomies.

To be specific, "Combination of determinism and randomness vs. pure determinism/randomness" are true dichotomies. Pick whichever one you like.

What else is there, exactly, except determinism and randomness as we're talking about temporal existence? Do tell.
>>
>>8684646
I don't see why "I want a burger" is something a determinist wouldn't say, in your eyes.
>>
>>8684646
This was funny, but I'm wondering if you genuinely have such a lack of understanding of the subject.

Choice is not incompatible with determinism.
>>
>>8684656
>What else is there, exactly, except determinism and randomness as we're talking about temporal existence? Do tell.
free will which is neither of the two
>>
>>8684663
well it is. unless by choice you mean the illusion of choice.
>>
>>8684665
You don't get to just spout word soup. Refer back to >>8684603 and actually explain the mechanics of the free will you're talking about.
>>
>>8684673
If you're looking at things in terms of cosmic oneness, then I see what you're saying... but for practical purposes, our corporeal material is responsible for those choices. It's only when you add the concept of freedom does it become completely illogical
>>
In 1981 scientists constructed a simple experiment based on previous data which allowed them to make consistent predictions about future events; one of their most popular predictions was that if you don't reply to this post your mother will die in her sleep tonight.
>>
>>8684677
some of the things you do are determined, cause and effect no freedom there, some of the things you do are influenced by all sorts of external, internal, antecedent factors but ultimately are not completely bound, here lies the freedom or free will to make real choices and not the fake empty illusion of choice determinists spout
>>
>>8684756
You're either free or you're not. And tell me, what kind of choices are not predicated on a clusterfuck of other factors that you have no control over?
>>
>>8684768
>You're either free or you're not
proofs?
>>
>>8684756
>some of the things you do are influenced by all sorts of external, internal, antecedent factors but ultimately are not completely bound
Do give an example.

>the fake empty illusion of choice determinists spout
Whether or not I'm a determinist is completely besides the point. The opposite of determinism is RANDOMNESS - not will. Will implies determinism by definition.
>>
>>8684774
>proofs
Look up what a dichotomy is. There is nothing outside this statement, except perhaps a discussion of whether there even is a "you".
>>
>>8684774
>proof
Constraints - take your pick. Varying degrees of freedom is a contradiction. See: >>8683751
>>
>>8682434
>paradoxes
No it doesn't
>unsatisfying
Grow up
>>
>>8682018
there are no such thing
>>
>>8682018
>>>/x/
>>
>>8682200

Underrated and checked
>>
>>8682018

Nothing gives credence to free will existing in the realm of science. If you wax philosophical most faith breaks down under the pressure of simple logic.

All things in nature are deterministic. Our limited scope prevents us from making the connections and we will likely never find them. One would hope we never do as how boring would that affirmation be. To know the universe and at once to see it played out and know it's end.
>>
I think time is an integral factor in this discussion.
>>
Is there anything that I could possibly do to demonstrate my free will?

A determinist would say no, because all of my actions are predetermined. Would it be fair to say that determinism is unfalsifiable?
>>
>>8686108
Free will doesn't have anything to do with determinism.
>>
>>8686109
if we accept the determinist conclusions do i have free will?
>>
>>8682086
what about quantum tunneling effect? this is still considered a pure random process and is used in cryptography
>>
>>8682200
That really got my cranial gears churning.
I suspect since we didn't have a choice about being born unto this ball of dirt free will is indeed an illusion but perhaps a useful illusion so long as it doesn't turn into complete delusion.
>>
>a science board
>entertaining an idea that is unfalsifiable




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.