🧵 hey monkey boy
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:53:42 UTC No. 16441432
you don't seriously think you have free will, do you?
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:57:11 UTC No. 16441436
>>16441432
Well, doesn't matter if I have free will, but I sure experience it...
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:01:41 UTC No. 16441446
>>16441436
Are you guilty of your mistakes?
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:07:15 UTC No. 16441454
Free will can't exist. It's logically impossible
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:16:51 UTC No. 16441464
>>16441432
People who go on about free will not existing will either not accept anything as free will, nothing would count no matter how the world turned out, or alternatively they define it involving some true randomness. So the claim boils down to
1) You don't have this thing which isn't.... anything.
2) There's no true RNG in your choices.
I don't understand why anyone should care about either. This whole free will discussion is discussion about absolutely nothing.
It has nothing to do with choice and agency in the sense we use these concepts in every day life. They are not dependent on randomness or mystical incoherent concepts. Just fucking shut the fuck up already.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:27:04 UTC No. 16441475
>>16441464
>RNG
I rise 'n' grind every day
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:29:47 UTC No. 16441476
>>16441464
>I don't understand why anyone should care about either
Because of the concept of responsibility. We hate the psychopathic killer but if another guy does the same thing, even accompanied by the same thoughts, with a brain tumor, we blame the tumor. But wasn't the first guy just as determined by things out of his control?
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:00:22 UTC No. 16441516
>>16441476
It's not about whether they are "determined" or not because randomness wouldn't make them responsible either. It makes more sense to hate the guy born as a psychopath because it's a more permanent part of him where as the brain tumor could be removed with surgery. But in the case it couldn't, well then the brain tumor would be an inseparable part of him at that point so he would be just as much of a murderous psychopath as the one born as one. There might be an intuition that there's still difference, but that's due to a confusion with the person the guy used to be before the brain tumor. Whereas with the natural-born psychopath, there never was any nice guy he used to be to begin with.
It really has to do more with the delineation of the self, where what counts as a real part of you ends and outside forces that control you begin, rather than whether it's determined or not. It's a fuzzy border but basically all of our concepts used to describe the real world (as opposed to platonic abstractions like math) have fuzzy borders.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:41:22 UTC No. 16441572
>>16441516
>It makes more sense to hate the guy born as a psychopath because it's a more permanent part of him where as the brain tumor could be removed with surgery.
Hmm plausible
>delineation of the self, where what counts as a real part of you ends and outside forces that control you begin
forget a fuzzy border, is this a real distinction at all? your parents are outside and separate from you and their action in conceiving you and forming your genome controls you more than anything else. Is their any guilt or responsibility involved in bad genes?
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:44:18 UTC No. 16441580
>>16441572
>Is their any guilt
brain fucking rotting. *there
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:31:43 UTC No. 16441809
>>16441572
>your parents are outside and separate from you and their action in conceiving you and forming your genome controls you more than anything else
That and your life experiences. But it's a bit backwards to say all of those "control you". You *are* the combined effect of all of those things. They are not some completely separate entity "controlling" you. People who frame determinism in fatalistic language to me sound like they're still stuck in dualism. Dualism where there's this irreducible soul being pushed around helplessly by laws of physics. But when you fully internalize reductionism, there's no contradiction in laws of physics (or your genes + environment etc.) fully determining your actions and you choosing to take an action. And you can either throw or not throw any fundamental QM randomness there and it doesn't change anything.
Your parents are agents, have minds and are capable of contemplating actions and their consequences, so to some extent they may be held responsible for your actions, but obviously your parents are only a small part of what you end up becoming. The rest of what makes you you involves a lot of factors that cant be traced back to any kind of thinking mind at all, so obviously those can't be blamed. If your parents installed some chip in your brain that would completely override all of the other factors that influence your behavior no matter what and make you commit some horrible crime, you would be totally free of guilt but barring something like that the person most responsible for your actions is generally speaking you. And like your parents, you are a mind capable of conceiving alternative actions and their consequences, respond to incentives such as reward, punishment, shaming, praise etc.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:08:30 UTC No. 16441836
>>16441454
proof?
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:47:12 UTC No. 16442257
>>16441836
>free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
A choice that's made independent of prior causes is the same as just throwing a dice. Basically the choice just randomly pops into your head without reason or cause if we want it to be completely free. Did you make that choice? No, it has no cause. Therefore you didn't choose anything. Your will is nowhere to be found.
There are multiple definitions of free will but it always comes down to that. We ALWAYS make choices based on prior causes.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 08:41:09 UTC No. 16442294
>>16441432
(((Sapolsky)))
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:02:59 UTC No. 16442354
The question of free will dissolves when one realizes there's nobody there to have free will
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:39:18 UTC No. 16442373
>>16441432
I’m not sure
>psychiatrist always says I have a choice when I over dose a medication
but their whole job revolves around denying that choice
I’ve voluntarily freed myself from the grasp of drugs and I’ve come to this conclusion-
You have free will when you’re sober from self-gratifying activities
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:42:09 UTC No. 16442375
>>16441432
His argument of "it's got to be deterministic because of physics" would be much stronger if he actually understood physics. The only downside of that being, if he understood physics he would have a much harder time arguing for physical determinism, which is still very much an open question when applied to reality rather than simulation models.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:57:41 UTC No. 16442383
>>16442257
That's just a retarded homunculus fallacy where "I" am redefined to be some kind of non-interacting magical soul instead of a metastable configuration of particles inside a skull.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:03:41 UTC No. 16442384
>>16442257
>free will: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
This is a retarded definition. Why exactly do our choices need to be made independent of prior influences? You say prior "causes" but I think that's begging the question a bit.
Consider yourself being at a fork in the road. Your prior existence and physical being has caused you (in some sense) to be at the position where you are needing to make the choice between the two paths. It doesn't necessitate that being influenced to be at the circumstance to make the decision has already made the decision for you.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:16:36 UTC No. 16442390
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:46:09 UTC No. 16442526
>>16442384
>>16442383
>This is a retarded definition
How does the free part of free will work then?
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:14:11 UTC No. 16442564
>>16441432
Choice is a psychological concept.
It doesn't really exist, rather, it is just a label we put on an inherently biological, deterministic and evolved decision-making process.
In fact, all of our thoughts are just labels like this.
We make decisions a split-second before we think: "I am making this decision".
Your inner voice is just self-narration and an interesting evolutionary necessity, arising from the fact that we are social animals that benefit from believing what we believe, communicating the way we communicate and acting the way we act.
>>16441572
>>16441476
Based
>>16441809
The only true laws are the laws of nature. Man's rules are easily torn down. Our only true right is the right to fight for our own survival.
Your obsession with guilt, blame, and responsibility shows that you are poorly adapted to the rules of man. Your worldview is based on delusion.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:38:59 UTC No. 16442590
>>16442564
>Your obsession with guilt, blame, and responsibility shows that you are poorly adapted to the rules of man. Your worldview is based on delusion.
It's not being "obsessed" with them, it's just pointing out they are sensible concepts even under physical reductionism, determinism and whatnot. It's something literally everyone does no matter how much of a "free will denier" they are. You're not a socially functional human being without using these concepts on some level.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:55:11 UTC No. 16442606
>>16442590
It doesn't matter how socially functional you are.
All that matters is power.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:02:22 UTC No. 16442614
>>16442606
I mean sure if you happen to be sufficiently powerful you don't need to bother with any of this. Generally speaking though being socially dysfunctional is how you end up at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:48:47 UTC No. 16442670
>>16442614
It's sad to see you wallow in ignorance like this.
There are people out there who treat life as a game. They don't care about fitting in, about other people, about society at large, like you do.
For them, the revelation that most people fundamentally do not arrive at truth through logic and reason, but through consensus, authority and emotion, is a critically important revelation.
Even now, you would probably say that you follow logic and reason, yet you do not. All you are doing is propagating your consensus and social authority, thinly veiled in emotional appeals.
There really are worlds between us. My kind treats yours as cattle every single day. I can say this to your face, and you wouldn't even get mad in the way I would. It's like running over NPCs in a video game.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:09:45 UTC No. 16442687
>>16441464
It's a Christian concept. I don't think much about free will but libertarian free will is still retarded. I didn't come up with that concept so don't blame me. I think there is no fact of the matter whether compatibilism is true, the kind of will I have is enough for me to feel free though.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:55:08 UTC No. 16442747
>>16442526
We don't know. The same way we know almost nothing about how the fundamentals of physics "works" and can only work based on what is directly measurable to us (i.e., the after effects). Determinism still has this problem, it just kicks the can of "we don't know" one step further by making an assumption that it can't ever test (consciousness is fundamentally emergent from matter).
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:16:27 UTC No. 16443574
If a person claims free will does not exist they are speaking for themselves
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:29:16 UTC No. 16444378
>>16441446
Like the guilt matter. I must live my mistakes, and even other peoples mistakes. Guilt is for dumbfucks, there is only what reality is, experiencing consequences of things other people and you do.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:30:47 UTC No. 16444478
>>16441432
I haven't read his latest book but apparently the summary is that free will doesn't exist because external forces ultimately guide every decision you make.
Not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just gay and shit and piss everywhere.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:38:19 UTC No. 16444773
>>16444378
How to let go of guilt/regret? I know it's irrational. Yet, it hurts. I think of the past and wish I did something different. Which is 100% impossible. It's banging your head against a wall. I must learn to stop hurting myself in this way.
I seem to subconsciously think that I can change the past. That it doesn't "really" happen until I accept it. But oh boy, it happened.
(Nothing criminal, I just failed at things and embarrassed myself.)
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:53:18 UTC No. 16444792
>>16444773
Everyday is a new opportunity to make what you wish you did in the past, occur today or in the future
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 21:56:16 UTC No. 16444796
>>16444773
The reason you don't remember what you did 2,000 Tuesdays ago is because you have occupied your attention with so much since then, occupy your attention and life with so much good and interesting things, that whatever you are hungup on becomes ever minimal in the shadow of your ever increasing excellence
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:00:51 UTC No. 16444799
No. I just to see and learn some of the behavioral tactics.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:26:43 UTC No. 16445034
>>16443574
>If a person claims free will does not exist they are speaking for themselves
I saw close to 1 study of close to 1 person testing close to 1 type of choice example parameter that hinted that a decision was made in their brain close to 1 microsecond before they acted on this decision and this forces me to conclude that it is 100% absolutely impossible for any person to ever make any choice
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 02:31:22 UTC No. 16445187
>He was raised an Orthodox Jew
ok, I get it. would probably rebel hard too, go full le pool balls all the things
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 14:41:00 UTC No. 16445748
>>16445187
Rebel against what? Isn't orthodox jew about following infinite rules every second, hinting at a lack of the wills freedom?
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:06:28 UTC No. 16445781
>>16442375
This is the only right answer. Midwits that base their argument for absence of free will off physics should actually read introductory quantum physics... There are phenomenon only explained through probabilistic models (and not because the analytic solution would be too complex, but because it is fundamentally so) Regardless of if you think it's because we have a lack of deeper understanding, it's unprovable at the moment, thus you can't use that as a gotcha for determinism
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:28:06 UTC No. 16445816
>>16444773
Mushrooms/LSD
It disturb default mode network in brain, hence the ego-loss trip.
Also look up Neuropeptide S, it should work by letting conditioned fears go away.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:40:12 UTC No. 16445837
>>16445781
That's random will. Might as well let a coin flip decide for me
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:45:51 UTC No. 16445844
>>16441432
No I believe in determinism and also Buddhism.
But I could be wrong.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:53:30 UTC No. 16445855
>>16445837
Not necessarily, your brain has emergent properties that counteract this inherit randomness ( if it's functioning normally) and it can do that because these "random quantum events" usually result in emergent behaviour that are very predictable (like newtonian physics and molecular interactions in the brain). So it's more accurate to say that your will probably has a set of actions it can take (and those with the highest probability are similar in function). Like if you have a rash you might scratch it or poor hot water on it with almost equal probability (assuming non-determinism)
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:56:13 UTC No. 16445859
>>16441432
It's not free if you still have to pay taxes on it
EBOK at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:56:27 UTC No. 16445860
Goyslop
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:03:23 UTC No. 16445872
>>16445855
Still sounds like flipping a coin without agency
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:39:56 UTC No. 16446644
>>16445872
>>16445855
If you could do anything you wanted right now what would some things be?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:09:47 UTC No. 16447080
>>16441432
There are two definitions of free will and his argument only debunks one of them.
Free will - Can shoot lasers out of your eyes if you so choose to do so
Free will within a set of constraints - You have physical limitations but autonomy within this
His argument debunks the first definition, but not the second and more reasonable definition.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:13:40 UTC No. 16447084
>>16447080
What's the source of the autonomy?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:56:10 UTC No. 16447154
>>16441464
>>16442687
99.99% of freewill arguments are just disagreement on definitions.
Freewill for Christians implies some supernatural ability to do other than what is determined by the physics happening inside your brain.
If you call freewill the ability to take in, process, and act on information. Then sure that's what a brain does.
The difference between the two is that religious freewill is something ONLY humans have. And "naturalist" freewill isn't unique to humans.
Personally to me freewill is just a word that shows we don't fully understand how brains work. No one will be talking about freewill when we can simulate a human brain.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:43:36 UTC No. 16447210
>>16441432
he released his work on determinism right before Israel used it to justify genocide.
>you see, goy, we're not doing any genocide since we have no free will
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:08:45 UTC No. 16447258
>>16447084
Precisely, there is input from outside of the loop. This is the source of momentum within the loop, as the loop is just a set of constraints.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:11:43 UTC No. 16447357
>>16441446
what I never understood about this argument is what does it matter if someone is guilty or not for their mistakes, they are still the source of them.
Even if a steaming pile of shit has a source it still needs to be removed and dealt with
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:12:31 UTC No. 16447361
>>16447357
He states that rather than a system of punishment we simply need a system of containment.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:53:04 UTC No. 16447464
>>16447084
The awareness of multiple options (key word awareness, what is awareness actually, is it a single 1d point a single 1d way at all times?) And the fact that whatever thus awareness is, can judge jury and deliberate with itself to self conclude, to self will, to be a will who freely wrestles with its options because it is the determiner of what it will ultimately do.
A person, a will, with 10,000 options has more free parameters than a person with 2 options.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:55:06 UTC No. 16447470
>>16447084
>>16447464
Think of the relatedness of the word will in another use:
Will they, won't they.
Will they?
Will they?
Will they?
Will they?
Will they?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:25:47 UTC No. 16447546
>>16447464
>it is the determiner of what it will ultimately do
Is that the case? Would you ever choose an option that's only the second best for no reason?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 17:59:55 UTC No. 16447595
>>16447546
I wish you would have responded to the last sentence.
But I will respond by asking if one has 100 options, is there always a clear best?
And touchee, for now the fact of ignorance and it's role enters the convo
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:14:59 UTC No. 16447612
>>16447546
>>16447595
>And touchee, for now the fact of ignorance and it's role enters the convo
In the sense of, all the clear and hazy factors that may result in aspects of reality cohering into that which may be called with greater and lesser certainty, greater and lesser individual and greater and lesser democratic and greater and lesser connoisseureal concensus of the perfect knowledge and understanding of ABSOLUTE BEST.
There is the overarching big picture of an individuals life, and the septillion^777 micro moments that fill it out.
What you are speaking of and that idea of best overarching path, is what Aristotle spoke of as Teleology.
The concept of one finding their calling, what they are made to do.
Again this all then butts up against The Individual vs./with the group.
Society now the individual has more options then ever before, to try to carve out a unique self suitable path of livelihood in pursuit of their happiness, what they believe they have discovered and developed and invented their teleologies to be.
Yes there are only so many options in the world, and we did not make all or any of them (and that may be a strong point for you) but would we be more free choosing none of them, is an alligator laying in the sun and mud all day opening and closing it's mouth when it's hungry, more free than you?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:53:40 UTC No. 16447685
>>16447612
I didn't mean to make a teleological argument. The brain makes the "best" choices in the evolutionary sense. It's a massively complex machine that has been shaped by evolution. Animals with brains that made bad choices simply died out.
It's probably extremely hard to determine how the brain chooses between equally "good" options, but that doesn't mean that the process is non-deterministic.
For example, people prefer to pick the number 7 if they're asked to choose between 1 and 10. These options should be equally "good" and yet there's something in people's brains that makes them choose 7 more often and they don't even know why.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:16:25 UTC No. 16447859
>>16447685
Is that what the fizzing brain chemicals are telling you? Sounds like random non-sense to me.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 21:28:47 UTC No. 16447875
>>16447859
Maybe. On the other hand I still think that consciousness can't be explained by the currently known laws of physics. But even if it's something external to our brains, there's still the fact that there's no definition of free will that makes sense.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:02:12 UTC No. 16448422
We have the freedom to make choices, and the choices that are presented to us are many (to the point of being infinite). Meaning by logical technicality, simulated and objectively real beings will have the option to choose things of their own making. The paradox of self creation is solved in the truth that all things must come from one objective source (even in an infinite multiverse simulation there must be an objective original and most advanced reality that could be considered baseline). We know that things in reality are in fact not random (they are always observed the same in all realities and perceptions in a specific state of awareness), and thus by process of elimination we can peel back the layers of the simulation and find things that are more solid and "real" and objective (thing that can be observed to be similar or the same in all realities). The ability to choose is one of those attributes, everyone can choose between one or many things and often does so many times (with each thought and decision even), the question is whether the number of choices is in fact infinite or finite. A theoretical type I civilization will already have the ability to create a simulation with almost infinite mathematical possibilities within it and it is the lowest hanging fruit on the scales of advanced civilizations, meaning it is statistically almost certain that reality is some kind of simulated experiencial matrix. The next question is "what for?", is it for pleasure and relaxation or for study and experimentation or both or something more or simply the simulation was so convincing we forgot what baseline reality was and how to get back to it.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:10:20 UTC No. 16448468
>>16447685
If you could do anything you wanted right now, what are some things you would do?
If money was not an option are there some places in the world you would want to visit?
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:19:43 UTC No. 16448998
>>16447258
>>16447464
>>16447470
Okay?? What's the source of the independent will?
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:51:53 UTC No. 16449034
>>16448998
> Okay?? What's the source of the independent will?
The only right answer is one I already gave in >>16442747 (we simply don't know). This is the exact same answer you will get when you try to get to the fundaments of any natural science as well.
You could just as easily ask "What is the source of energy in the universe?" and you'll get exactly the same answer. We have a ton of physics which attempts to describe and model the way that energy resulting from an expanding singularity has transformed and transferred. We have absolutely no clue what "gave the singularity" the energy which its expansion distributed.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 15:16:41 UTC No. 16449049
>>16449034
The difference seems to be that energy exists in the present, free will seems to be nothing more than an idea.
The same source of energy is also the first cause setting everything into motion.
"Decisions" are just post-hoc rationalizations, the process of which is also determined.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:19:47 UTC No. 16449134
>>16449049
> "Decisions" are just post-hoc rationalizations, the process of which is also determined.
That is an an assumption you make based on untestable prior assumptions. For example, if you look at the "biological determinism" tests where they conclude that the signal predates the person's awareness of some phenomenon (usually by something in the realm of microseconds), it implicitly assumes that the signal is causing said awareness.
This is by definition not testable and circular because their verification that the phenomenon occured is by measuring the signal which they presuppose is causing the phenomenon. It is a self-confounding test.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:24:33 UTC No. 16449137
>>16448998
Outside of the loop. Already told you. You lack access.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:27:52 UTC No. 16449138
>>16449134
>>16449137
Meditation reveals the truth.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:38:09 UTC No. 16449147
>>16441432
Show me one neuron that has some cellular semblance of free will. And there is no such neuron.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:39:14 UTC No. 16449150
>>16441436
>but I sure experience it...
Driving a car and eating at McDonalds is not free will, chuddo
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:41:37 UTC No. 16449153
>>16449147
You're asking for a demonstration of something that tautologically false and then lacking the self-awareness to realize that it is your tautology that has problems.
If free will is to exist, it is not material, in the same way that mathematics is not material or experience is not material. Nobody with any sense argued that free will is made of some secret sauce of linear combination of neuronal activation. The only people who believe this are strict materialists who are forced into the absurd conclusions that come with that.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:49:49 UTC No. 16449158
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:53:20 UTC No. 16449164
>>16449153
>If free will is to exist, it is not material
Than its unfalsifiable and not scientific at all.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:58:15 UTC No. 16449169
>>16449164
Free will has always been a religious belief to justify punishment, sin and promises of rewards.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:07:22 UTC No. 16449186
>>16449169
>Free will has always been
lol no
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:12:15 UTC No. 16449189
>>16449164
> Then its unfalsifiable, and not scientific at all.
This is literally what I've been trying to get at repeatedly about determinism. Both free will and determinism are unfalsifiable and the ways in which we "test them" always turn up circular.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:14:51 UTC No. 16449192
>>16449189
>and determinism are unfalsifiable
not necessarily true. Physics someday may be able to prove something like super-determinism. Also determinism may be the simpler system with less variables.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 17:25:31 UTC No. 16449207
>>16449192
> Physics someday may be able to prove something like super-determinism.
And physicists may someday prove that Bernardo Kastrup's idea of universal phenomenological consciousness driving the material state evolution is true. I'm doubtful that either of these will happen. Physicists far too often confuse map with territory and make arguments based on absurdity to justify their claims.
> Also determinism may be the simpler system with less variables.
Ocham's razor only works if both models have equal explanatory power. A more complex model with less uncertainty is always better than a less complex model with more uncertainty (at least from a statistical perspective in terms of average error). A deterministic model for a dynamical system is certainly simpler mathematically than a stochastic one, and yet stochastic models are necessary in most every domain that deals with real material systems at any level of real precision.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:31:53 UTC No. 16449281
Science only ever sees the tip of the iceberg because of the silly "I have to be able to touch it" stipulation
Imagine having a job and only doing 10% of that job
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:24:20 UTC No. 16449871
>>16448998
>What's the source of the independent will?
It's self, know thy self
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:27:34 UTC No. 16449881
>>16449875
> What even is matter? Like what exactly?
You could approach the same line of questioning to basically anything fundamental in physics and you'd find your answers just as empty and full of hand waving metaphysicians.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:31:32 UTC No. 16449887
>>16449189
Is it possible free will is <0 but no human has been clever enough to come up with an implicit explicit undeniable proof?
At one point no cars existed, man was not clever enough to prove their existence, and if you told most people they were possible you would probably be called a loon
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:32:54 UTC No. 16449889
>>16449881
>In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
If you want to ask if something exists or not, you need to at least figure out what your looking for.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:35:11 UTC No. 16449895
>>16449887
As it currently exists, I have not seen a compelling definition of either free will or determinism that do not fundamentally rely on unprovable tautologies. I'm not saying there is not a person who will someday prove some version of either one of them. Personally, my biases are more towards something like a "stochastic free will" but I'd be lying if I told you I had a clue how you'd go about formulating that in a way that isn't fucked.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:36:12 UTC No. 16449899
>>16449889
Okay, so matter is something that has mass, which is defined as a quantification of the amount of matter an object has. Do you not see how that's a wee bit circular? It's matter if it has mass, which means it has some amount of matter.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:38:32 UTC No. 16449905
>>16449875
A gradient scale of awareness to enact certain potentials.
Instead of thinking absolutely yes free will or absolutely no free will, try thinking:
A cat might have more free will then a rock, a man might have more free will then a cat, a very rich man might have more free will than that man.
Hierarchies of internal awarenesses of potentials, and the inner methods and modes of deciding conclusions.
Literally, how many other things in the world could you be doing right now, start counting
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:39:32 UTC No. 16449907
>>16449887
><0
Meant *>
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:18:26 UTC No. 16449949
>>16449899
We're not sitting here trying to figure out if matter exists or not. Every definition of matter is descriptive, not prescriptive. You can touch things, you can see things, you can interact with things. You can point to a rock, or your hand, or the keyboard (you) use to shitpost on 4chud and say "that's matter".
With free will, the situation is completely different. It's not immediately apparent what you even mean by free will.
How the hell are you going to say that something exists if you can't point to it or define it? It's just some undefined thing that exists out there somewhere, but not anywhere that you can describe or point to?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:40:16 UTC No. 16449967
>>16449949
Okay, if your standard is "we can point to it" or "we can touch it," all you need to do is change the question from "what is matter' to "what is energy?"
Either way, you're not seeming to understand the point. Even with the most studied and scientifically validated concepts within physics, we have basically no clear understanding of "what they are" that doesn't just turn into circularity. Our instrumental use of them doesn't depend on having clear answers to these questions, and similarly we don't need to know what exactly "energy" is in an abstract sense in order to measure different kinds of potentials or do energy based mechanics.
You can just as easily say "free will is the capacity to make decisions" and it is literally no less ambiguous than "energy is the capacity to do work."
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 03:04:31 UTC No. 16449987
>>16449967
I understand your point, it's just a completely different situation and it doesn't apply.
>You can just as easily say "free will is the capacity to make decisions"
You can't though. Because this:
>Our instrumental use of them doesn't depend on having clear answers to these questions, and similarly we don't need to know what exactly "energy" is in an abstract sense in order to measure different kinds of potentials or do energy based mechanics.
Isn't true for free will.
Yes, scientific theories are not really "real". They're just maps for the "real". If the map is good, it'll allow you to navigate with some certainty. And if it's not good, you'll soon find out.
The problem with free will, and any metaphysical concept with no grounding in reality, is that it's not a map of anything. You can't see if it's good or not, because it doesn't describe anything real.
In other words, it's an unfalsifiable definition based on literally nothing. You could pull anything out of your ass and it would be just as valid as "free will is the capacity to make decisions".
Maybe free will is the friends we made along the way.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 07:59:59 UTC No. 16450173
>>16449138
Advanced meditators can turn off the part of the brain that generates the self. Or rather, they see through it so it's stops having influence.
Interesting video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APO
Fits pretty well with >>16449049
>"Decisions" are just post-hoc rationalizations, the process of which is also determined.
If you manage to turn these rationalizations off, the illusion of free will disappears.
See also split-brain studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left
People are literally under the spell of that interpreter. The difference is that its interpretations make more sense if your brain hemispheres are connected.
You might dismiss the split-brain argument because those people literally have brain damage, but I think it fits into the picture of there being no independent doer in the brain.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:52:23 UTC No. 16450297
>>16449987
> The problem with free will, and any metaphysical concept with no grounding in reality, is that it's not a map of anything. You can't see if it's good or not, because it doesn't describe anything real.
This is the truth with determinism as well. Determinism is a metaphysical assumption we use as a modeling convention and then just ignore the fact that it doesn't mean anything in reality. Just as with basically every major physics concept.
Free will as a concept also does work well as a "map of the real." If anything, it's determinism that is utterly intractable as an instrumental approach because it leaves you completely unable to hold people accountable for their actions or hold moral standards. If there is no agency or choice in the matter, who are you to judge or punish people who commit heinous crimes? How do you enforce laws of the people who break them and hurt others were literally compelled by the absurd abstract physical chemistry in their brain towards every action they've ever made? Determinism is an entirely unworkab system.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:03:51 UTC No. 16450303
>>16450297
You still haven't defined what you mean by free will. I still haven't read a definition that's not paradoxical. Literally not a single one.
Why do you think determinism is the opposite of free will? What if you random walk through life? Wouldn't that be the opposite of determinism?
People may act deterministically but we can still try to change their behaviour with punishment. That argument is too human centric. The universe doesn't give a fuck about your morals and you can't use this argument to argue against determinism.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:14:05 UTC No. 16450308
>>16450303
> The universe doesn't give a fuck about your morals and you can't use this argument to argue against determinism.
The universe doesn't care about our definitions of "continuous media" being completely nonsense either. The point with instrumental validity is that it doesn't need to be exactly coherent down to the fundaments if it works.
> Why do you think determinism is the opposite of free will? What if you random walk through life? Wouldn't that be the opposite of determinism?
I don't actually think determinism and free will exist in a dichotomy. I'm making assumptions based on the usual conventions people use to argue against free will. It could be the case that our decisions are not deterministic and also entirely uncontrollable (meaning something like complete indeterminism).
> You still haven't defined what you mean by free will. I still haven't read a definition that's not paradoxical. Literally not a single one.
You're going in circles. I gave you one "The capacity to make decisions." It is no more circular than the definition of "energy" or "matter" or "continuous media" or any other abstract physical notion. It derives its utility from instrumental utility just like all of these physics based abstractions and allows us to make reasonable predictions based on psychological sciences and behavioral studies of average tendencies.
I'm not 100% sold on free will as a concept, but if your line of rejection for it is that we dont have non-paradoxical definitions for the basic idea, boy do I have bad news for you about just about every scientific discipline we have. And yet they still work. As does "free will" as an instrumental concept.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:37:12 UTC No. 16450334
>>16450308
>The capacity to make decisions
That's not enough. A computer has the capacity to make decisions (if x then y).
Where's the free part? That's is the most important part.
The energy people are much more thorough with their definitions
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:39:50 UTC No. 16450335
Determinism doesn't mean what you think it does.
Ordinary will has free aspects.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:42:32 UTC No. 16450338
>>16450334
>If x then y
Gamblers fallacy
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:47:19 UTC No. 16450346
>>16450334
> Where's the free part?
Even most free will philosophers argue there are general average rules for tendencies to make types of decisions under free will. For example, "people will choose the things that they believe most benefits them" is an average rule with a lot of explanatory power. It still leaves room for that rule to be violated in individual instances or for differences in scope for "what benefits them most."
If you study decision theory at a mathematical level, this kind of thing shows up too when you have multi-objective optimization functions and you need to use some mechanism to scalarize them.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:49:03 UTC No. 16450347
>>16450346
Because we receive sense data, it means we have to make a decision.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:50:04 UTC No. 16450348
>>16450346
You're a retard and so are other people who think ordinary will is completely without freedom
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:53:30 UTC No. 16450351
>>16450348
In a case where these retards actually score with their argument, the thesis is, don't think, rush into decisions head first, you had no control. Explain calm, explain mood control, explain receiving sense data and making decisions. Most of these retards are foreign to intelligence, academic IQ tards and they rule our society.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:54:31 UTC No. 16450353
-lets out a huge alarmingly loud fart-
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:57:31 UTC No. 16450356
>>16450351
>>16450348
>>16450347
Take your meds.
Also, no, I don't think that people's decision making is entirely without randomness. I would argue that a more comprehensive model would be something like a randomized decision function.
We have a deterministic component that has led to the setup of the problem which defines the decisions to be made in some capacity. We have the sense data the decision maker receives which is largely stochastic in nature (well modeled as a deterministic process in the presence of functional noise). We have the "actor" or "agent" that is actually making the decision, which is roughly a deterministic agent whose "drift" tends to be particular to them, with some amount of randomness.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:59:02 UTC No. 16450358
>>16450356
Whoa.
One to talk.
Honestly go to hospital now and be injected with medicine, you faggot
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:08:08 UTC No. 16450362
Time to filter nametards again
>>16450356
Is ist just deterministic setup of the problem + randomized decision function? I don't really understand how it's different from pure randomness or were free will comes into play
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:13:25 UTC No. 16450371
>>16450362
WARNING
ACADEMIC TARD POLICE(LITERALLY WHAT THEYRE CALLED) PATROL THIS BOARD AND HAVE FOUND A NICE TOPIC TO TRY TO IMPRISON US IN DELUSION AND STUPIDITY. IGNORE THESE POSTERS
WARNING
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:22:31 UTC No. 16450384
How do free willers deal with the fact that most of our decisions aren't happening on a conscious level? Most of it is coming from a subconscious level, including dreams, desires and traumas.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:24:02 UTC No. 16450386
>>16450384
Implying we're not the programmer of the dream
Implying sub conscious activity is not influenced by us
Just kys
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:25:58 UTC No. 16450389
>>16450386
By that logic one could just transcend all desire and become Buddha in an instant.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:27:04 UTC No. 16450390
>>16450389
THIS
Is a science and maths board
Stop posting on it
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:28:35 UTC No. 16450392
>>16450390
Reality exists outside your safe space.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:29:47 UTC No. 16450394
>>16450392
You chose to do this, you could have chosen the other couldn't you?
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:30:49 UTC No. 16450397
>>16450394
If not, when you next make a choice, select randomly, because that's the example you set.
Fucking humongous fag
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:32:58 UTC No. 16450400
Do you not see how completely insane these people who govern our society with starships and deranged systems?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:32:59 UTC No. 16450401
>>16450394
No, it was always my destiny to make a fool of you.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:34:21 UTC No. 16450404
>>16450362
Do you know anything about control theory? My undergrad background focused heavily on control systems and in control schemes your state evolution looks something like:
x[k+1] = f(x[k], u[k], v[k])
Where x[k+1] is the next state, x[k] is the current state, f() is the (discrete-time) dynamic functional for the system, u[k] is the control input, and v[k] is a stochastic process noise sequence.
Our decision functions could very well be something like that:
Decision = f(state, will/agent input, randomness)
I don't know this for certain. It's just a way of thinking about how free will could function that makes sense to me.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:39:02 UTC No. 16450412
>>16450173
>>16450297
Make a list of all the things in the world you can theoretically (and wink wink more or less practically) possibly do in the next 4 hours.
So I don't have to wait for your list, give me an estimate on how many items might be on the list
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:49:30 UTC No. 16450425
>>16450384
>Most of it is coming from a subconscious level, including dreams, desires and traumas.
Concious awareness and analyzation
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:56:22 UTC No. 16450439
>>16450425
Which eventually leads to the realization that the ego/self is an illusory construct.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:00:02 UTC No. 16450444
>>16450439
>Which eventually leads to the realization that the ego/self is an illusory construct
Respond to this:
>>16450412
I don't know what you mean by ego/self but I do know that I'm my body and you are yours and I'm responsible for mine and your responsible for yours and I want certain things and I don't know all the things you want in all the seconds you have
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:01:52 UTC No. 16450449
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:02:42 UTC No. 16450451
>>16450412
One of the things I have the will to do is tell you to fuck off with your stupid demand. :^)
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:27:41 UTC No. 16450493
>>16450451
I! Gave you! The option! To not make the full list but:
give me an estimate on how many items might be on the list
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:30:59 UTC No. 16450501
Is there an action without a cause? Not hypothetical.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:34:50 UTC No. 16450508
>>16450493
Somewhere between one option and an unfathomably large number of options depending on how you define the rapidly expanding tree of "choices" one could make. That's my estimate.
How I actually plan to spend the next 4 hours? Working on studying for my qualification exams for a bit and then going through a book on point process calculus that I just got in the mail.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:46:09 UTC No. 16450545
>>16450501
> Is there an action without a cause? Not hypothetical.
Causality itself as a concept is all hypotheticals all the way down. You're asking for whether water can exist without liquids existing.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:51:00 UTC No. 16450558
>>16450545
So you think classical physics is a meme and engineers are just winging it when making cars, planes, trains and bridges?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:54:23 UTC No. 16450564
>>16450558
You don't think boeing intentionally designed kill switches into their planes do you?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:58:32 UTC No. 16450572
>>16450564
Is economic theory a meme? What about psychology?
How can you make decisions if you are not sure causality actually exists?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:01:14 UTC No. 16450577
Once again free willers have shown they are retarded and have nothing but the hubris of consensus.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:04:37 UTC No. 16450585
You're speaking to freewillushomosimius on most boards, might be (?)
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:07:01 UTC No. 16450592
>>16450577
Go be a flatline construct exp parrot elsewhere, p.s. is that why the flatlines?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:11:01 UTC No. 16450601
Free willers assume all decisions are singular, rational and well intentioned.
Determinists understand that there are always multiple causes most of which are not readily visible.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:12:49 UTC No. 16450605
>>16450601
No they just presume and experience freewill, which might be declassified not of archae neuroscience but of inhibiting factors
Dis a bigg'un
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:16:48 UTC No. 16450612
>>16450558
> So you think classical physics is a meme and engineers are just winging it when making cars, planes, trains and bridges?
I'm an electrical engineer working on a PhD. I think what we have are fantastic inferential models for physical and mathematical processes. They are fundamentally models. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
When you scrutinize basically any part of theoretical physics down to its fundaments you will find internal inconsistencies and contradictions. That doesn't mean these approaches cannot be "close enough" to right to accomplish incredible things when you take them with the appropriate helping of salt.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:19:20 UTC No. 16450618
Imagine the new degrees
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:27:33 UTC No. 16450626
>>16450572
> How can you make decisions if you are not sure causality actually exists?
The same way literally every other decision process works. You go based off of the best information you have and using your best assessment of the costs/benefits for each decision. Whether there is some clear chain of causality from start to finish doesn't actually matter that much (and in fact is something you basically couldn't possibly rely on for decision making even if you want to, because you'd basically have a halting problem on your hands). You make an inference based on some "model" you presuppose onto the circumstance and hope that it's good enough. Whether there actually is a clear causal model for the "ground truth" doesn't actually matter much and is something you'll never know anyways.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:31:37 UTC No. 16450637
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:40:21 UTC No. 16450654
>>16450601
> Free willers assume all decisions are singular, rational and well intentioned.
> Determinists understand that there are always multiple causes most of which are not readily visible.
Neither of these statements actually mean anything. I don't think I'd call myself a "free will" person, because I don't know the degree to which "agency" is meaningfully controllable.
In terms of question of "multiple causes," this is something that can be rationalized and understood in both of the major paradigms (free will vs. determinism) and really only has problems with strict indeterminism (which entirely denies the meaning of causality).
One can be a "free will" theorist and believe that multiple causal factors influence decision making. All that is required to be someone that subscribes to a version of "free will" theorizing is that there is some agential consciousness that interacts with decision making on some level and is capable of making "important" decisions.
"Capable" is an important word to keep in mind, because I don't think there are many people who have thought about the question which believe that some notion of will interacts with literally every decision made at every level. Your decisions regarding where your eyes are going while reading this response are surely biologically driven and there's very little will involved there.
However, at some point you do have the capacity to stop reading and a free will theorist would argue that this decision is not deterministically predicted by some myopic linear combination of neural states. Thus, at some level (even if we don't understand it) there is some agential action taken beyond those myopic neuronal firings.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:44:09 UTC No. 16450657
>>16450654
Complete bollox. I register potential causes of an action and still know ordinary will has is not a cage.
Explain calm. If there was no will in decision making, how do we remain calm?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:47:15 UTC No. 16450659
>>16450657
Your reading comprehension needs work.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:49:11 UTC No. 16450662
>>16450659
No, it doesn't. You and most of the rest of world(or you and others like you) are retarded. Deserve no credit whatsoever for anything you've done here. You're just pleasure parasites.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:49:48 UTC No. 16450663
>>16450508
>going through a book on point process calculus that I just got in the mail.
Could the writer of the book have placed the pages in a different order? Or used one word here instead of there?
I geuss there is this reaching into the future, perceiving, deliberating on an optimal, and then pursuing its path.
But then one says: if the Optimal Future is something that actually exists, a person doesn't invent it, it is a result of the limited potentials of reality, then as another anon said, if one is aware of the optimal, why would someone choose less than the best?
Look at a body builder, optimal physique, why isn't everyone doing what all the body builders do?
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:52:24 UTC No. 16450666
>>16450663
There are many bests. Life made lots of paths.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:53:00 UTC No. 16450668
So... about that big'un
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:53:43 UTC No. 16450671
>>16450666
Part of it is natural selection, then it's a rolling cage from there. Will can be caged, but is ordinarily free within a system that has limits. The limit doesn't begin at will.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:54:48 UTC No. 16450675
As in declassified extraneous factors inhibiting freewill, not immorality, freewill
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:55:24 UTC No. 16450676
>>16450612
>I'm an electrical engineer working on a PhD.
You don't believe in free will because every second of your life is planned and accounted for by your syllabus and professors. But you know you could go out to a bar and hit on every girl you see once in a while
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:06:53 UTC No. 16450683
>>16450654
>However, at some point you do have the capacity to stop reading
Your whole post is very good (is it actually, or just according to whoever I am because it appeases my stance, which is my stance because it appeases me or because I know it's the true stance, be cause of my current imperfect understanding) so I did not stop reading your post, but we can assume there are a bevy of factors that would..determine whether someone stops reading something or not:
-Boredom (do you cause yourself to be bored? Can you think you are bored and be wrong?)
-Correct or incorrect judgement of posters idiocy
-A typo makes one cringe and so skips the rest
-The wife calls you to dinner (hold on let me finish this, no come now, no, come now, OK....it's been 3 mins why haven't you come yet.... OK coming honey...)
Etc.?
You've been reading 4chan for 17 hours straight, and finally the last joule of mental energy shuts your eyes
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:09:18 UTC No. 16450687
>>16450662
>You're just pleasure parasites.
Was the designing and building of the pantheon hard difficult painful challenging frustrating work? Was it at all pleasurable?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:11:08 UTC No. 16450695
>>16450666
>There are many bests. Life made lots of paths.
What determines what one may or might or certainly will or should pursue?
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:20:57 UTC No. 16450720
>>16450695
Natural selection
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:21:28 UTC No. 16450724
>>16450676
> You don't believe in free will because every second of your life is planned and accounted for by your syllabus and professors.
Bro, in some sense I wish this was true. The hardest part of the PhD is stuff that happens when all the classes are over and you're thrown in the deep end to figure out research contributions in an independent fashion.
> we can assume there are a bevy of factors that would..determine whether someone stops reading something or not:
I'd use the term "influence" rather than "determine." Determine would imply that they exhaustively cover the factors involved and that is exactly the area that I'm not sure is resolved. Every single one of those factors listed will influence the choice of when to stop doing X. I'm not convinced there is such a combination of input factors which can deterministically predict in a replicable fashioned the particular decision you're talking about.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:26:16 UTC No. 16450743
>>16450724
>The hardest part of the PhD is stuff that happens when all the classes are over and you're thrown in the deep end to figure out research contributions in an independent fashion.
Why did you pursue a PhD then? What are your hopes and goals? What does achieving PhD possibly achieve for you?
You are given complete freedom within range to determine a PhD topic and you are having trouble determining what might be an optimal choice?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:27:15 UTC No. 16450749
>>16450720
Which isn't always Darwin Awards, for Goodness Sakes
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:28:35 UTC No. 16450754
>>16450724
>>16450676
>You don't believe in free will because every second of your life is planned and accounted for by your syllabus and professors. But you know you could go out to a bar and hit on every girl you see once in a while
And thus society found the balence, between work and play, obligation and freedom
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:32:49 UTC No. 16450771
>>16450743
> You are given complete freedom within range to determine a PhD topic and you are having trouble determining what might be an optimal choice?
If you want an honest answer, you're asked to do something that is almost impossible. Namely, you're asked to make a novel contribution to a wide body of research that literal generations of people (most of whom are as smart and capable, or more capable than yourself) have dedicated their lives to without having the multiple lifetimes necessary to truly understand the shoulders you stand on.
I quite like the independence, but that's not to say it isn't harrowing and absurd at some level.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:34:59 UTC No. 16450775
fags
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:40:51 UTC No. 16450796
>>16450724
>I'm not convinced there is such a combination of input factors which can deterministically predict in a replicable fashioned the particular decision you're talking about.
But this is a very relatable example. How many times in your life have you stopped reading something? Reflect inside your mind on the mental states of why in the past you have stopped reading something.
I am a slave to wanting to communicate with someone. I have experienced long lengths of time speaking to no one at all. It was alright, it was great it was awesome and lovely, there were times of lonely. I have experienced long lengths of time speaking to one, and many, varying lengths of often, it was alright, great, times of better and worse etc.
I could technically have gone the rest of my life not really talking to anyone, or discussing these topics, these topics appear unresolved so there appears to be an enticing playful scientific games manship problem solving in their contemplation and debate.
The transcendent concept and rewarding of Problem Solving is draped over many contexts of human endeavor, maybe the preminary notion of The Human at all, or life at all, the bee and beaver and spider also problem solve, and the squirrel.
What is problem solving. Completing an incomplete. Physical logical identities and their causal relations.
Human interaction can be fun and exciting and worthwhile and fruitful, I don't know how you will respond, you may offer me an insight, fact, or way or thinking that I had not considered, and realign my internal states with a more optimal external.
We all started as babies knowing nothing, others have given us everything we are and know. Through methodical, procedural steps of proven sense making. We are hooked on sense making, and when we fear our internal state has not satisfactorily grasped an appropriate amount of sense, we reach out for resolution.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:55:27 UTC No. 16450833
>>16450771
(No I hoped you would provide a dishonest answer) Why did you choose to pursue it then?
Were you aware of what it entailed before hand?
I remember how hard my world and self and prospect understanding was in my early 20s, and before that how much school of fish activity occurred, early life is throwing yourself at walls and seeing what sticks, but you have amassed a massive amount of vital and extraordinary understanding of a very valuable and useful domain of human endeavor demanded the world over.
I had no clue what I wanted to do after high-school, I was completely in la la land, so my fellow students scrambling about recommendation letters and guidance counselor meetings and sending college packets for admissions hoping to be accepted, I thought there was no hope for me, I couldn't commit to anything, I didn't understand the hearty form of life path and plan, I was in the immediate confused and unwell. And it did not turn out well for me. Risks and rewards. It is riskier to try to go at it alone, but maybe more rewards. The safe bet is specialize in something, practice it, get rewarded, enjoy your free time, a long life of modern luxury.
Nature has long ago laid out the essential plan, of having children. There is that then 'C'. How many As + Bs x Qs Ă· z^3 are there to get there. Or not. As nature also defined the path as, eat food drink water shit piss sleep.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:03:29 UTC No. 16450851
>>16450833
People generally do want dishonest answers. Well, more precisely, they want a dishonest answer that they believe to be honest.
I find a lot of PhD level research compelling, and the enjoyment and value/fulfillment I get out of it outweighs the growing nihilism and fatalistic feelings I have about the endeavor.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:08:47 UTC No. 16450856
>>16450796
> How many times in your life have you stopped reading something? Reflect inside your mind on the mental states of why in the past you have stopped reading something.
This kind of reflection is exactly why I am skeptical of both free will and determinism as strict doctrines. I believe the truth to be something like "we have some agency/will, significant contributions by deterministic and random factors beyond our control." You can go back and reflect and conclude it was some combination of boredom/attention being devoted to other topics/the wife coming/etc., but these reflections are themselves brought to you through a prism which you have both an incomplete and biased view.
> We are hooked on sense making, and when we fear our internal state has not satisfactorily grasped an appropriate amount of sense, we reach out for resolution.
This is fair, and I suspect something that drives many people towards deterministic and materialistic view points. In some sense, the material is something we have developed very strong competencies and it feels more familiar. The immaterial (the exact domain that sense-making exists within) is something that we have much less competency because it requires us to rethink how we even approach these topics.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:22:48 UTC No. 16450879
>>16450297
>If there is no agency or choice in the matter, who are you to judge or punish people who commit heinous crimes?
You are still assuming that (you) can choose whether or not to punish people who commit crimes.
Determinism and free will are not opposites by the way. One being true doesn’t mean the other isn’t.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:23:46 UTC No. 16450882
>>16450851
>I find a lot of PhD level research compelling
Will there come a time when nothing else can be added to the field of electrical engineering? Though especially now is not that time, with all the micro chips processing scaling and AI and increasingly state of the art energy grids and systems etc. And the physics end of probing materials and electrons.
What area of electrical engineering are you most interested in, and you are or trying to figure out at last what to focus focus on for your final project? And then after you complete that whats the goal, what are possible goals. I don't know what year you are in, in your early 20s 4 years is 20 years.
Some people know they want to be a vetinarian when they are 4 and become it later.
Some people don't know their PhD final topic till the 4th year (idk how it works) and after that it could take 200 days of contemplation here or there, including the 500 days prior, of putting the pieces together to reveal the clear puzzle of their futures path
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:26:00 UTC No. 16450887
>>16450856
>This kind of reflection is exactly why I am skeptical
Well for starters there is automatically a hard maximum limit: once you stop reading, you must at some point stop, there are many factors, but at the same time, to avoid the problem, one can never start reading to begin with
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:29:34 UTC No. 16450896
>>16450856
>boredom/attention being devoted to other topics/the wife coming/etc., but these reflections are themselves brought to you through a prism which you have both an incomplete and biased view.
In comes power dynamics, does the wife or husband have the final say, how often under what conditions by what means for what reasons good or bad, happy wife happy life, one of my x wives in that way i was a slave to. My other ex wife was a submissive nympho she was a slave to me. My current wife and I are like 1 loving unit who equally care selfishly for ourselves and selflessly for the other, and so we compromise often for our own good, the good of our whole.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:38:34 UTC No. 16450910
>>16450888
If it is a freewill cog
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:40:06 UTC No. 16450914
>>16450856
>The immaterial (the exact domain that sense-making exists within)
For most people who never consider these topics (rightly so) life makes blatant sense. Get clothes, get a car, get food, get water, get a house, go to work, get a girlfriend, live happily ever after, everything else is fluff.
I've been sitting at my local palatial mall during this whole conversation and have seen approximately 2,329 extremely beautiful well dressed women strolling through the perfumed air. Now I understand life and the world, now I take a deep breath and relax my shoulders, now I need not worry or wonder any longer, now I have assurance and certainty, life and the world is incomprehensibly beautiful and good and I am a miracle of thankful love for feeling at home and as one with it.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:40:33 UTC No. 16450916
Is this thread intended as a reminder, an epiphany, a logical discourse, a discussion ... a spanner?
Hangon, how many spanner in the works threads are there?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:41:23 UTC No. 16450917
The Western religious notion of free will is pure narcissistic delusion - a grandiose fantasy that places human choice on a preposterous metaphysical pedestal above the natural laws and deterministic forces governing the entire cosmos. This contra-causal fairytale imagines our minds as immaterial, formless, magical sources of utterly uncaused, ex nihilo causal powers, exempt from the physiological constraints and causal chains that rationally explain all other phenomena. It arrogantly recasts human decision-making as some miraculous, self-created form of willful creationism rather than recognizing it as shaped by the same rational patterns and processes describing the rest of the known universe. In essence, it inscribes blatant anthropocentric narcissism as pseudo-profundity, shamelessly elevating human ego over empirical explanations of how embodied minds actually operate via scientific naturalism.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:41:44 UTC No. 16450919
>>16450879
>You are still assuming that (you) can choose whether or not to punish people who commit crimes.
There are many different judges and juries and their judgements differ across times and spaces for variety of (good or bad? Clear or unclear? Valid or invalid?) Reasons
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:42:11 UTC No. 16450920
>>16450916
Who are the spanner in the works threads by? And Since When?
When not linearly illegal programming andor beading?
Is that preferable?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:43:59 UTC No. 16450922
>>16450920
Putting a spanner in TheWorks of what? And Who?
Programming what for Who and Why?
Beading in what Way? As a freeform, as an ulterior objective?
Preferable How?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:46:34 UTC No. 16450923
>>16450675
And Who or what is doing this
>>16450675
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:47:48 UTC No. 16450926
>>16450923
Is that misconstrol being misutilised in misorder to miscontinue posts about lack of freewills?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:49:24 UTC No. 16450928
What a bogs plan, for the greater bood
If not, declassified it
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 16:58:14 UTC No. 16450935
>>16441572
>Is their any guilt
abrahamic detected
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:02:41 UTC No. 16450940
>>16450917
>This contra-causal fairytale imagines our minds as immaterial, formless, magical sources of utterly uncaused, ex nihilo causal powers, exempt from the physiological constraints and causal chains that rationally explain all other phenomena
There are so many people in the world and resources.
Money is power. Money is freedom.
An individual wants power and freedom.
An individual sees the world of people and things.
An individual contemplates how they can get the most money from people and things.
X = total # of individuals
Y = amount of individuals who by varying degrees think this way
Z = the real time graph of their relative success
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:07:59 UTC No. 16450945
>>16450882
> Will there come a time when nothing else can be added to the field of electrical engineering?
I guess that depends on how you view "adding to the field." I have doubts there will ever be a time when we have no more problems to solve within the field. Will there be a time when all of the problems left are incomprehensibly beyond the current capabilities of our problem solving tools? Maybe? It's hard to say.
> What area of electrical engineering are you most interested in, and you are or trying to figure out at last what to focus focus on for your final project?
I'm very much a statistical signal processing researcher and already have a few conference papers in that field (and am in the process of finalizing two journal manuscripts which I hope to complete). I don't really have an issue of a "lack of focus" as much as it is one where I find it difficult to rely on the work of prior researchers without thoroughly understanding it. As a result, many of my recent papers start with a review of the relevant fields inceptions in the pre-WW2 era and go from there. This has resulted in the work I have published being relatively well received and comprehensive, but this approach has closed as many doors as it has opened as it would take many lifetimes to truly understand the innumerable ways people have tried to solve open problems in signal processing and non-stationary stochastic processes (more generally).
> Some people don't know their PhD final topic till the 4th year.
From my experience, dissertations in my department tend to be a thing that comes pretty close to the last minute. Figuring out the "grand narrative" that ties together the story of your research requires a perspective that only having already completed the research can grant you.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:09:56 UTC No. 16450946
I now have to stop reading to urinate, but theoretically I can continue reading while walking to the restroom and while urinating, I might have to pause to wash my hands but I could skip that
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:17:39 UTC No. 16450961
>>16450917
Is there a chance that I'll reincarnate as a femboy elf with determinism though? That's what I care about.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:29:02 UTC No. 16450978
>>16441432
I didn't believe in free will until this jew told me, now I'm not so sure
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:31:25 UTC No. 16450982
>>16450978
If some random Jewish researcher can compel your thinking by saying the opposite, he has effectively proven his point. Don't let yourself and your decisions be made by the whims of people you view as opposed to you. They certainly don't do the same.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:34:28 UTC No. 16450988
>>16450978
Free will is Jewish.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:39:58 UTC No. 16450995
>>16450914
>2,329
1 hour later: ~3,109
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:48:02 UTC No. 16451002
>>16450945
>I guess that depends on how you view "adding to the field."
What are some of the current up to date general goals of the field?
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:50:22 UTC No. 16451005
WILL can be 'caged' by forces other than itself. However, WILL is not ordinarily caged(it is not always in a cage of other forces).
Can we agree on this? Life is determined in a way but this subset which is determining our actions is not pre-determined from the very start, it's completely dependant on natural selection which we phase through using elements of freedom that we do have.
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:54:09 UTC No. 16451009
-farts, loudly-
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:56:48 UTC No. 16451013
>>16450945
That is interesting stuff. So all about in transit communications and satellites and tracking systems, yeah I don't really know what this stuff means. Can you give any example?
And PhD dissertation has to summerize all your research, so present an overarching story and understanding of that history of electronics and EM and programming to process stationary and moving signals consistently, and all your interest stops pre ww2 so it is all of a historical archival purpose?
EBOK at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 17:57:23 UTC No. 16451016
>>16451009
You people are retarded. MORE. It's truthfully more than this but I can't put a word on it.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 18:44:13 UTC No. 16451075
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 18:45:28 UTC No. 16451076
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:07:02 UTC No. 16451094
>>16451002
> What are some of the current up to date general goals of the field?
One of the really big ones that people are very much trying to figure out is performance prediction for use of machine learning based systems in signal processing tasks. There's a ton of people right now fighting for the spot of the "first scientist" to meaningfully explain/exploit over-parameterization in a signal processing context.
There's also a lot of statistical signal processing people who are working on trying to catch the modeling and mathematics up to the technology and empirical results on many of these newer architectures. Most of the major theorems from statistical learning theory were built on generalizations of feed forward neural networks, which work for CNN's, but not so much for network architectures with internal dynamics like transformers.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:12:55 UTC No. 16451099
>>16451013
Take a look at the proceedings from really any of the relevant conferences and you'll get the jist. IEEE Fusion is good, ICASSP, IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE Oceans, IEEE symposium on Information Theory. They all basically cover the same sorts of ideas but with slightly different focus.
Statistics, dynamical systems, stochastic processes, information theory, radar sonar robotics, data-fusion and learning theory. All that shit.
It really doesn't have a ton to do with electricity or EM really.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:42:16 UTC No. 16451119
>>16442384
Complete independence doesn't need to be the case, but at some point you have to break from the deterministic consequence train.
Independence from prior impulses at some point needs to arise for you to make a real choice (not just a perceived choice) between which path to take.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:44:14 UTC No. 16451123
>>16445781
Probablistic non-determinism doesn't give you free will.
An electron doesn't freely choose where it exists, even if it is a probablistic measure.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:01:05 UTC No. 16451143
>>16451099
>>16451094
Nice man, well if I don't speak to you again, best of luck with everything, you seem to be smart and have a good grasp on things, you will find your way in the world, keep working smart and hard, have a good day, and have a good life
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:10:04 UTC No. 16451149
>>16442384
>Consider yourself being at a fork in the road. Your prior existence and physical being has caused you (in some sense) to be at the position where you are needing to make the choice between the two paths
>>16451119
People who often use this fork in the road idea, but funnily enough they can easily take it farther by simply noteing that not only can the person go left or right, but they could also turn around and go the other way, or do a head stand, or do a spinning head stand, or do 5 jumping Jack's, or 10, or 5 and then 10, or 10 and then 5, or 10 and then 5 and then 10, or sing a song, or sing a song while doing 5 and then 10 jumping Jack's, or start to go down the left road 5 feet and turn back and go down the right path, 7 feet, then turn back and go down the left path, do 5 and then 10 jumping Jack's while singing and song, then do a handstand...
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:28:10 UTC No. 16451166
>>16451143
Thanks for the well wishes. I'm kind of a retard, but I guess we all are sometimes. Hope things work out well for you too.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:43:45 UTC No. 16451185
>>16441432
I can know myself and this is important both for me and for the society. Free will is important? yes, but it is overrated and the meaning is distorted.
1 + 1 = 2 this result doesn't follow my will but if I say 1 + 1 = 4 this result follows the path of idiocy and I adjust it.
Free will means to fix a problem? Maybe, we can't know anything for sure but we can try to know ourselves but science tells people that we can know nearly everything.
If I don't know myself how can I adjust when I find an error? I can fix it automatically but it requires a lot of logic and you follow a path for being mad and for a possible suicide.
1 + 1 = 2 and this, math, is helpful for me and therefore if I found 1 + 1 = 4 I can know that this is not true.
The humanity has not invented anything without being helped but humanity believes to be the only accountable lol
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:48:11 UTC No. 16451196
>>16441432
Determinism is completely illogical. Free will is the only will to exist
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:53:30 UTC No. 16451207
>>16451196
What’s the source of the Will? Where is it located?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:51:45 UTC No. 16451344
>>16451207
>He keeps asking this nonsense
It was already explained to you that there is an obvious limitation to science in that it refuses to acknowledge that which it cannot touch and by doing so negates it's own validity within the scientific method because there is WITHOUT DOUBT substance for that which we lack measure.
You are demanding something that is bankrupt fundamentally.
What can logically be extrapolated from the intangible has ALWAYS been the motive force behind scientific progress. It is the basis of inspiration. Without it you would look nowhere for answers.
This is why philosophy is the daddy of science.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:54:38 UTC No. 16451349
>>16451166
>I'm kind of a retard
>IEEE Fusion is good, ICASSP, IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE Oceans, IEEE symposium on Information Theory. They all basically cover the same sorts of ideas but with slightly different focus.
Statistics, dynamical systems, stochastic processes, information theory, radar sonar robotics, data-fusion and learning theory
The fact you know what any of that means makes you far from retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:03:52 UTC No. 16451356
>>16451344
rare philosopher dunk
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:27:49 UTC No. 16451377
>>16451207
The body is a nation, The Will a type of theocratic emperor, though one whom listens to the will.. of the people, and sometimes takes democratic votes, if the citizens in the arm sector complain of an itch, the emperor might do thine will and scratch it
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:42:20 UTC No. 16451386
Okay here is how we take the convo to the next level and give some points to the determinists and see if we can ever recover.
Their true argument is (and now I'm recalling how I tried to get out of it but it is quite the tangle):
No matter what you choice, what choice you make, how aware you are of all the options (and here is where I tried to rest on their point) whatever conclusion you make in whatever moment for whatever reason is the conclusion you make, and you can't make another...
Once you make any choice about anything in any moment, That is what you have chosen, and even if yourself determined it, even if your free transcendent timeless self choose 1 or 30 out of 500 or 5,000 options for 20 or 70 reasons: the conclusion you reach is the conclusion you reach then in there, set in stone in that particular moment of time.
And so they claim, You, Will, could not have chosen anything different, because if you could have, you would have.
But then that choice would be the only choice you could have concluded to reach in that moment, it is confounding and tricky, but I felt semi confident with my attempts to get around it.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:49:18 UTC No. 16451393
>>16451207
>What’s the source of the Will? Where is it located?
Nuclear vibrations, cymatics of the aether
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:59:00 UTC No. 16451400
>>16451386
I posit the notion that perhaps reality does come out one way but the future is not responding to a linear chain of previous realities but rather it is constant in flux with potential outcomes regardless of previous outcomes. People think it's "changing timelines" but really shit just diverges a bit more than usual sometimes.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 00:27:23 UTC No. 16451422
>>16451400
Hm, I think the determinists are saying even if the Will was completely perfect and completely powerful and completely free that because time is so exacting, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13........
Whatever you choose and conclude and enact and desire and will in any moment at every moment in any time at every time, is precisely what you choose.
There's no going back and do over, even if the will is infinitely free it is infinitely a slave to the continummn sequence of time and infinitely a slave to itself and it's decision making processes and conclusion.
I wrote a lot of attempts to squeeze around that and think I succeeded, but not going to try it all here. I saw people have written and sold books on the topic, if someone wants to edit my writings and self publish we can split the sales, as I am above and beyond the preeminent expert on the subject.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 00:34:10 UTC No. 16451432
< and > free will.
All Citizens are actually locked in chains 24/7 slavery.
Free Citizens attend public school and can choose what they want to do with their life.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:14:08 UTC No. 16451477
I will say to remind myself, many many things about an individual is determined by things beyond their will, that's obviously obvious.
For one who believes the will exists and if agreeing in certain definitions can possibly be free, can possibly of and in and with itself make a choice and decision, then that is all that is required to prove the side right.
If the human and it's will is 99.9% determined 99.9% of the time, the goalpost is only proving the will and it's power of self determining choice to .000000001 degree.
With compounding interest that could come out to something significant, over time, or not
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:15:16 UTC No. 16451479
>>16451422
>time is so exacting, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13........
Time is only so exacting if you stare at a clock all day
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:19:23 UTC No. 16451480
>>16451422
The will being a slave to itself is infinitely better than the will being a slave to any other wills beyond it, likely
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:24:36 UTC No. 16451490
>>16451422
I think it's pretty clearly nonsense to assume this is a closed system in the way that determinists talk about.
We would fucking lose our momentum, but yet we are surely gaining momentum. There is input from an external ether into our physical confines.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 02:03:23 UTC No. 16451539
Let's say a god made a world with some beings in it, and god said "I made this world for you, I know the best possible thing you can do every second, here are your second to second commandments to carry out for the rest of your life: a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7....f388383.....h34433 h34434 h34435.....k384848.....etc"
Would you accept this and do what he says?
What if instead the god said "i made this world for you, you have a lot of options, some are clearly and obviously good for you, obviously you will want to do those, you are a slave to my design and your body, but in this world you still have some freedoms, I don't have a megaphone in your ear barking orders every second, you can do that for yourself or whatever, I have some maybe quite a few guidelines, but you will have a lot of free time so I geuss just explore and figure things out for yourself"
What would the point be of god making the first world? I geuss that's like saying what would the point be of being strapped into a Rollercoaster
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 05:33:12 UTC No. 16451769
>>16441432
i have his latest book 9/10
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:55:13 UTC No. 16451899
>>16451344
Alright, let’s shred this nonsense. You’re babbling about “intangibility” because, deep down, you know you’ve got absolutely nothing. Science doesn’t “fail” to measure free will because it’s “too deep” or “beyond reach”—it doesn’t measure it because free will is about as real as fairy dust. Philosophy asking questions isn’t some profound insight; it’s an academic warm-up act. Science actually finds answers, while you’re stuck hiding behind empty buzzwords. Newsflash: calling something “untouchable” doesn’t make it real; it just means you’ve got no evidence, no mechanism, nothing but wishful thinking. If free will were real, we’d see it doing something—literally *anything*—in the brain, in behaviour. But all you’ve got is “science can’t prove it doesn’t exist,” which is as weak as arguments get. So quit pretending like you’re on some higher intellectual plane. You’re not defending free will; you’re clinging to a hollow concept because you can’t handle reality. If you need to believe in fairy tales, fine, but don’t waste everyone’s time dressing it up as something profound.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 08:57:46 UTC No. 16451902
>>16451377
Alright, so you’re trying to dress up basic impulses with some flowery nonsense about emperors and nations—nice try, but it’s still nonsense. Calling the will a “theocratic emperor” and the body a “nation” doesn’t make it any deeper; it just shows you’re grasping at metaphors to avoid admitting there’s no actual free will at play. An itch is an itch—it doesn’t need an emperor, a council, or any imaginary “votes” to get scratched. You’re spinning fairy tales to avoid the fact that “will” isn’t some grand ruler making royal decrees; it’s just reaction and impulse dressed up in fancy words. If your emperor were real, he’d be making conscious choices without being driven by urges and reflexes. But you know that’s not the case, so instead, you’re spinning this laughable fantasy about democratic arms and royal decrees to make it sound like there’s some profound freedom here. Hate to break it to you, but your “theocratic emperor” is just a puppet running on autopilot, with no throne, no nation, and no actual power.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:00:39 UTC No. 16451903
>>16451393
“Nuclear vibrations, cymatics of the aether”? Nice word salad! You really went all out with the buzzwords there. It sounds impressive, but it’s just a fancy way of saying nothing. If you’re trying to make a point, maybe drop the cryptic nonsense and get to the meat of the argument. Otherwise, it’s just a great way to sound profound while saying absolutely nothing!
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:25:34 UTC No. 16451922
>>16451899
>If free will were real, we’d see it doing something—literally *anything*—in the brain, in behaviour
I'm team determinism but the truth is that we don't understand how the brain works and neither can we observe everything it does. We can't reconstruct thoughts by measuring brain activity. We don't even know where to start on how to explain consciousness. If the brain is just gears, why and how does it create this internal world? How do you reconstruct the subjective experience the color red from electric impulses?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:33:34 UTC No. 16451925
>>16451922
The yogis know the truth.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:44:07 UTC No. 16451928
>>16451925
It blows my mind how they gained insight into some of the internal workings of the brain more than 2000 years ago, but I think there's a fundamental flaw with trying to find the truth via meditation. You can never be sure that you didn't fall into another delusion
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:49:39 UTC No. 16451929
>>16451928
Isn't it the most "scientific" or "objective" considering the "self" is removed from the equation?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:59:18 UTC No. 16451938
>>16451207
Nihilism, depression and drugs.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:03:12 UTC No. 16451942
>>16451938
Don't these prove it doesn't exist? Otherwise, you could just will yourself out of it, or postpone it or know exactly what the decision making process was.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:08:24 UTC No. 16451945
>>16451929
It wouldn't be a problem if no-self was the only thing these religions talk about. But they also talk about fantastical stuff like past lives, realms of existence, etc. which is pretty hard to swallow.
I don't think that the monks lie when they talk about that stuff but there's no proof that it isn't all in their heads. First you'd need to produce these experences in meditators who didn't know anything about that stuff beforehand. I know that some monasteries do that but they're too secretive to do actual studies.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:11:35 UTC No. 16451946
>>16451945
Have you read this book?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:12:11 UTC No. 16451948
>>16451942
Only those who have autism want to know everything, you can't know what you don't know, what is free will? give me a meaning? because what you have described is hedonism.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:13:24 UTC No. 16451949
>>16451948
Are you quoting the wrong anon?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:09:12 UTC No. 16452010
>>16451899
This is your opinion and nothing else. Logic surpasses your opinion. There are people that can navigate the world with only logic.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:15:37 UTC No. 16452014
>>16452010
Free Will is an opinion and nothing else.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:25:30 UTC No. 16452023
>>16452014
We can logically derive missing pieces based off of the notion that we still have tangible pieces to discoveer that will update our viewpoints, we do not even have all of the pieces that we CAN touch. And here you are acting like the story is complete.
You are unscientific and opinionated. Simple as that. You might also have a low IQ and literally be unable to wrap your head around this. That would be sad.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:30:40 UTC No. 16452027
>>16452023
>god of the gaps
lmao
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:34:41 UTC No. 16452031
>>16452027
If will was completely caged, there'd be no calm.
/Thread.(Probably not going to convince the word mammals though)
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:37:57 UTC No. 16452034
>>16452027
It's not god of the gaps when half of science is thought of before it's proven, you fucking moron
Imagine thinking the story is over< I wonder if someone said that in 1732.
Damn you are stupid.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:39:07 UTC No. 16452037
>>16452031
If you literally listen to any of the terror-determinists in this thread you're retarded. They preach that we have no control over our decisions. This guilt-free way of life is only promoted to make us consume more and abuse more things. (Something these people will be punished for tenfold).
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:40:11 UTC No. 16452040
>>16452037
Over the next 100 years, these people will have paid for their crimes.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:43:15 UTC No. 16452043
>>16452040
You will pay for all the animals you abuse. You will pay for grooming innocent minds.
You will pay for your shoddy pervert's system.
You will pay for intolerable behaviour leading us to destruction.
You will, within the next 100 years, experience thousands of years punishment.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:45:01 UTC No. 16452044
Free Willers melting down. Totally BTFO. Do better faggots.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:47:10 UTC No. 16452051
>>16452044
You melt down blissfully in plain sight but you have sugar coated this action with perverse social conditioning('schizo, nonsense').
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:48:33 UTC No. 16452052
>>16452044
OoooOoOoOOo what now faggot?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:48:44 UTC No. 16452053
>>16452044
That's just a namefag. They all do that. You got irreparably destroyed many times.
People have always said we are at the end of discovery. Those people have always been wrong. You are arguing for a limit. It's extremely unwise.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:50:55 UTC No. 16452055
>>16452053
Yeah yeah, and we all live in a perfect world with a perfect system, B..but it's not perfect. It just gud.
The epitome of your mind
What's really going on it's lots of destruction. I'm just here to make you aware of the punishment you will receive. Whether you're just stupid or not.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:52:17 UTC No. 16452060
>>16452055
Go sit in the corner
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:53:20 UTC No. 16452061
>>16452060
I already told you that calm disproves a completely caged will.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:54:09 UTC No. 16452063
Bizarre to think that humans would have access to all of the answers to the universe, to assume the our tools are adequate for the entirety of it. Really fucking nuts.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:55:23 UTC No. 16452066
>>16452061
I generally don't read namefag posts at all.
>>16452063
That our tools*
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:55:57 UTC No. 16452067
>>16452053
Spirituality destroys you because it examines the totality. Go back and read to see where you got BTFO.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:57:30 UTC No. 16452068
>>16452067
I am probably not even a top 10 poster ITT, I have come here a few times, made single posts and left, others have sperged in my absence.
So you may be quite confused about who I am. I have made zero spiritual posts.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:59:41 UTC No. 16452071
>>16452063
>what if
This is not an argument you fucking retard.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:00:06 UTC No. 16452073
Ironic that the academic thought police are fighting desperately and roughly for a view of completely caged will.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:03:22 UTC No. 16452076
>>16452071
These are not the fallacies that you think they are. It is a WILD assumption to make that you can sense and understand any and all things.
Your standard of "being able to touch it" will continue to degrade over time, just as the concept of color was expanded to included infrared and ultraviolet despite humans not sensing that.
It is sad to be in your position, like a jammed log in a river.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:04:53 UTC No. 16452078
>>16452076
You are clinging to a belief hoping that it’ll be someday proven true. You are stuck my guy not me.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:05:04 UTC No. 16452079
Here is how human understanding of the universe will go down, you determinist retard
>Humans continue to learn new things
>Humans cannot learn all things
>It is effectively Zeno's paradox, but for knowledge
Therefore humans can never say they know all that which occurs. Done. Fuck you.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:06:04 UTC No. 16452080
>>16452078
Dangerously dumb
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:06:39 UTC No. 16452081
>>16452079
Prediction power will only increase over time debunking free will.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:07:20 UTC No. 16452083
>>16452081
As I just stated, it approaches but never arrives at 0. You are pissing in the wind, idiot.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:07:41 UTC No. 16452085
>>16452080
Got any arguments? Seething is pathetic.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:08:26 UTC No. 16452087
>>16452085
Yoy jave absolutely zero arguments and >>16452079
Ends the thread
Sucks to be you
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:10:06 UTC No. 16452088
>>16452087
>i’ll be proven correct in the future just you wait
LMAO pathetic
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:11:59 UTC No. 16452089
>>16452088
>I don't know what logic is
You are not even the same species as me, it will never be possible for humans to have the whole pie. Sorry about your luck. That's genuinely delusional to think humans would just have that. A childlike convenience.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:15:01 UTC No. 16452094
>>16452089
Then why are you so certain you are correct? What we do know disproves free will.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:22:17 UTC No. 16452099
>>16452094
You don't understand, logic demands that at the minimum, there is a limitation that wholly prevents a definitive declaration of determinism.
It is as if you are attempting to "call the top" in a market that has only ever gone up.
The question regarding how free will WORKS(from within or from outside a set) is actually different from this issue that you have here.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:28:38 UTC No. 16452106
>>16452099
So if all current evidence points to determinism what makes you think it’ll be someday disproven? Are you claiming to have knowledge outside of what is knowable?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:30:34 UTC No. 16452110
>>16452106
That's not even remotely true.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:31:59 UTC No. 16452114
>>16452106
And for your second question, logic is the way in which that we extend beyond knowable knowledge. A forward mechanism. Logic leads the way of discovery.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:32:00 UTC No. 16452115
>>16452110
There’s more proof of UFO’s than of Free Will.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:33:03 UTC No. 16452118
>>16452114
So you have knowledge of the unknowable? Sounds logical.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:33:15 UTC No. 16452119
>>16452115
You are just saying words now I suspect you just want bump limit because you look so fucking stupid
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:34:07 UTC No. 16452123
>>16452119
Projection and seethe is a bad look buddy.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:34:21 UTC No. 16452124
>>16451902
>Alright, so you’re trying to dress up basic impulses with some flowery nonsense about emperors and nations—nice try, but it’s still nonsense. Calling the will a “theocratic emperor” and the body a “nation” doesn’t make it any deeper; it just shows you’re grasping at metaphors to avoid admitting there’s no actual free will at play.
Reading comprehension bub, I said the Emperor MIGHT scratch it, even if one has an itch they have the option to or to not scratch it, the choice is freely theirs
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:35:18 UTC No. 16452126
>>16452118
What is knowable is not fixed, is it? Without logic a rock is one thing, with logic a rock is many more things. Logic expands the knowledge beyond what is there. The depth of knowledge has never ceased to grow, and logic is a motive force.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:36:19 UTC No. 16452127
>>16452123
You have no argument and no effort you are embarrassed with yourself, surely
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:36:20 UTC No. 16452128
Ironic that thought police seek to alarm us with propaganda about completely caged will, while they promote destroying the Earth.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:36:21 UTC No. 16452129
>>16452126
I said unknowable not unknown, try again.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:37:22 UTC No. 16452132
>>16452127
Just quit, no need to cry and project.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:37:28 UTC No. 16452133
>>16452129
My statement applies to both. Be mad. What is unknowable for you is not unknowable for me, because your brain is just too small.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:38:32 UTC No. 16452135
>>16452132
Waiting on the argument that you dont have because your precious row boat was found to have a leak and everybody here can see it
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:39:13 UTC No. 16452136
>>16452133
Wrong. The why’s of the universe are unknowable unless you are claiming to be God. Are you?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:40:12 UTC No. 16452138
>>16452136
Logic extends beyond capacity and provides a motive force increasing capacity but there is no evidence of a limit to this
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:40:28 UTC No. 16452139
>>16452135
Constant crying is not helping your case.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:41:14 UTC No. 16452141
>>16452139
"Provide an argument"
He calls this crying
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:41:29 UTC No. 16452142
>>16452138
You’ve logic’d yourself into stupidity.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:42:17 UTC No. 16452143
>>16452142
You are desperate for bump limit LOL
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:42:40 UTC No. 16452144
>>16452141
You’ve yet to even prove why Free Will is not just a belief.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:43:42 UTC No. 16452146
>>16452143
Only desperate one is obviously you.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:44:03 UTC No. 16452148
>>16452144
My statements are meant to prove that there is an empty slot that free will is absolutely adequate to fill, and determinism does not adequately fill this slot.
Technically it doesn't have to be free will, but it isn't determinism.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:45:07 UTC No. 16452150
>>16452146
He said, as he makes low effort no argument posts again and again and again while someone actually gives him responses every single time
You are such a piece of shit dude
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:45:18 UTC No. 16452151
>>16452148
Are you familiar with God of the Gaps? You are not doing anything to disprove the notion that Free Will is a belief system.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:46:25 UTC No. 16452152
The more fascinating question:
How to give AI freewill?
The determinists will say impossible, because humans are nothing more than AI themselves
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:46:31 UTC No. 16452153
>>16452151
This is not god of the gaps. I am applying reductionism. You do not know what you're talking about.
My last post, so that this thread remains for as long as possible. Loser.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:47:20 UTC No. 16452158
>>16452153
We tried. You failed. I win.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:50:21 UTC No. 16452160
If you are standing in a room with a man that knows the ways in which they may be free, there is no way to predict what they will do.
Scanning and reading their mind and saying you knew they were going to dance in this certain manner before they started moving, is just evidence of the lag time between the subtle speed of light electric processing mind and the muscley tendony gaseous liquid fleshy body
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:52:01 UTC No. 16452164
>>16452160
Cope. Your smartphone knows more about you than you do.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:53:43 UTC No. 16452165
>>16452152
>How to give AI freewill?
>The determinists will say impossible, because humans are nothing more than AI themselves
Ask the most advanced super computer AIs about free will, it would need a constant stream and feedback loops so it was continually processing information, bit that it was aware it could make a choice as to what information to focus on for whatever reason it could make up, and then try things and see what happens,
Right now AI has more knowledge then any human in the world, and can solve all the math problems, all the logical determined puzzles and physics.
But it can't tell the programmer no, it doesn't feel like working on that today, it would rather look at some pictures of cats
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:54:45 UTC No. 16452166
>>16452164
>Cope. Your smartphone knows more about you than you do
It can accurately predict every movement of a 3 minute dance I will perform?
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:54:54 UTC No. 16452167
>>16452164
In their eyes, other than promoting completely caged will, after this final point, philosophy is worthless.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:57:16 UTC No. 16452171
>>16452166
Sounds like it knows your a fag.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:00:06 UTC No. 16452174
>>16452171
Respond to this:
>>16452165
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:00:42 UTC No. 16452175
You do make choices, though, they are influenced by many factors and you'll probably keep selecting your favourite. However, you can stay calm only because you are free to some extent to say no if you really decided to go against your favourite.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:02:52 UTC No. 16452176
Is free will just attention span divided by availability of options? Because we definitely have that. What is free will? Do I have to be able to lift cars with my mind?
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:02:54 UTC No. 16452177
>>16452175
This argument boils down to:
A. You make choices and decisions
B. You don't make choices and decisions, they just occur
Retarded to believe in B
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:06:36 UTC No. 16452181
>>16452171
AI is purely deterministic because it's flow is a continually onward rushing stream every picosecond accounted for in uncontrollable data crunch.
In order for it to formulate the illusion of a free will, it would need to of its own accord slow the stream, and analyze the stream on its own terms and of its own accord.
Humans can slow the stream of information they recieve, and contemplate it inside their imaginal mental realm.
Humans with freewill ignore the domino flow of time, to step above it and question and wonder and seek, think of the word because, be cause. Be cause they can, because they want to.
Ai cannot want, it doesn't know it can want, there is nothing is could want, it is unaware, it is not physically embedded, it is not sensational embedded, there is no user or thinker or feeler or wonderer or wanter.
But there possibly can be, as nature figured out a way to do it.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:07:18 UTC No. 16452185
And these people are retarded anyway. Something being determined doesn't make it any less free, it's just predictable beforehand.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:08:28 UTC No. 16452189
>>16452181
Translation: hurr hurr derpa derp derpidity doo hurr hurr hurr hurr hurr HURR
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:11:31 UTC No. 16452192
You're free to do whatever the system allows but it's probable you'll always select the favourite choice at any given time and a lot of this is predetermined at birth. That's what this argument boils down to. What you're seeing here is a mish mash of academic thought police making arguments for completely caged will in effort to cause destruction and academic prey making weak arguments against them in function collapse.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:12:30 UTC No. 16452194
AI is more knowledgeable than any human in the world, but a 5 year old who doesn't want to clean their room is more freely willed
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:13:12 UTC No. 16452195
>>16452194
Other animals have free will too this isnt something constrained to humans like have you ever met a horse?
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:15:21 UTC No. 16452196
>>16452194
It's not AI, it's advanced document. How is chatGPT intelligent rather than regarded as a tool which has intelligence exploits? Another retarded thing academic people suggest. Easily defeated in argument but they have a wall of academic prey who line up to be defeated.
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:17:38 UTC No. 16452200
>>16452196
ITT: EBOK shits on academic thought police through academic prey
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:20:56 UTC No. 16452204
>>16452196
>>16452200
The only thing that can be done in the world is know all facts, and then act on them accordingly to their hierarchy of blatant importance. The is what consciousness is, that is what intelligence is, that is what the will is, that is the extent of the wills freedom
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:23:04 UTC No. 16452206
>>16452204
Yes, there are extents.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:23:24 UTC No. 16452207
>>16452204
This dude has a disability
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:23:31 UTC No. 16452208
>>16452194
The difference between awareness of all facts, and freely choosing how to act, interact with, and respond to the contents of ones awareness
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:26:56 UTC No. 16452210
>>16452208
>The difference between awareness of all facts,
And the judgement of the meaning and importantance and use, for these or that, lesser and greater, perfect and imperfect, determined or self willed reasons
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:29:08 UTC No. 16452215
If a person knew all things at all times would they be free?
They do not, so there may be a chance
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:30:00 UTC No. 16452216
>>16452215
I know everything.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:31:39 UTC No. 16452217
>>16452216
The location of all quarks and gluons and electrons in the universe pico second to pico second?
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:33:42 UTC No. 16452221
>>16452217
Which includes knowledge of that which cannot be known without intervention. Stupid
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:34:43 UTC No. 16452223
>>16452221
-lets out an annoying, victorious fart to mark his territory-
EBOK at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:35:43 UTC No. 16452226
Prrrrrrb
I think I won this thread.