Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 01:31:33 UTC No. 16608299
not me i dont
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 01:32:03 UTC No. 16608300
>>16608297
We clearly don't have free will because each week there's a paper claiming we do and the next week a paper claiming we don't, unable to break this cycle.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 02:13:49 UTC No. 16608333
>>16608297
we dont though
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 02:25:14 UTC No. 16608344
I don't know
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 05:03:18 UTC No. 16608465
what the fuck is the definition of free will? scientifically speaking.
people keep talking about it without a fucking definition for it. the lack of scientific definition makes it a non-scientific discussion, has no place in science unless there's a formal scientific definition for the hypothesis.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:02:23 UTC No. 16608508
>>16608297
>Neuroscientists Should Set a High Bar for Evidence against Free Will
No, they fucking shouldn't. Instead the people that postulate free will should present any evidence at all to begin with.
The fact that people expect to provide evidence of absence is bizarre and the same kind of shit religious people pull when you tell them their sky wizard is not real.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:22:41 UTC No. 16608520
>>16608465
How about this definition: Free will exists if and only if the processes in the person which causes them to make decisions cannot be modeled mathematically.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:30:03 UTC No. 16608535
>>16608520
that seems vague af. ANYTHING that cannot be mathematically modeled is free will then?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:33:34 UTC No. 16608539
>>16608535
Any *process in the person which causes the decision-making* that cannot be modeled mathematically.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:48:57 UTC No. 16608554
>>16608539
>You are the brain
>Also when we see brain activity that's your brain controlling you
Choose one retard.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:50:42 UTC No. 16608555
>>16608297
Prove it, freely choose to do otherwise instead of the thing you were going to do all along.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:50:48 UTC No. 16608556
>>16608539
shouldn't it include bits from the religious/philosophical frameworks around it? why else would you call it "free will"? you need to integrate whatever cultural legacy the concept has, else it must have a different name, not "free will".
if some non-deterministic aspect of our decision making isn't being able to be mathematically modeled that doesn't prove god is real. hence the need for a different name if you go that way. non-determinism isn't god, scientifically speaking. or else you need to formally define god, in science.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 06:53:19 UTC No. 16608557
>>16608539
Anything that can be observed can be modeled mathematically. If you observe a new process which doesn't have a perfect numerical solution, you can always just call it process x.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:00:26 UTC No. 16608563
>>16608554
Are you sure you replied to the right post? I don't see what part of your post addresses mine directly
>>16608556
I don't think the religious part needs to be included since it's just a distraction and religions are obviously wrong.
>if some non-deterministic aspect of our decision making isn't being able to be mathematically modeled
It shouldn't just be some aspect of it. It should be the part that is relevant for causing decision making imo. If we accept that the "quantum jumps" are fundamentally non-deterministic, that would not necessarily imply free will unless these non-deterministic quantum jumps are what cause the decision making.
>>16608557
What about probabilistic processes? You can describe the probabilities mathematically but you can't predict the outcome of a probabilistic event mathematically
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:01:13 UTC No. 16608565
>>16608297
If you need a scientific paper, or social consensus to tell you if you have free will or not, then you don't have it.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:05:16 UTC No. 16608568
>>16608297
define free will.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:06:52 UTC No. 16608570
>>16608563
>I don't think the religious part needs to be included since it's just a distraction and religions are obviously wrong.
you cannot shoehorn the religious free will concept into science like that. it needs a different name, or its definition must be tied into its religious meanings. religion doesn't get a free ride with this lol.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:09:57 UTC No. 16608574
>>16608563
>but you can't predict the outcome of a probabilistic event mathematically
doesn't mean god tho. you can mathematically model the statistical aspect of it. just because you cannot predict it doesn't imply god. else god decides when atoms decay. you'd need to prove that.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:12:49 UTC No. 16608575
>>16608570
It's a concept which predates religion. Religions just appropriated it or had problems with it since it contradicts divine omniscience or something. You are giving religions too much credit.
>>16608574
It doesn't have anything to do with god. See the above. It's just an empirical question about how human beings work.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:15:30 UTC No. 16608577
>>16608575
>human beings
*or any biological organism
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:16:40 UTC No. 16608578
>>16608575
no issue with stating our decision making is governed by non-deterministic events. that's absolutely fine.
but you need to call it by a different name. "free will" has too much meaning and it's irrelevant without the religious bloat.
you cannot proudly wear a Swastika because it has some older meaning. people in western culture associate it with nazis, end of.
any attempt to shoehorn the "free will" concept into science is a disingenuous religious attempt
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:21:45 UTC No. 16608579
>>16608563
>You can describe the probabilities mathematically but you can't predict the outcome of a probabilistic event mathematically
So free will isn't about being unable to create math models now and the wind and any 3 arbitrary physical bodies have free will too?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:23:05 UTC No. 16608580
>>16608578
>no issue with stating our decision making is governed by non-deterministic events
Just to be clear, I'm not stating this is true. I'm just suggesting an empirical definition of free will.
>any attempt to shoehorn the "free will" concept into science is a disingenuous religious attempt
This is more of a political question about which terms to use. Your solution is to stop using the term because of religious connotations but another possibility is to take back the term from the religious and strip it of all the religiosity. Like how LGBT groups reclaimed the term queer which was originally used pejoratively.
>>16608579
These processes also have to be crucial to the decision making of biological entities.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:26:02 UTC No. 16608581
>>16608580
but notice how keen you are on keeping the specific "free will" phrase. instead of chosing something more relevant to today's understanding. it's like you're masking your religious desires in science clothes.
if there's one thing I've learned, it's the absolute drive, with every fiber of their being, of religious people to use any means necessary, no matter how intellectually disingenuous, to shove their ideas into everything, no matter the cost or approach, by any means with any cost. so forgive me for trying to make sure.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:26:04 UTC No. 16608582
>>16608580
>These processes also have to be crucial to the decision making of biological entities.
The weather and movement of the earth, moon, and sun are incredibly crucial to any biological entity's ability to make decisions.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:28:13 UTC No. 16608584
>>16608580
So if its about making arbitrary decisions in reaction to the environment instead of freely acting out any and every internal desire why call it free will instead of just physically limited capacity for decision making?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:30:30 UTC No. 16608587
>>16608581
I'm fine with using other terms too if it turns out to be more politically expedient.
>>16608582
But if you're making a model of the biological entity, many or all of the probabilistic processes in the earth can be ignored. For example, you don't need to know what the mass of the earth is in order to know how dna works.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:32:50 UTC No. 16608589
>>16608587
>For example, you don't need to know what the mass of the earth is in order to know how dna works.
Tell that to the astronauts whose dna and biological processes are all deteriorating with respect to the length of time they spend outside of earth's gravity.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:34:35 UTC No. 16608591
>>16608587
>many or all of the probabilistic processes in the earth can be ignored. For example, you don't need to know what the mass of the earth is in order to know how dna works.
Knowing the temperature and other environmental process will definitely help you determine why a person would choose to wear a sweater or hold an umbrella.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:35:37 UTC No. 16608592
>>16608584
So you can just assume the entity is in some standard environment with a standard gravitation field if you want to. You still don't need to know the composition of the earth's core to know how dna works
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:37:10 UTC No. 16608594
>>16608592
This is meant for >>16608589
For >>16608584, I'm not sure what you're saying. Maybe you can rephrase it?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:37:57 UTC No. 16608596
>>16608587
>let's lie to everybody for a greater purpose
yeah science is about that innit
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:38:17 UTC No. 16608597
>>16608591
There could be a deterministic model of the person where you have separate variables for the surrounding temperature, etc. Even if the atmostpheric processes are chaotic, that's irrelevant here
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:40:43 UTC No. 16608598
>>16608592
>You still don't need to know the composition of the earth's core to know how dna works
And you can definitely prove your theory that the composition and effect of earth's core doesn't effect the mathematical model of dna functionality for earth based organisms?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:43:09 UTC No. 16608600
>>16608594
I am saying that the decision making model you are describing has nothing to do with freedom of one's will to power, so why call it free will instead of limited physical capacity for making arbitrary decisions?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:47:54 UTC No. 16608603
>>16608596
It's not even a lie. It's just a question of what terms to use.
>>16608598
The evidence is in my favor since biology articles explaining how DNA works don't usually refer to the composition of the earth's core.
>>16608600
What do you mean by "freedom of one's will to power"? If you can define such a thing empirically, that could be a possible definition too and the different definitions could be compared.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 07:53:46 UTC No. 16608606
>>16608603
>articles explaining how DNA works don't usually refer to the composition of the earth's core.
They assume the organism is on earth and earth's gravity and environment play a major role and definitely mention how the radiation from the sun and other factors can alter the components and genetic expression of DNA.
>What do you mean by "freedom of one's will to power"?
So you are assuming free will exists but you don't even have a functional definition of either freedom or will?
>If you can define such a thing empirically,
They already are if you would have bothered to look up definitions in advance instead of proving that you just haven't even done the basic due diligence to understand the base terms of the phrase you are parroting and defending.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:00:43 UTC No. 16608609
>>16608606
If, as you think, no explanation of the working of dna could be given without explaining all of the environment in exact detail, then no one would bother to study dna. The fact is, the study of dna exists and you can make many models of how dna works without worrying too much about the sun, moon, etc.
>So you are assuming free will exists but you don't even have a functional definition of either freedom or will?
I'm not assuming it exists, I'm just giving a definition which can be tested empirically.
>They already are if you would have bothered to look up definitions in advance instead of proving that you just haven't even done the basic due diligence to understand the base terms of the phrase you are parroting and defending.
It's not a standard term in scientific circles so you should try to explain what you mean if you want to discuss it
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:09:57 UTC No. 16608615
>>16608609
>then no one would bother to study dna.
Sure, without lies to children and cognitive dissonance, children probably would never try to study complicated things at all and people would never have the confidence to publish their theories that they know are probably largely not entirely true anyway.
>you can make many models of how dna works without worrying too much about the sun, moon, etc.
Yea and you can make models of radio broadcasting and disseminate radio programs without understanding anything about electromagnetism, but that doesn't mean that radio isn't mathematically dependent on underlying laws of electromagnetism at the end of the day.
>I'm just giving a definition which can be tested empirically.
No, you are implying you are basing your defense of free will on a well formed empirical definition of free will while chastising other for there being no real definitive empirical definition of free will in the first place.
>so you should try to explain what you mean if you want to discuss it
You have been discussing it ITT longer than me without having a clear definition of what you are discussing while incrementally distancing yourself from the decisions being entirely free or being based on internal desires rather than external impositions.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:18:50 UTC No. 16608620
>>16608615
It isn't mathematically dependent in the sense that you don't need to derive the properties of the radio from the mathematics of electromagnetism if you want a good model of how the radio operates.
> while chastising other for there being no real definitive empirical definition of free will in the first place.
Not sure where you think I did that
>without having a clear definition of what you are discussing
My first post here >>16608520 offers a definition.
>incrementally distancing yourself from the decisions being entirely free or being based on internal desires rather than external impositions.
If you can make a predictive model of humans which contains parameters or variables like "internal desires" which can be measured empirically, I'm open to that
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:24:34 UTC No. 16608625
>>16608620
nta but choices stemming from non deterministic events isn't "free will", it's rather freedom of choice, in the sense that your choices are not deterministically bound. you can have random ones pop up, thus you get freedom of choice which isn't deterministically bound by the environment. similar to some idea that pops up that solves a problem. never popped in before, you didn't have a better choice. but once it pops into existence you get extra choice. if it is due to some non deterministic events, it offers extra freedom that cannot be predicted.
but that is not what free will colloquially means. hence why I argued against using the phrase in previous posts.
the way free will is understood is translated to pure insanity in scientific terms. need different phrase for a different concept.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:29:34 UTC No. 16608631
>>16608620
>My first post here >>16608520 offers a definition.
But you immediately retracted that definition at the first bit of scrutiny and started talking about non-determinism and biological entities' empiricism instead of mathematical models.
>If you can make a predictive model of humans which contains parameters or variables like "internal desires" which can be measured empirically,
The Sims already did that decades ago.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:31:48 UTC No. 16608632
>>16608625
This is false. Free will regards freedom of choice as well as other sensible things. It's where the deep question arised.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:34:20 UTC No. 16608635
>>16608625
>choices stemming from non deterministic events isn't "free will"
I know this is often said in these discussions but imagine that there exist advanced commercial brain scanners in the future which can predict your decisions by taking a quick scan of your brain and then predicting your next decisions with sufficient mathematical accuracy. I think such hypothetical devices could be used in ways that many people would say would violate their "free will". So I think the non-determinism can't just be said to irrelevant to the question of free will.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:36:15 UTC No. 16608638
>>16608631
I didn't retract it but I did clarify it some more since terms like "processes which cause" and "mathematical model" can be somewhat ambiguous.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:36:56 UTC No. 16608639
>>16608625 me
as in, you will always choose in a way that benefits some goal you have. the act itself is always determined by the choices you have available. there is no way to choose something which isn't available, it doesn't make logical sense. thus you will always make a choice out of all possible ones, always, and that includes NOT making a choice when you have to, you choose not to choose. thus defaulting to some external consequence of you not choosing.
the act of will is not in question, that is not free, it's always bound by some available pool of choices. else it's pure madness, mental issues, not what we currently call sane. it's insane, mental problems, acting without agency.
I'm pointing out the "will" part has nothing to do with any scientific discussion around the concept of "choice".
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:39:25 UTC No. 16608642
You are presented with a qualia.
You decide what to do based on that qualia and your own brain.
Thus free will exists.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:39:47 UTC No. 16608643
>>16608635
but that's literally impossible, you need to ignore the (even if small) possibility that a new non deterministic choice pops up in your head the last minute. you cannot steal that from humans, if they non deterministically pop up. you cannot ever rule the chance something new which isn't predictable might happen. thus you'd be wrong, as you'd encroach on freedom of choice.
your device might statistically work, and you could argue in favor of stealing freedom of choice from humans and in some cases wrongly punishing some, to bring down some bad behavior statistic. but you will steal freedom of choice, and you will wrongly punish with your brain scanner, due to the laws of this universe, and your inability to have 100% certainty over human choice and actions.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:40:30 UTC No. 16608644
>>16608639
Free will doesn't mean unbound will, it means it has freedom.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:42:42 UTC No. 16608645
>>16608638
>"mathematical model" can be somewhat ambiguous
No, the fact that mathematical models allow for perpetual ambiguity through the use of tools like variables, fuzzy math, probability, and arbitrary sets like aleph numbers completely refutes your original definition and gives everything free will and forced you to vaguely invoke entities that you might as well just be asserting as free will entities for your little circular argument.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:43:43 UTC No. 16608647
>>16608644
Freedom specifically means unlimited, partially limited is defined as restricted, not free.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:44:48 UTC No. 16608648
>>16608647
No it doesn't
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:46:19 UTC No. 16608649
>>16608508
Philosophers try to provide evidence of absence all the time and expect anyone who makes any claim to provide evidence. The idea that you can't provide evidence of absence is reddit-tier pseudophilosophy that only exists on the Internet
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:46:53 UTC No. 16608650
>>16608648
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/di
>the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited:
The word for "without being limited" is unlimited.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:50:00 UTC No. 16608652
>>16608650
Whatever you want is not 'anything'.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:52:18 UTC No. 16608653
>>16608643
Whether it's impossible or not is an empirical question, right? If such a device can exist and works very reliably, it would be a devastating blow to the concept of free will or freedom of choice or whatever you wish to call it and human socialization would be very different.
>>16608645
The mathematics can be as complicated as you like but they should be models ie they should be able to be used effectively to make predictions about the decisions which are taken.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:57:04 UTC No. 16608654
>>16608653
>If such a device can exist
you'd need to prove it can. if our pools of choices have any non deterministic aspect to it that device cannot logically exist. unless you can prove it by perfectly predicting when an atom will decay, and all that jazz. if you can't, your device is fantasy.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:58:38 UTC No. 16608657
>>16608652
You can't do whatever you want, you can only do what you are physically capable of doing, so your choices are limited, not by your wanting to choose them, but by your physical circumstances that allow you to.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:03:54 UTC No. 16608659
>>16608653
>Whether it's impossible or not is an empirical question, right?
Wrong. Empirical is information derived from your sensory experience and if something is impossible, then you can't possibly experience it to build an empirical understanding, so empiricism only relates to possible choices, not impossible ones that you can't possibly interact with empirically.
>they should be able to be used effectively to make predictions about the decisions which are taken.
Math can be used to make effective predictions about possible and physically impossible things which is why we have entire classes of infinities used for calculus despite the fact that an infinity is not possible to physically contain.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:04:59 UTC No. 16608660
>>16608657
I have the freedom, in some situations, to choose between right or left. In other situations there's a list of things I can choose. I am not controlled by external forces, there is an element of mind. I am the experiencer of an environment and sometimes I can put my own experience before the environment.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:07:05 UTC No. 16608661
>>16608654
It's an open question and one which has to be settled empirically is my point. There are many criticisms of the Libet experiment but if the results of the experiment are valid, you could say it's a very rudimentary and primitive model of how decisions can be predicted in advance.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:14:02 UTC No. 16608664
>>16608660
>I am not controlled by external forces
Except of course when you are in those "other situation" that force you left because of obstructions or other limitations on the right forcing your decision.
>there is an element of mind.
There is also an element of external force which is the exact opposite of freedom, no matter how much your little mind has to cope with being forced to make a decision.
>I am the experiencer of an environment
No, you are a reaction to your environment, your experience of deciding is just one such reaction, unintentionally reacting to physical force is another.
>sometimes
Yes that was my point, you are not actually free to impose your will on your environment, you just sometimes happen to experience something that aligns with what you wanted out of it, so you are not free to get what you want, your choice is limited by your environment and physical ability.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:16:16 UTC No. 16608665
>>16608661
>It's an open question
it's not. a Nobel says so
https://www.scientificamerican.com/
unless you can prove it you cannot predict some things. that's the state of things. anything else needs to be proven. your empirical bullshit is a joke.
>how decisions can be predicted in advance.
they cannot as it stands.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:18:35 UTC No. 16608668
>>16608664
I farted. Though I was tempted to fart by my submissive to environment bodily system, it was me who chose to fart. I pushed it out, possibly prematurely, and then I sniffed it cause I thought it would be pleasurable. This situation is quite restricted but there was the freedom of my will to have held the fart in, and not sniffed.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:19:00 UTC No. 16608669
>>16608659
One way to determine its impossibility empirically is if, even after getting a very good brain scan and having a very good theory of how the brain works and a computationally feasible way of making predictions using this theory, it is still impossible to predict the decision making of a human. That would suggest impossibility at the empirical level.
Dave at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:21:38 UTC No. 16608673
As someone here mentioned "free will" is a philosophical thing. Does my limited control of my body and brain count as a free will even though my motivations and desires cannot be really controlled?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:22:21 UTC No. 16608676
>>16608669
we can guess that some of you will be intellectually dishonest to push dogmatic ideas, but we cannot perfectly predict who's going to do it. sometimes you seem to grow up and choose the honest path. sometimes you don't.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:22:50 UTC No. 16608677
>>16608668
No, you fart because you can't perfectly control the movement of gas in your internal and external environments, no matter how much you would want to, so you have to deal with occasional aberrations where you have to either experience discomfort or release gas from your body.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:22:53 UTC No. 16608678
>>16608659
>Math can be used to make effective predictions about
We are talking about mathematical models which predict the decisions of living things here. I would say that the other mathematical predictions you mention are not about physically impossible things, but that is off topic to the thread
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:24:09 UTC No. 16608681
Vision spans a square from left to right and top to bottom, and proceeds outward in a conical fashion. Though trapped in a system, a person chooses to look either left or right sometimes. Meaning that there is an element of freedom to will.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:24:31 UTC No. 16608682
>>16608669
In other words, you don't know what empirical means and you think it has something to do with mathematical models instead of subjective sensation.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:25:56 UTC No. 16608684
>>16608677
You know this because you are an expert on fartology. You sniff farts all day long. It was beyond your control. The universe intends you do this - this is your life.
(There's no difference between determinism and 'God willed it'.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:28:24 UTC No. 16608686
>>16608682
The existence of good mathematical models of decision making is an empirical question, yes.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:28:25 UTC No. 16608687
>>16608678
>We are talking about mathematical models
No, you are trying to conflate mathematical models with empiricism when they are two entirely different and often exact opposite things.
>I would say that the other mathematical predictions you mention are not about physically impossible things
Except they do put physically impossible things in The Sims games that they allow sims to choose to do even though real people like you could not, so it is entirely possible to use math to model and simulate physical impossibilities.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:30:06 UTC No. 16608688
>>16608684
I accept your concession. You only fart because fart experts force you to, there is no will involved at all on your part.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:30:39 UTC No. 16608689
>>16608686
you're clueless with your empirical shit
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:32:25 UTC No. 16608694
>>16608687
Where is the conflation happening? Do you not agree that whether or not there is a computer program to calculate the specified digit of pi is an empirical question?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:34:29 UTC No. 16608697
>>16608686
No, it isn't, mathematical models have nothing to do with sensory experience, you can model various elements of sensory experience with a variety of often conflicting mathematical models which is how we get to a point where people accepts that everything can be modeled as either points and waves.
The Sims are based on good mathematical models so good that they are able to be physically simulated on a variety of devices, but that doesn't mean sims quasi-random unpredictable decision making is reflective of their individual free will.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:36:07 UTC No. 16608699
>>16608694
>pi is an empirical question
No, you have no direct sensory experience of pi, it is entirely logical and semantic, you clearly have no idea what empirical means which is what I mean when I say you are conflating empiricism with mathematical modelling.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:38:08 UTC No. 16608701
>>16608697
Your example of the sims is of a model which makes predictions about the patterns of pixels on your computer screen. It doesn't say much or anything about decisions made by humans.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:40:58 UTC No. 16608703
>>16608699
I'm not asking about sensory experiences of numbers. I'm asking about the sensory experience which can tell you to look at the world around you and see if some computer can make calculations which you would agree calculate the specified digit of pi. That's an empirical question.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:43:56 UTC No. 16608705
>>16608297
we neurofags have real work to do
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:46:40 UTC No. 16608708
You people are fucking spasticated and evil, of course there is free will. It's that part about life that makes life, life, and not a movie or a video game. We choose ourselves no matter what influences that choice. Life is choosing in the wake of lots of influences.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:52:44 UTC No. 16608718
>>16608701
The Sims is specifically about modeling simulated human behavior, have you never heard of The Sims or somehow now math can't even apply to humans at all and you can't model or simulate them even though your entire argument is based on using math to model human decisions?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 09:57:36 UTC No. 16608719
>>16608703
>I'm not asking about sensory experiences of numbers.
Yes you are, you have specifically tried to assert that empiricism is about the ability to make numerical models regarding decisions.
>calculations which you would agree calculate the specified digit of pi.
Pi is not empirical, calculations are not sensations you have no direct sensation of pi, your question is still about your intellectual experience of the language and concept of numbers rather than any direct physical sensation you have experienced.
>That's an empirical question.
No, its a logical question about the validity of a computer's calculation.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:09:00 UTC No. 16608721
>>16608718
I don't know why you're confusing video games with reality. The mathematical models of the "humans" in such video games are completely irrelevant to the functioning of humans in the real world.
>>16608719
Empiricism is what you do when you decide if some model (whether for making predictions about human decisions or anything else) works or not.
>No, its a logical question about the validity of a computer's calculation
Whether you consider a mathematical proof or a computer program as logical valid or not is an empirical question which will depend on the state of your brain as you look at the proof/computer program. What you define to be logically valid is ultimately a question of convention.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:33:20 UTC No. 16608730
>>16608557
We've had enough of unknown variables, thank you vary much.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:00:45 UTC No. 16608741
>>16608721
>I don't know why you're confusing video games with reality.
As a direct demonstration of your confused conflation of mathematical modeling with direct empirical experiences.
If the mathematical models are irrelevant to the experience or decision making process, then your whole definition of free will completely falls apart.
>Empiricism is what you do when you decide if some model (whether for making predictions about human decisions or anything else) works or not.
No, empiricism has nothing to do with inventing models and simulations, it is in regards to direct sensation, that is my entire point and the reason you are clearly conflating mathematical models with empiricism.
>Whether you consider a mathematical proof or a computer program as logical valid or not is an empirical question
No, it is a logical and computational question since you have absolutely no direct sensational experience of semantics and linguistic conveniences like math proofs. An empirical question would be tell me when this pressure starts to hurt or tell me when this light is too bright or tell me which letters you see on the second row, not interpreting what those letters mean or if they accurate reflect what you want to see.
>What you define to be logically valid is ultimately a question of convention.
Then why did you just try to say it was an empirical sensation instead of a semantic convention?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:01:46 UTC No. 16608744
>>16608730
Then how many unknown variables are there?
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:16:06 UTC No. 16608747
ITT: retards with a phobia of control discuss how there is no freedom in life control.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:21:43 UTC No. 16608750
>>16608744
None
Is all accounted for, they just choose terribly
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:23:21 UTC No. 16608752
>>16608750
>None
How do you know you have had enough if you haven't had any?
>choose terribly
What?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:32:12 UTC No. 16608757
>>16608741
A mathematical model of decision making which works (make correct predictions about what decisions are made by actual humans) is obviously not irrelevant to the decision making of actual humans. What works for video game "humans" is completely irrelevant.
>An empirical question would be tell me when this pressure starts to hurt or tell me when this light is too bright or tell me which letters you see on the second row
By your logic, this isn't an empirical question either since you have no direct sensation of "pressure" or "light" or "second" or "row" or "letters". Obviously, this is absurd, and my conception of empiricism is more sensible because there are lots of concepts like "pressure" or "light" or "logical validity" which can be used as labels for certain empirical sensations in a somewhat systematic way without any problem.
> instead of a semantic convention?
Because the convention has already been decided in advance and you aren't using the model to reassess those conventions.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:34:06 UTC No. 16608759
>>16608752
Factors are factors anon, you can stare at them in the yogurth section picking poorly all day if you want, the products have every ingredient written and an expiration date, they will still choose wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:44:07 UTC No. 16608763
>>16608757
Mathematical models are mathematical models whether you are only modeling outcomes or also modeling the circumstances that lead to the outcomes, but either way mathematical models are not empirical experiences at all, they are mathematical calculations.
>What works for video game "humans" is completely irrelevant.
Then mathematical models are completely irrelevant since since video games sims are themselves composed the mathematical modeling of human behavior, since if it can't actually be modeled or simulated with math, then it isn't actually representing anything real, it is just another arbitrary computation puzzle.
> you have no direct sensation of "pressure" or "light" or "second"
Yes you do, you directly feel pressure with sensation from your nerves, you directly experience the sensation of light with the light sensitive cones in your eyes, and you directly experience time as chemicals moving with time delayed chemical reactions through ion channels in your central nervous system. Using your light sensitivity, you experience space in a plane of columns and rows and depth and letters as shapes dictated by the movement of light in space.
>my conception of empiricism is more sensible
No, you conception of empiricism is a conflation of mathematical modeling over direct sensation.
>Because the convention has already been decided in advance
Then why are you trying to argue against the convention of empiricism that has already been defined in advance as direct sensation instead of the symbolic abstraction of semantics and language?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:46:04 UTC No. 16608764
>>16608759
>Factors are factors
So list all the possible factors since there are no factors that are unknown to you.
>the products have every ingredient
So why do they always allow for certain amounts of bug parts, but they don't ever list bug parts as an ingredient?
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:56:46 UTC No. 16608766
>>16608763
>they are mathematical calculations.
What you call a mathematical calculation is a convention but that is irrelevant here because I'm not arguing about the definition of mathematical calculations. I'm talking about the existence of certain mathematical models which can predict human behavior. That is an empirical question.
>are themselves composed the mathematical modeling of human behavior
If you really want to call these video games as simulations as models of human behavior, fine, go ahead. But they are terrible models because they have close to zero predictive power about what is actually being talked about - human decision making. I am talking about good mathematical models of human behavior, not video games.
>Yes you do, [...]
No, by your logic, all of that is just interpretation and not empirical.
>trying to argue against the convention of empiricism that has already been defined in advance as direct sensation
I'm not the one arguing against this.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:14:34 UTC No. 16608779
>>16608766
>What you call a mathematical calculation is a convention
Yes, the convention associated with having to use abstract symbols to estimate quantitative values since you don't have a direct qualitative sensation that can be communicated to others.
>that is irrelevant here
No, it is incredibly relevant since to someone clearly confusing the map (mathematical calculation) with territory (empirical experience).
>I'm not arguing about the definition of mathematical calculations
You are trying to argue that the calculations of the experience are the exact same as the experience.
>If you really want to call these video games as simulations as models of human behavior, fine, go ahead
It is literally what the word simulation means, what exactly do you think The Sims is suppose to be simulating if not human behavior?
>they have close to zero predictive power
No, they are entirely predictive power that show how hungry people tend to eat. tired people tend to sleep, horny people tend to fuck, people that fuck tend to have kids, etc.
>I am talking about good mathematical models of human behavior, not video games.
If it is a good enough model to demonstrate human behavior and decision making in a simulated environment, it is good enough to be a representation of basic human behavior and decision making.
>No, by your logic, all of that is just interpretation and not empirical.
No, by my logic, experiencing the sensation of increasing pressure until it hurts is empirical, but experiencing increasing pressure until x pascals of pressure is a mathematical calculation since empiricism is qualitative while mathematical calculation is quantitative.
>I'm not the one arguing against this.
Empiricism is defined by dictionaries completely differently than you tried to define it before you walked back your faulty definition >>16608520.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:17:29 UTC No. 16608782
>>16608779
Who cares if the dictionary says it means a certain thing, it was written by a complete, possibly stupid, stranger.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:20:12 UTC No. 16608784
>>16608782
Logic you go by: dictionary says it means this, it was written by someone who's possibly stupid but I believe it whole heartedly.
Logic I go by: I reset my mind and take everything as it comes, making my own decisions.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:20:43 UTC No. 16608786
>>16608782
Because the discussion was about how anon is clearly trying to redefine terms like empiricism that have already been defined since before anon was born.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:26:15 UTC No. 16608790
>>16608779
>You are trying to argue that the calculations of the experience are the exact same as the experience.
Where did you get that?
>No, they are entirely predictive power that show how hungry people tend to eat. tired people tend to sleep, horny people tend to fuck, people that fuck tend to have kids, etc.
I can only assume you are trolling now. There are obviously many non-trivial differences between actual predictive models of human behavior and some dumb video game (which I've never played)
>increasing pressure until it hurts is empirical
No, by your logic, you have no sensation of pressure and no sensation of the causal link between pressure and pain so there's no way to confirm that it's the hypothetical pressure causing the pain.
>Empiricism is defined by dictionaries completely differently than you tried to define it before you walked back your faulty definition
I don't recall redefining empiricism at any point. I even pointed out how my definition of free will is empirical by analogizing it to other empirical questions in several posts like this >>16608694
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:34:10 UTC No. 16608793
>>16608790
>Where did you get that?
Where you tried to conflate mathematical models with empiricism.
>There are obviously many non-trivial differences between actual predictive models of human behavior and some dumb video game
That doesn't take anything away from all the non-trivial similarities and the correct predictions like that hungry people will try to eat and tired people will try to sleep.
>No, by your logic, you have no sensation of pressure
No, by my logic, pressure is directly sensed qualitatively rather than in some quantitative manner than can be directly exactly mathematically modeled.
>the causal link between pressure and pain so there's no way to confirm that it's the hypothetical pressure causing the pain.
Except of course by telling the person doing the test to stop applying more pressure so the pain stops intensifying in direct relationship to the release of pressure.
>I don't recall redefining empiricism at any point.
You explicitly tried to define it as something mathematically measurable by anything other than the person experiencing it and your post reference is you once again trying to insinuate that some mathematical construct like pi can be directly experience with sensory organs which is ridiculous by the traditional definition of empiricism that isn't some retard conflating empiricism with math models.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:37:37 UTC No. 16608794
>>16608793
"mathematical construct like pi can be directly experience with sensory organs"
Those are your words, not mine. I'm talking about the existence of computer programs which do certain tasks. That you don't think this is empirical means you are very confused.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:42:36 UTC No. 16608798
>>16608794
>I'm talking about the existence of computer programs which do certain tasks.
No, you are trying to conflate looking at a monitor with validating math models which is why you didn't say anything about the monitor just outputting a certain color or a certain shape, you tried to make it about experiencing pi directly which isn't how empiricism works at all, pi is irrelevant, you just wanted to shoehorn it in because you are trying to conflate calculation with empiricism.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:55:00 UTC No. 16608804
>>16608798
I never spoke about "experiencing pi" anywhere. I consider such a phrase as meaningless. Anyway, here is a guide for the perplexed
Examples of empirical questions:
>"Is there a dog in my house?"
>"Is there a mathematical proof that sqrt(2) is irrational?"
>"Will there be a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis within the next 50 years?"
>"Are there lifeforms with different genetic codes on this planet?"
>"Is there a computer program which can predict human behavior?"
Examples of non-empirical questions:
>"Is the number 6 tastier than a proton?"
>"Is the empty set really unique or is it only unique under the usual axioms of set theory?"
>"Did I really experience pi yesterday when I ate a pie?"
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:04:26 UTC No. 16608809
>>16608804
No you could say if you could see or hear a dog, but not if there is one someone in your house beyond your senses.
None of the numerical or abstract ones or ones based on hypothetical predictions are experienced directly.
>>"Is the number 6 tastier than a proton?"
Taste is definitely an empirical experience, though, it just doesn't apply to either of those things.
The thing about pi being pie is just nonsense for your wordplay since you are clearly trolling at this point.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:10:14 UTC No. 16608814
>>16608653
>Whether it's impossible or not is an empirical question, right?
No. It contradicts Game Theory.
Consider a game of rock paper scissors.
The optimal strategy (Nash equilibrium) of that game is to play rock 1/3 of the time, paper 1/3 of the time, and scissors 1/3 of the time, randomly.
Suppose your brain scanner existed, then you could always win RPS right?
Freedom of choice gives the agent the ability to decide to consciously play randomly.
For example, the agent could entangle themselves with something we know is indeterministic, like Schrödinger's cat.
Hence your brain scanner would fail to predict the outcome of the game of RPS.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:23:01 UTC No. 16608820
>>16608299
YOU WILL TAKE YOUR FREE WILL AND YOU WILL LIKE
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:24:48 UTC No. 16608821
>>16608814
I agree that if your decisions are decided by a quantum event or something else which is indeterministic, then they would be unpredictable. But what about the decisions that you take under ordinary circumstances? That's the more interesting case. There are, after all, plenty of things in the human body which do happen predictably.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:39:21 UTC No. 16608834
>>16608821
>That's the more interesting case.
No, that's the less interesting case.
If there's a Nash Equilibrium in pure strategies, then a rational agent will always just play the optimal strategy.
The brain scanner is not needed, all you need are the strategies and payoffs.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:51:03 UTC No. 16608842
>>16608834
And how good is the "rational agent" model of human behavior for predicting the behavior of actual human beings in realistic situations? If it's not very good, then it's no different from any other arbitrary model like the "Homer Simpson" model of human behavior and so on.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 13:56:46 UTC No. 16608845
>>16608842
If you can't predict a rational agent, then why would you expect an irrational agent to be any more predictable?
Yes, in reality people do make irrational choices, but we construct a model by starting with a simple case: that people are approximately rational.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:02:10 UTC No. 16608849
You people are mentally challenged. I stopped reading your debate for it's flawed in a retarded way. Academia made you all stupid. The for argument is weak enough that the stupid intolerable against argument can make gains. You are prey or evil.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:03:30 UTC No. 16608850
>>16608845
I agree that it can be somewhat useful as a first approximation. But it's possible that you can get much better models by not starting off with the rational/irrational distinction but instead something which is closer to the mechanics of brain function.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:12:53 UTC No. 16608857
>>16608850
Lets examine what a "brain scanner" would actually help with: games of incomplete information.
Why are they incomplete? The payoffs of the game are unknown.
Why are they unknown? There are two possibilities:
>The agent has subjective preferences as private information
This is what you probably are thinking when you bring up a "brain scanner" - sure, but the subjective nature of preferences means you must first solve the philosophical problem of qualia.
>The agents are concealing their payoff information.
So in other words, you are trying to create a lie detector. That doesn't have much success historically, good luck with that.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:26:45 UTC No. 16608866
>>16608857
I think you are taking the folk psychological explanation of behavior as granted, which is that humans do things because of preferences and beliefs and desires. I am somewhat skeptical of that view since its capability of making accurate predictions is very limited and because such models are not really useful in other parts of science like physics and chemistry or even many parts of biology probably.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:44:49 UTC No. 16608872
>>16608563
>Are you sure you replied to the right post? I don't see what part of your post addresses mine directly
I assume that you made both these posts:
>>16608520
>>16608539
Now read the definition again:
>the processes in the person which causes them
Anyone who is a materialist, a physicalist, a determinist even must stick to the following rule:
>The observed physiological process that leads to a decision = the person
Otherwise they are sneaking in some kind of dualism.
Barkon at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:50:38 UTC No. 16608873
Suck my balls poojeet conglomerate who makes these threads and stands for both for and against to instill propaganda
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:50:56 UTC No. 16608874
>>16608872
Yes I made all those posts. But my definition there that you linked to doesn't make statements like "your brain controls you" or anything like that, so your objection isn't really relevant.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:12:06 UTC No. 16608897
>>16608297
Free will is logically impossible. The behavour of any system is either deterministic, random, or a mixture of the two. There is nothing else.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 17:30:33 UTC No. 16609065
>>16608897
What is a system and how is it not the mind projecting its limitations on reality?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 03:53:40 UTC No. 16611190
opinion:
that you feel you need to emphatically declare free will is real to protect your fragile emotional ego is proof that free will does not exist
problem:
it's impossible to disprove free will without an accurate modelling of, essentially, the universe (yes, the entire thing)
it's impossible to disprove non-free will without an accurate modelling of the universe
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 07:51:02 UTC No. 16611318
>>16608297
Maybe we do. If we do, its HEAVILY influenced by biology anyway, so, do we anyway?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 08:52:17 UTC No. 16611343
>>16611190
>it's impossible to disprove free will without an accurate modelling of, essentially, the universe (yes, the entire thing)
No, you just need to understand basic linearity and the fact that you are bound to do what you will do and could never possibly choose to do otherwise.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:05:47 UTC No. 16611352
holy shit joe rogan's take on free will vs determinism in latest podcast lmao wtf
>joe: your determinism can suck my dick, free will is definitely real. these amazing people, they have iron will
>guest: do all these great people with great will come from trauma you think?
>joe: I think a lot of people that are hyperambitious come from a shitty environment
>guest: and what is that connection?
>joe: I think it's probably wanting something better than you're experiencing and knowing that it's possible. and knowing the pain of living in the ghetto, the pain of being on foodstamps, the pain of poverty
I shit you not lmao this is fucking gold. normies are that fucking retarded. for the amount of smart people rogan has talked to he's utterly fucking clueless
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:07:27 UTC No. 16611358
>>16611352
What are your thoughts on free will, anon?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:15:45 UTC No. 16611367
>>16611358
freedom of choice has a non-deterministic aspect to it. free will is nonsensical primitive concept
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:53:34 UTC No. 16611392
>>16611352
>Schopenhauer be like you can do what you will but not will what you will.
But Alan Watts be like:
>The wake doesn't drive the ship
So alcoholics be like:
>My trauma is literally in the room with me now and literally raising the bottle to my mouth
In summary: if you don't want to be a retarded normie then think before you act like contrarians being contrarian towards eachother.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:09:07 UTC No. 16611406
>>16611392
>In summary: if you don't want to be a retarded normie then think before you act like contrarians being contrarian towards eachother.
circlejerking is the worst possible attitude you can have towards reaching the truth.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:16:49 UTC No. 16611412
>>16611343
I said prove not suppose via inductive reasoning.
Proving free will does not exist essentially requires proving there is no randomness in the universe. Prove the universe is solely causal and always repeatably predictable and you disprove free will.
The requirement to do so, though, essentially requires complete and total quantum level control over an experiment. Every particle always with the exact same, perfectly copied, state and condition.
If the outcome doesn't then perfectly repeat randomness exists and free will is possible.
I'll wait for a verifiable result but I'll probably have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years by then.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:16:50 UTC No. 16611413
>>16611406
Contrarianism is not the alternative to circle jerking. The alternative is constructive dialogue: to paint the bigger picture that shows how different viewpoints relate to eachother as part of a whole.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:20:03 UTC No. 16611417
>>16611413
chaos distills truth. Cunningham's Law and such. it's why I come here
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:22:48 UTC No. 16611422
>>16611412
>Proving free will does not exist essentially requires proving there is no randomness in the universe.
No, you just have to prove that you can't do otherwise and you can't because the way time works, you can only have done what you did.
>Prove the universe is solely causal and always repeatably predictable
It is, the past always causes the present which always causes the future and you will always have done what you did rather than doing otherwise.
>The requirement to do so, though, essentially requires complete and total quantum level control over an experiment.
No, it just requires looking back at events and noticing that everyone always does exactly what they do rather than ever once having done otherwise.
>I'll wait for a verifiable result but I'll probably have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years by then.
The fact that you would have waited thousands of years instead of doing otherwise specifically proves you didn't have free will and you only have the ability to have done what you did.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:26:19 UTC No. 16611429
>>16611417
>>16611413
the whole point with trust, of any kind, is it will be abused/corrupted, always. rule.
in chaos, nobody has control, truth finds its way.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:26:33 UTC No. 16611430
>>16611422
This isn't like knowing 2+2=4. There is no actual proof of either universal condition.
Stop assuming. Show people the evidence.
If a perfectly controlled subatomic (or even sub-quanta, or sub dimensional, who the fuck actually knows?) test condition always repeats exactly, randomness does not exist. No randomness = no free will.
That level of accuracy and control needs to be achieved to PROVE if free will is real or not. That level of accuracy and control might never exist.
Til then you're just assuming from zero real evidence.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:26:37 UTC No. 16611431
>>16611417
The winner of the free market place of ideas is not the truth or what is right but what is most popular in the short term which causes harm in the long run.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:30:51 UTC No. 16611434
>>16611431
>the truth or what is right
>the truth or
not truth, for a greater good, innit?
Barkon at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:31:09 UTC No. 16611435
>>16611431
Free will exists as well as determinism. Each night our dreams predict our actions throughout the day and focuses on certain pathways we take, sending us messages from sleep. Tomorrow is determined, but there is a user who does predictable stuff, and he/she is in control...
Pure determinism means no control.
Barkon at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:35:33 UTC No. 16611437
Determinism bad mmkay
Mr. Barkon at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:51:31 UTC No. 16611450
If you believe you have no control, you're likely worse off where control is concerned.
Mr. Barkon at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 10:56:00 UTC No. 16611451
This is a matter of 'control'. We either have 'control' over our actions or there is 'no control' and actions occur systematically without a controller.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:03:47 UTC No. 16611461
>>16611430
>There is no actual proof of either universal condition.
Except there is and the only thing you can do is pretend like I have to wait forever and travel the entire universe before I get to see you do otherwise when its already quit obviously you can only ever have done what you did.
>test condition always repeats exactly, randomness does not exist
Okay and it is always repeated that the future follows the past, never once in recorded history has the past randomly come after its future and it never will because you will never do otherwise, you are stuck having done what you did.
>zero evidence
No, I have billions of years of evidence, you are the one speculating that that in 2 more eternities it might randomly be 2 eternities ago without a single shred of proof.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:33:44 UTC No. 16611490
Sapolsky is such a fucking jew.
This is his cop out regarding the black question, his version of dindu nuffin.
of course we can determine likelihoods, but what sets us apart from animals is that we can deny these impulses and desires.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:34:42 UTC No. 16611491
>>16611434
>not truth, for a greater good, innit?
That's a valid concern but also a misrepresentation. The problem is on the one hand there are facts and on the other hand there is the selection of facts and how the selected facts are weaved into a narrative.
>>16611435
That's only from a first person perspective. When we observe ourselves then we see a system that converts input into output in a rule-based manner as if we ourselves are not the system that is doing that. This seems to suggest that we can do otherwise by uniting observer with observed. When that union happens we can never know whether or not we are acting in a predictable way.
However when we observe others then they never seem to deviate from predictable patterns even though they say they want to. Therefore it's more plausible to assume that neither them nor we can do otherwise.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:39:37 UTC No. 16611493
>>16611491
>That's a valid concern but also a misrepresentation. The problem is on the one hand there are facts and on the other hand there is the selection of facts and how the selected facts are weaved into a narrative.
that just sounds like you're here to protect the public from foreign narrative interference and that shit has no ending as long as it suits the boots you're licking.
we're on a fucking mongolian basket weaving forum, we're big boys, we can handle ideas. you shouldn't be here if you can't.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:41:24 UTC No. 16611497
>>16611490
>We can determine likelihoods, but what sets us apart from animals is that we can deny these impulses and desires.
You're begging the question why the likelihood that someone denies impulses and desires is predictable.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:45:59 UTC No. 16611500
>>16611497
the likelihood being predictable is not full determinism though? even if your free will is restricted to the finger on the scale, that makes the difference between murdering someone or not, despite all the violent rage and seething.
sapolsky would never protect nazis the way he does with black murderers.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 11:54:50 UTC No. 16611514
>>16611497
>is predictable.
it's not tho. only at scale, like radioactive decay.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:00:54 UTC No. 16611526
>>16611493
Both contrarianism and constructive dialogue are ways to control the market place of ideas. Since you've failed to present a convincing argument for the former I still hold on to the latter as a better way.
I see through your game by the way: if I ask you to take your meds schizo, call you a conspiracy theorist or accuse you of projecting then I confirm your belief that I'm:
>here to protect the public from foreign narrative interference
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:06:20 UTC No. 16611528
>>16611526
>Both contrarianism and constructive dialogue are ways to control the market place of ideas.
that sounds like some commie talk to me.
>even if you are right, we'll reframe it as dangerous because it goes against what my bosses want normies to think truth is, so we'll use our power to silence your ideas and push our own fake narrative for a greater good.
>freedom fuck yeah
as I said, humans will always get corrupted and will always try to corrupt, for petty reasons in the end.
I get the concept of informational hazards but discussing on the topic of "free will" vs determinism is far from an informational hazard. calm your tits commie boy
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:22:14 UTC No. 16611534
>>16611500
>sapolsky would never protect nazis the way he does with black murderers.
I'm not a fan of him anyway.
>the likelihood being predictable is not full determinism though?
Then why do they choose to exercise their will in seemingly limited, repetitive and structured ways?
>>16611514
People are especially predictable on a small scale. For example: people tend to spend the least amount of effort that's required to get what they want, they tend to speak in turns, they tend to dress like others in their immediate environment, they tend to get angry when they perceive a lack of basic physical and social needs, they tend to not look directly in the sun and they tend to avoid decaying matter. An average day of an average person can be described in a rule-based manner. Why do they choose to exercise their free will like that?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:26:55 UTC No. 16611539
>>16611534
>For example: people tend to spend the least amount of effort that's required to get what they want,
so people are into lagrangians woah who could have guessed.
>Why do they choose to exercise their free will like that?
the universe is not deterministic you brainlets, I keep yelling this in your ears. the universe is deterministic with non-deterministic events sprinkled throughout. it means it has a deterministic quality, until it fucking doesn't, because of the non-deterministic events fucking with the otherwise mundane determinism.
why the fuck do you chimpanzees find this so hard to wrap your heads around and integrate into your analysis? it's like your brain flat out refuses to accept it. there's a fucking Nobel prize that has been awarded for it. what the fuck is wrong with you? have you gone mad?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:31:54 UTC No. 16611542
>>16611528
Since this is a science board we can easily run the following experiment: two threads about free will versus determinism, one thread we discuss in a contrarian way and the other thread we discuss in a constructive way, we let others vote which of these threads are more productive like how much new knowledge they gained.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:35:13 UTC No. 16611545
>>16611542
>we let others vote
this is fake news. you suppose everyone who reads it interacts with it, and votes. very few interact, most just lurk.
you also suppose they are perfect objective judges. many times people hate something they learn, and they'd downdoot that info, even if deep down they know it's right. they'd still downdoot it, because they didn't like the way it's been served to them. boo fucking hoo. you're welcome faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:37:05 UTC No. 16611549
>>16608465
That any human behavior can be at least partially attributed to something other than our DNA and its interactions with its environment since conception. This is an incredibly important question because it calls into question why anyone should be held accountable for their actions. Does anyone deserve life in prison if their bad actions are due to decisions outside of their own control?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:41:06 UTC No. 16611556
>>16608508
>I'M RIGHT BY DEFAULT EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO ACTUAL MODEL FOR WHY EVERYTHING HAPPENS AS IT DOES IN THE BRAIN!!!!
retard, that's not how burden of evidence works when you have known, observable results and a long-accepted rationale for them, and no better replacement.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:41:12 UTC No. 16611558
>>16611549
>Does anyone deserve life in prison if their bad actions are due to decisions outside of their own control?
nta but that clearly depends. in US law you're completely off the hook if someone forced you to do some illegal shit.
if something that cannot be punished or stopped is making you do bad shit they still lock you up, as they cannot control whatever is making you do bad shit. in the case of another human they go after that other human you're off the hook.
if it's your brain structure that's fucked, or you fell victim to some policy that increases the chances you'll do something illegal, they can't go after it, so they lock you up, so you don't do that shit, since they cannot control it. they cannot stop whatever is making you do bad shit.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:45:10 UTC No. 16611562
>>16611549
If that's your definition of free will, then there is no free will since there is nothing else outside of your body and its environment which can determine the motion of your body. In particular, there are no souls so there are no supernatural agents who can control the body.
The fact that the answer to your question is so obvious means that it can't have any important consequences for the legal system because it would have already had those consequences because of the triviality of the answer. This means that your definition of free will is wrong or the question really is unimportant. I'm inclined towards the former.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:51:24 UTC No. 16611568
>>16611545
>No objectivity
Then your Cuntham Law doesn't produce truth either because you have no standard for truth other than a power struggle.
>>16611549
>Does anyone deserve life in prison if their bad actions are due to decisions outside of their own control?
Both free will and determinism lead to accountability in equal measure. Imagine a judge asking a guilty suspect whether the will to commit crime was free or determined. If the criminal argues determinism then the judge will certainly sentence the criminal to jail because the prisoner can't control himself/herself. If the criminal argues free will then the judge will certainly sentence the criminal to jail because the criminal can not be trusted to exercise his/her free will in a lawful manner.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:54:17 UTC No. 16611571
>>16611545 me
see, the thing with "I gotta like the way you're saying it" is it's always abused to control what the other is saying, which leads to political bullshit and all that. you have that on plebbit and other places. if you're into that shit go talk on hackernews and that kind of shit. where you can use the "but I don't like what you're wearing today you should have had a better suit on" argument to silence ideas you don't like, regardless of how true/valid they are.
that's the whole point of free marketplace of ideas, it's about the idea not about how it's delivered, not about what pronouns you have in the bio and what color your hair is. it's not about the bullshit you're signaling with all the extra bullshit on top. it's purely about the idea.
you coming here and melting down about delivery is literally picrel. just close your eyes. close the browser. go somewhere else. go fuck yourself for that matter.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:56:08 UTC No. 16611573
>>16611568
It defeats itself because it would be to arrest everyone because they can't control themselves.
Or arrest no one because they are not responsible.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:57:44 UTC No. 16611576
>>16611568
>people just can't know what truth is, they need authority signing said truth
this is not a place you should be in anon. do something else.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:02:21 UTC No. 16611581
>>16611573
>Or arrest no one because they are not responsible.
arrest is mostly about stopping whatever bad is happening, secondary it's to satisfy human need for justice/revenge/equal amount of pain/suffering. if not they lose votes and plebs start chimping out. third it's about muh philosophical implications.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:04:03 UTC No. 16611584
>>16611581
irrelevant. Everything is determined. You are no more culpable for an action than a black.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:04:45 UTC No. 16611586
>>16611571
Your fallacy is that you think ideas which are more "accepted" in the free market are the right ideas. However, as Richard Dawkins showed half a century ago with the invention of the word "meme", such a market of competing ideas often produce ideas which spread because of their replicability, not because of their correctness or anything like that. That is, the free marketplace doesn't produce correct ideas; rather, it produces memes. Memes which manipulate their users to further their own propagation, because that is the nature of successful replicating memes.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:08:03 UTC No. 16611593
>>16611584
>Everything is determined
it literally isn't, you're talking about some religious belief. science settled this with a Nobel. if you have some wild hypothesis do prove it. stop talking about non-scientific ideas
second, even if, they still gotta stop you. since you cannot control yourself. people like you also enjoy using the argument to justify giving into shit behavior so you're even less likely to stop your shit behavior. people who cannot control themselves gotta be stopped from doing shit. that logically follows you idiot. it's a shit hill to die on but you do you retard
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:08:50 UTC No. 16611595
>>16611576
>I ain't gonna let no logic or reason or law or God or employa or cop or docta or anyone tell me what to do nuh-uh sis
>Imma doin whateva I want and you can do the same for all I care
You're a nigger.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:11:53 UTC No. 16611599
>>16611586
you are partially right that normies are pretty fucking retarded. this is not a normie place tho, you can't use that argument here. go monitor subreddits and facebook groups for public narrative manipulation.
>no we have to control everything no matter how obscure place just because we're power hungry demons who want to push our own agenda, forcefully, because we can, and that justifies us.
you in the wrong intellectual neighborhood cuz
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:13:19 UTC No. 16611603
>>16611595
>if you don't accept my authority you are bad mkay
choke on a horse cock you faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:13:27 UTC No. 16611604
>>16611593
i don't know why you would bother telling anyone to stop it when they have been determined to act in a given way independent of what you think, say, or do.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:15:37 UTC No. 16611607
>>16611599
If you think there is no narrative manipulation going on in 4chan, oh boy.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:17:05 UTC No. 16611611
>>16611603
>Life is good when no one holds eachother accountable
Go live in the turd world.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:22:58 UTC No. 16611618
>>16611607
>there shall be no memes, they are dangerous for our democracy
land of the free and the brave justifies commie tactics. kek you can't make this shit up. you're utterly lost bootlicker
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:24:31 UTC No. 16611623
>>16611611
>>Life is good when no one holds eachother accountable
commie faggot talk. trying to nerf ideas and free speech under the guise of "but it's dangerous for our democracy" on a shit corner of the internet. power hungry demon.
are you religious by any chance?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:08:08 UTC No. 16611675
>>16611623
>commie faggot talk
>are you religious
Communism, religion, biology and mathematics agree that we live in a prisoners' dilemma. Simple as.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:14:28 UTC No. 16611686
>>16611675
there's no prisoner dilemma, this is a debate about free will vs determinism.
>no I'm basically determined to forcefully shove my ideas and block any I don't agree with by any means necessary because mental_gymnastics_argument
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:26:55 UTC No. 16611703
>>16611686
If you are a participant in the prisoner's dilemma with free will then you can make the choice that communism, religion, biology and mathematics agree is best regardless whether other participants are determined or not.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:37:39 UTC No. 16611719
Quite the heated debate.
Free will doesn't exist btw. You can't even define it coherently
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:38:50 UTC No. 16611722
>>16611703
>free will
that is not a legitimate debating subject you zealot brainlet. it's a primitive concept formed before humans had a deeper understanding of how human brains work. it's a religious argument not a legitimate scientific one. it makes no scientific sense. you cannot even define it in any scientific terms. it's a religious talking point.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:52:45 UTC No. 16611749
>>16611722
In a world where everything and everyone is determined the following happens: beings who are determined to prioritize individual short term benefits will be outcompeted by beings who are determined to prioritize long term collective benefits.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:00:42 UTC No. 16611762
>>16611749
I kept hinting at it but you seem pretty fucking clueless. I do not believe the world is fully deterministic. and I also do not believe the "free will" concept is a legitimate one, not in scientific terms. I believe there's non-deterministic events in a deterministic universe, which makes it so you cannot perfectly predict one's actions. I do not buy into your shit dichotomy between free will and determinism, it's not real, it's a religious talking point not a scientific one, thus miss me with that shit.
do you understand my point anon?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:18:07 UTC No. 16611793
>>16611762
>so you cannot perfectly predict
>do you understand my point
Remember:
>>16611491
>on the one hand there are facts and on the other hand there is the selection of facts and how the selected facts are weaved into a narrative
>>16611434
>not truth, for a greater good, innit?
Now you remember (and I don't care whether or not you were that anon) consider the following: if uncertainty is fundamental then it's also uncertain whether or not your viewpoint is correct at any particular place and time. Perhaps I'm now living in a particular place and time where non-deterministic events are either non-existent or so irrelevant that I'm better of assuming that others are completely determined or the reverse might be the case.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:18:40 UTC No. 16611794
>>16611461
I'm not arguing whether your perspective holds logical merit or not, I'm just telling you that the actual discourse of the concept of free will or determinism is way far above the level of
>2+2=4
The macro scale is completely irrelevant. Macro being anything larger than subatomic.
The concept, experimentally, needs to prove or disprove that particles actually "randomly" pop into existence or not and the explanation I have tried to give you is simply - experimentation has not been and might never be accurate enough to truthfully give an answer.
This goes way beyond "i flick the light switch and power flows predictably." It needs to be at a level of "we "froze" this electron inside of a 100% controlled void space, are able to map its state perfectly, predict perfectly how the energy particles move and interact, and when given the exact same start conditions and exact same manipulation the result was always slightly different every time when it is impossible to be different in a purely deterministic (i.e. no randomness) universe"
Prove true randomness, prove free will.
Prove no randomness, prove deterministic universe.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:20:26 UTC No. 16611797
>>16608299
this
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:27:51 UTC No. 16611810
>>16611794
True randomness doesn't even prove free will. You can't control something that's random so it can't be your will.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:28:44 UTC No. 16611812
>>16611793
>you do not posses a license to have such ideas. in fact they are memable and dangerous to our democracy and thus must be stopped.
listen you imbecile, a non-deterministic universe doesn't imply non-deterministic truth.
it is literally you who is weaving fake narratives to push your ideological viewpoints into scientific discussions. and many of you brainlets use the accusation in a mirror tactic
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accu
to control the narrative. typical zealot behavior. your primary directive is pushing ideology in detriment of truth. there's nothing legitimate and your ideas you weak piece of intellectual dishonest turd
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:30:52 UTC No. 16611814
>>16611812
>a non-deterministic universe doesn't imply non-deterministic truth.
because it's not a FULL non-deterministic universe, it's a deterministic universe with non-deterministic events on top of it.
but you're going to weave bits of that into a zealot narrative to hijack the discussion and insert your zealoted ideological views in it, innit. for the greater good of your zealoted cult.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:34:50 UTC No. 16611819
>>16611810
nothing can prove it, since it doesn't make sense. it's designed as such. it is something you believe in.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 15:58:44 UTC No. 16611857
I love determinism.
It's such a great mindfuck to put on teenagers and autistics.
The semantics of the argument simplify to three possibilities
>everything is state-step logical and this is all a process that can't be changed
>funky physics voodoo means you're free
>one of the thousand Gods humanity has imagined is real and either free will doesn't exist or does because of it
Start by telling yourself human imagination is not proof of free will :^)
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:46:09 UTC No. 16611985
>>16611814
>zealoted ideological views
>>16611762
>I believe
>there's non-deterministic events in a deterministic universe
Are non-deterministic events your religious view or do you rather appeal to authority of science?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:50:47 UTC No. 16611989
I have free will because I decided I have free will, feel bad for those willlets who couldn't do the same tbqhfam.
🗑️ Mr. Barkon at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:53:09 UTC No. 16611994
Kys NPCs
This thread is an NPC gathering ground meant to test the living.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:55:18 UTC No. 16611998
>>16611985
>>>/x/
>>>/lit/
also meds
🗑️ Mr. Barkon at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:41:48 UTC No. 16612088
>>16611998
Why do farts smell? Is it to warn people of poo? Or... Is it meant for attraction?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:23:48 UTC No. 16612428
>Undecidability means that certain questions simply cannot be answered. It’s an unfamiliar message for physicists, but it’s one that mathematicians and computer scientists know well. More than a century ago, they rigorously established that there are mathematical questions that can never be answered, true statements that can never be proved. Now physicists are connecting those unknowable mathematical systems with an increasing number of physical ones and thereby beginning to map out the hard boundary of knowability in their field as well.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/next
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:50:36 UTC No. 16612446
>>16611549
>deserve life in prison
You don't need to believe they deserve punishment or not. Letting violent criminals roam free is risky cause they are likely to commit violence again.
If their criminal behavior were purely a result of bad environment, that sucks for them, but unfortunately it's still preferable to lock them away from hurting other people.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:01:51 UTC No. 16612454
>>16608465
Thank you. It's about time someone said this.
To even ask these questions we also need a definition of what "we" are and what "will" is.
Unfortunately, I don't think this is objectively possible.
If an uncaused fluctuation causes us to act in a certain way, do we call the uncaused cause "us"?
If everything we do is caused by "external" contingent or uncaused causes, is it not still "our" will being done, as we are contingent beings?
As far as I am concerned, I choose what I do, but I was either always predestined to make that choice, or I made the choice at random.
Either way, the cause of the choice was both me and not me in a sense.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:11:41 UTC No. 16612460
>>16611549
>This is an incredibly important question because it calls into question why anyone should be held accountable for their actions. Does anyone deserve life in prison if their bad actions are due to decisions outside of their own control?
There is no such thing as "should" or "deserve", there is only what will be punished and what will not be.
The nature of all life is to act in its own reproductive best interest. The self is the driving force of all life.
If a person is a threat to me, I will do my best to prevent the threat and that is the same for everyone else.
Might makes right and the many are mightier than the few, so together, we are capable of enforcing that threat removal.
This gets to the first purpose of punishment which is removal of a danger.
The second purpose of punishment is to prevent other people from choosing to commit harm.
If the harm of the punishment * the probability of being caught is greater than the gain in doing a harm * the probability of not getting caught, the individual should not do the harm.
This is why we have punishments; it has nothing to do with "should" or "deserve" - but what benefits the self-interest of most people (most people capable of fighting, at least)
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:51:41 UTC No. 16612769
>>16608299
this, I've determined I'm a slave, by like Epicurus I will find contentment
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:23:24 UTC No. 16612993
>>16608297
>By my kings Roskies, Schurger, and Maoz.
Based thread, although devolving into talks about compatibilism when the authors are speaking about Libet studies.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:20:53 UTC No. 16614738
>>16608297
If by free will you mean being able to act independently of your thoughts, emotions, bodily sensations, desires, etc. and just do whatever because you can, with no particular goal, just for the sake of it, then yes. But you only have that definition of free will, if you are aware of all these things going on inside of you and being able to not impulsively react to it and instead choose what to do or if you want to engage it at all.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:02:15 UTC No. 16614755
>>16614738
>and just do whatever because you can
>magic 8 ball randomizer is le free will
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:09:06 UTC No. 16614760
Free will presupposes a void where the divine is absent; thus, our so-called freedom is but an illusion. Every act—even those asserting autonomy—is interwoven into the grand tapestry of God's design, mirroring the deterministic forces of evolution where natural selection, genetic drift, and adaptive mutation orchestrate life's intricate dance.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:16:41 UTC No. 16614771
>>16614760
saar have you tried looking for slaves somewhere else?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:40:41 UTC No. 16614816
>>16614755
What would your definition of free or not free be then?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:43:44 UTC No. 16614817
>>16614816
not my problem really.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:09:03 UTC No. 16614832
>>16614817
If you can't define free and not free, how can you answer the question whether free will exists?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:19:28 UTC No. 16614836
>>16614832
check >>16614817
I'm not into the debate, I don't understand it.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:49:19 UTC No. 16615300
>>16608297
https://youtube.com/shorts/_K7lbLbN
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:15:30 UTC No. 16616461
In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true that Man has no control, not even over his own will.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:20:49 UTC No. 16616470
People claim to have free will but when I ask them "what color is the sky?" 99% of them reply "blue", curious.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:26:25 UTC No. 16616475
>>16608642
Perceived delusions of schizophrenia are also "reality" by this criteria.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:12:12 UTC No. 16616686
>>16608299
fpbp
Dr. Barkon at Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:25:59 UTC No. 16616692
Because you're here on 4chan where you want to be the chances are there is free will because if there wasn't the results would largely be random and you'd probably be somewhere else other than directly where you wanted to be.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:36:38 UTC No. 16618083
>>16608297
The brain is a sensory organ able to tap into the consciousness field, then send sensory input into it. Prove to me consciousness is modelled by any other physics and I concede.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:15:44 UTC No. 16618565
>>16608297
>free will exists because how do you explain my feelings about this topic
Consider suicide you absolute retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:37:10 UTC No. 16618614
>>16611573
>it would be to arrest everyone because they can't control themselves.
No, it would be to make laws that apply to everyone.
>Or arrest no one because they are not responsible.
No, it would be to arrest whoever violates the law whether they are completely responsible for their actions or not.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:38:41 UTC No. 16618615
>>16611584
Anon already pointed out that your actions are still prohibited by restricting your bodily integrity whether you are culpable in your actions or not.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:25:58 UTC No. 16618693
>>16608297
I just farted and some wet shit ended up in my underwear. This proves that free will is 100% real. Also the earth is 6000 years old and a magical jew in the sky is watching me masturbate for some reason.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:50:32 UTC No. 16618761
>>16618693
Thin about all of the high IQ retards who couldn't understand when a downsie can know God through this based act.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:53:14 UTC No. 16618770
>>16618693
> a magical jew in the sky is watching me masturbate for some reason
he's most likely masturbating too, that pervert jew he is
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 04:28:44 UTC No. 16619486
>>16618693
lmao gottem
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 05:29:11 UTC No. 16619508
Nonpredictability in even simple deterministic algorithmic systems proves free will.
Also determinism is likely false.
Chaos is an innate characteristic of all moving systems.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 06:12:09 UTC No. 16619530
>>16619508
It only proves that I can't predict my will
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 06:50:48 UTC No. 16619539
>>16608520
Well universe is potentially infinite so lots of subatomic particles to map..
Guess we should accept free will for now.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 07:00:16 UTC No. 16619541
>>16616692
Makes sense.
Suits my logic that PFC is required for free will, stuff that disrupts its functioning (reward seeking, psych meds, malnutrition) will throw you off track.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 19:55:37 UTC No. 16620016
>>16608297
As pedo Sartre once said, we have free will, and that's the problem.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 04:12:44 UTC No. 16621361
I'm sure there is some riveting discussion through this thread but after reading the OP I will say that determinism (at this point being unverifiable) allows for a really gay faggoty response to free will in the sense that even if free will exists, the decisions made are the only ones ever made (so no Sliding Doors/many-worlds stuff) means determinism can still exist. Also obviously I made this post with my own free will and am assuming that deterministically I'm not retreading old ground but if I did, suck my butt because that's what was always going to happen anyways.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:47:28 UTC No. 16621782
Superdeterminism solves this issue, and we can go on assuming that free will exists