Do we have free will?

Do we have free will?

To the people who say we don't, can I know what you exactly mean by this? To which extent are you thinking this ?

Other urls found in this thread:

webm.land/media/GYiM.webm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

you would have to figure out if time is linear or non linear first.

you have free will but you don't have the will to be free

>Do we have free will?
yes, I chose to call you a moosefucking maplenigger right now you moosefucking maplenigger. canada sucks

We obviously have free will, anyone who says otherwise is trying to spread defeatism to inundate the message of Jesus Christ. Anyway this is a stupid slide thread.

>Posting Lauren Southern
Do people still post and talk about this 6/10 reddit woman? I gave up Sup Forums for a month since it went shit, so I don't now whats going on.

You have free choice. Your will is in bondage to sin and death and only by God’s grace may your will be aligned with His.

its her sister newfriend

Can you guys let up with the butt pics for a sec?
My fingers are getting sore from the brap posting.

If you look at the universe from the perspective of atoms, the variables at the beginning determine where every atom in the universe in placed at any moment. Even the decisions you make and the thoughts you have are based on the evolution of your brain and the environment around you. Quantum theory might fuck this up a bit, but we don't know enough about that so the scientific answer is, we don't know.

My dick has a will of its own.

Define free will.

I believe the universe is deterministic, and that quantum randomness isn't enough to provide the kind of classical free will people are romantically obsessed with.

I like Daniel Dennetts argument that determinism is real but sufficiently complicated organisms (things with brains) can observe the current state of the universe and predict futures through simulation and then choose between those potential futures.

But are you free at any point to simply do any number of things? No, your choices are culminations of all your prior experience and the hardware that runs in your head.

There's also some good arguments from physics about simultaneity being relative that suggest orders of things (causes/effects) can be skewed for people traveling fast with respect to each other, which infers that in one frame of reference things have occurred that have not yet in another frame, that means for a coherent universe the future must be fixed for all observers.

We feel like we have free will because there's many biological mechanisms in our brain to fool us into thinking that our conscious stream of thoughts authors or choices and there's good evidence that it does not, that subconsciously we can know a good few seconds ahead what people will choose in controlled experiments.

>To the people who say we don't, can I know what you exactly mean by this?
I cannot pinpoint the origin of my thoughts. What is more striking is that I don't know what decision rules my brain actually follows. It is easy to conclude that if you don't have access to the origin of your thoughts and you don't know the decision rules built into your brain, YOU are really not in control. YOU are just an observer.

Thus, I don't believe in free will in the classical sense. The universe is deterministic, but only to the omniscient entity that can see everything.

To us, the universe seems stochastic even though it isn't.

I don't believe "TRUE" free will exists - that is if I was omniscient, I would know my future and my path to it. However, I'm not omniscient, and I have an illusion of free will - due to lack of information.

>complicated organisms (things with brains) can observe the current state of the universe and predict futures through simulation and then choose between those potential futures.
But if you knew the exact variables at the beginning of the universe, you could simulate every aspect of it, how the planets form, life begins, the brain evolves and creatures start to analyze the world around them as a survival strategy. So if the universe is purely deterministic, the choices you will make are already set and your free will is just an illusion.

We're riding on a charging rhino.

>But are you free at any point to simply do any number of things? No, your choices are culminations of all your prior experience and the hardware that runs in your head.
so youre saying im free to the extent of the ranges of things I could possibly do within my prior experience but i cant go beyond a certain range. is that correct?

>But if you knew the exact variables at the beginning of the universe, you could simulate every aspect of it, how the planets form, life begins, the brain evolves and creatures start to analyze the world around them as a survival strategy
Except human thought. We have no idea where human thoughts originate. Whether they arise in this universe, or "outside" the known universe.

>We have no idea where human thoughts originate.
Sure we do, they originate from signals that go through complex arrangements of synapses in your brain. We can observe and measure that.

Correct, you're talking about LaPlace's demon, if you knew the exact initial conditions (or current conditions) perfectly then you could perfectly predict the future.

But that's kind of a good thing, right? Becauase we want determinism, because what determinism brings that we like is

1) The ability to simulate the future with a high degree of accuracy, that is use rules (physical laws) to understand what might happen next
2) To act in such a way that our actions cause that future to be beneficial to us in some way.

Dennett talks about if someone throws a brick at your head, you see the brick and duck. How did you do that? Well you have a part of the brain that processes light from the brick to understand it's location in space and spatial reasoning to understand it's trajectory, and a part of the brain which predicts such an impact would hurt, and finally you implement determinism to decide how to move out of its way in time adn then your physical body moves to make that a reality.

All determined, all of that necessarily NEEDS determinism to be possible.

There's some problems with "simulating every aspect of it", most importantly you have to simulate things with parts of the universe (computation) of some kind, and even if you ignore the regressive problems of computers simulating their own simulation and assume for a moment they consider themselves a black box. The universe is way too complicated to simulate accurately, it's also practically impossible to gather accurate information. Quantum systems highlight this problem, if you measure quantum systems you necessarily alter them and quantum randomness can in theory survive to the macro level, e.g thought experiments like Schrodinger's cat.

But yes the conclusion is that classical free will in the early formulation of the idea is an illusion, it certain feels like we have it, subjectively. But we don't, and it's equally as incompatible with determinism and indeterminism.

We certainly have at least an illusion of free will in our minds and our societies and thoughts are structured in a way where free will and agency is presumed. That is because it is a saner option to presume it.
>you have free will, but you think you don't
Well now you've wasted your free will
>you don't have free will, but you think you do
No bad outcome in this scenario.
It would also seem that it is impossible to deduce if you have free will or not, as there is always a claim to be made for both that becomes harder and harder to refute. I genuinely think we do have free will as I believe thet persons are not just biological beings, but have at least a soul. Even if in doubt I would advice to choose to think we do have free will.

>Sure we do, they originate from signals that go through complex arrangements of synapses in your brain. We can observe and measure that.
You measure the electrical signals after the thoughts are generated. Neuroscience cannot conclusively prove that human thoughts originate in the known universe because most experiments show that test subjects "knew" their thoughts before the brain showed non-motor activities.

within certain parameters. every thought or action that we perform in the moment leads to the next moment. a,b,c,d,e,f,g might be available the next moment but h,i,j is off the table if you chose "e" the moment before. kind of like one of those books where you can choose what happens next but infinitely more choices

>Correct, you're talking about LaPlace's demon, if you knew the exact initial conditions (or current conditions) perfectly then you could perfectly predict the future.
Except no one knows anything about the origin of human thoughts. Laplace's demon applies only to the physical universe.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "range", I guess you mean that prior experience narrows down the ability for the outcome to be some smaller subject of "possible" choices of which you pick one?

No I don't think I agree with that personally, I think the idea of the "choices" narrowing in a physical system is a correct one, but ultimately the "choice" narrows down to one inevitable action.

So in that sense what you could say is in a timeline of:

now-->1 month-->2 months-->choice/action

That your future potential choice has a greater range of possible outcomes given the constraints that have happened so far. And then at 1 month all those experiences your brain has had probably narrows the future choice, and then finally that narrowing leaves only 1 thing left which is what you've picked.

It makes the assumption that human thoughts are generated inside the physical universe, specifically in the brain/nervous system and that such systems follow all known physical laws.

You could imagine up all sorts of cases like somehow outside of the known laws of physics on some transcendent plane our sou/consciousness exists and has some mechanism to start new causal chains inside our brain which is essentially an un-caused-cause. But there's just no evidence of that.

you have free will but your bitches don't have the will to be free, so fuck off Iqbal!

>That your future potential choice has a greater range of possible outcomes given the constraints that have happened so far. And then at 1 month all those experiences your brain has had probably narrows the future choice, and then finally that narrowing leaves only 1 thing left which is what you've picked.

does it mean that a slave or anybody who let a 3rd party pick certain choices has free will by that logic since he cannot decide for himself?

We have free will, we do, but it's no different than putting mice or rats in a cage and saying "exercise your free will". We have it, but what exactly can be done with it?

You can always assume that there is something supernatural behind things, but it would be unreasonable to do so if there is no evidence for it and the phenomenon can be explained scientifically. You can observe gradual capabilities of brains in animals, it is very unlikely that more complex brains suddenly work with supernatural mechanisms.

Jokes on you, you were destined to type that

her video leaked webm.land/media/GYiM.webm
she fucks black guy... wtf.

Your idea that you lack free will is not your own belief by way of free will, you spook.

People making choices for each other isn't really a different mechanism to what I described, it's just the affects of the outcome apply to someone else rather than yourself. It doesn't in any meaningful way alter what I've described.

Yes, you can go and jump in front of a train or stay at home and drink some beer.

Free will is yours & you decide what to do

No, free will is only an illusion, because we think that our selves are at the origin of the cause that determine the way we act, but everything in some way or another originates from the outside, and not our inner selves. What shapes us and the way we act are events that happened to us and influenced the way we see the world.

ok nevermind ive a better analogy this one is bad

Let's say I let an RNG based program decide for me what I will do from a range of predetermined things. the RNG choices isn't deterministic it's based on randomly generated numbers Lets says an example

1- vidya
2- study
3- gym
4- work on x talent I want to develop
5- I decide myself

Since I decided willingly to let the RNG decide for me, im not a slave as I can stop at any time

Yes we do, but you must realize it, deeply understand truth.
Otherwise you don't have free will, if you are controlled by any impulse, where is your free will?
Discipline is not that apreciated, but it is the door to free will. Most people are played like puppets. No option. Find options no matter how strange they seem to others arround you.

Red herring. No science conclusively proves anything, it's a series of theories about how the physical world operates that are useful because they demonstrate predictive power, and so far have not been disproven or are incoherent with other physical law.

What we can say for sure is that we can measure the brain in the process of decisions being made before people are aware of their conscious choice. Which means at the very least, the feeling that you picked a choice is not actually real. The choice was made temporally before you feel like you made it, your subconscious is just informing your conscious train of thought of what was picked.

You can throw out all sorts of nonsense about what science can't prove, it can't prove that magical pixies are controlling the fate of every atom and that classical laws of physics aren't real, it's just the pixies playing tricks on us by making them behave in that way. What we do is be skeptical of all claims until we have evidence to believe a specific theory is true.

>wrong hair color
>wrong body type
>doesn't even sound like her
did you even try? have some bbc for your trouble

That'd be nice except there's no such thing as an RNG based program.

Read up about RNGs in code, there's a few types, older ones which are purely deterministic in the language called PRNGs (Pseudo RNGS) which are just long lists of pre written nubers. And there's more modern RNGS which are used for important things like security, called CSRNGS which are Cryptographically Secure Pseudo RNGS, and they produce random numbers by sampling the environment such as noise on the network card, mouse movements, and other input devices, to produce random numbers.

Basically all computer based RNGs of any description just sample complexity in their environment and make sure it's obscure enough that it can't be predicted by humans which makes it fairly secure for generating random passwords and cryptographic keys etc.

There's no known way of generating pure randomness.

she got blacked no matter what you say lol . here her bf.

your "choices" that you "make" are dependent on your life experience that forms who you are and how you fuckong think, coupled with that you are also bound by the consequences of your "choices" further eliminating the "freedom" of your will
it's just a very powerful illusion that's too fast for you to sit back and objecticepy observe, you are biased to believe that you are in "control" of yourself because you are unable to handle the truth of the matter

1. No program is actually random, just to complex for a human the predict.
2. All the decisions you make here are still based on your biology and experiences.

You do not have free will.

You are free to do whatever you want, but you are not free to chose what you want.

thats the same guy in the LS pics...did he bag both of them?

It doesn't exist.

>That'd be nice except there's no such thing as an RNG based program.
if there was one, would I be correct?

both are true. but you werent responsible for believing on Christ. you must. but youre not worthy. so God is in control of everything including this. sin is death and Christ's blood is life

test

>be drug addict.
>Chemically, mechanically speaking you really fucking want drugs
>quit drugs
Hmmm
>hurrr he just want to quit but he didn’t choose to. >Going through physical hell with his body screeching demands at him was materialistically determined

People who think they don’t have free will literally don’t. The rest of us do.

If there was one, the universe would not be deterministic, so your questions boils down to
>if the universe would not be deterministic, would the universe not be deterministic
A question without any value.

You can just tell that her feet are amazing

The biggest obstacle to whatever ability to actually influence your path through space time, for most of us, seems to very obviously be located between our legs. Obviously you can't make choices that defy the demands of your stomach, your lungs, etc. you don't choose to breathe or be hungry or eat or piss or shit. Sexual behavior, though, everybody seems to think they are much more in control of. I don't know about that. I think for most of us, it's like a damaged airplane claiming it's totally in control of which aircraft carrier it lands on. Your period of finding a relationship which ends up being a significant part of your life history might last a few hours to a few days, and then poof, that is the person you become attached to. All the hostility toward women who play musical chairs with that process, some of which I fully agree with, still reflects that even when it is resisted or the culture loads it up with degeneracy, everyone seems doomed or fated to pair bond, or at least try to.

Death, taxes. But even in the absence of civilization, I think monogamous child rearing pairs existed as the smallest sustaining subatomic unit of most every fit tribe of the race. And in that reproductive sense, we aren't much different than fruit flies in our greater destinies.

If the outcome of that decision was somehow truly random, then I don't see in any sense how you have free will. One of the things I said early one was that traditional free will that people think of morally/romantically is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism.

If you make a choice randomly how is that in any sense of the word free will?

You'd have to further analyse your choice to let the RNG pick for you. That itself is a choice which is presumably still determined and so doesn't escape the problem of free will.

And in some sense chasing randomness doesn't get you to classical free will because it's not clear how you're anymore free if your choices are purely random instead of determined by some mechanism/law.

Ultimate redpill

...Sure, but you have no evidence either.

>the phenomenon can be explained scientifically.

That sounds like an assumption as well, guy. Until you can show where thoughts *do* originate from, it's up in the air, and "supernaturalness" is as likely an explanation.

Or, by the time we do get to a point where we can empirically measure where thoughts come from, would it be distinguishable from "supernatural"?

>If you make a choice randomly how is that in any sense of the word free will?
because I decided to do that on my own
>You'd have to further analyse your choice to let the RNG pick for you
I let it pick for me, I don't decide what it will pick for me

The whole discussion of whether there is free will is a red herring. People who believe it doesn't exist think "free" means "able to disobey the physical laws of the universe." People who believe it does exist merely think "free" means "able to choose." If atheists weren't so incredibly stupid they would realize this.

I’ve made similar arguments challenging people who don’t beleive in free will to allow a coin flip to make all of their decisions at it is irrelevant.
Oddly, 100% choose not to do this. It’s almost like they are just desperate to absolve themselves of responsibility while retaining the ability to make choices.

I believe full determinism has some problems. Where does original, ultimate cause come from? We are made from sperm and egg cells and nutrients - at what point does our inanimate (in a non-sentient sense) mass of embryonic cells become animate (in a sentient sense)? How do our intangible thoughts translate into our tangible body?

Are we on some subconscious level free on a different, higher plane that we are unaware of?

drug addicts overcoming their addiction does not in any way prove that free will exists.
again, you can do what you want, but you cannot chose what you want.

however, you are emotionally attached to the notion of free will. therefore, no rational argument can be made to persuade you otherwise.
maybe it helps to consider that you lose nothing by giving up the idea of free will. it all feels the same.

The AI pick a number effectively in a random fashion since its completely impossible to anybody to determine which number will come out of a sophisticated RNG
On top of that, that RNG has no power whatsover on what the number it will pick means (so even if its not perfectly random, it doesn't really matter) since I'm the guy deciding what those number will mean today. It's about as close to random as it gets.

Yes. The fact you are questioning this prove you have a free will.

>Until you can show where thoughts *do* originate from, it's up in the air, and "supernaturalness" is as likely an explanation.
It's not, we have a very good understanding of many aspects of the human body and simpler brains of other animals, just because we don't know how every single aspect of the human brain works yet doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is just as likely as a natural one.

But you didn't decide anything the output was merely random.

You're trying to escape choice by kind of layering the choices on top of each other and it's mostly just going to confuse matters.

Choice A is to let an RNG chose for you
Choice B is to do whatever the RNG says

Even if I granted that true RNGs were possible and choice B was really random. Your choice to defer the decision to an RNG is still one you made and still classically deterministic.

>her

>You could imagine up all sorts of cases like somehow outside of the known laws of physics on some transcendent plane our sou/consciousness exists and has some mechanism to start new causal chains inside our brain which is essentially an un-caused-cause.
Or, the "universe" is actually a 12 dimensional toroid of which 3 are tangible to us. Human thoughts are generated in the "higher" 9 dimensions and the human brain is essentially a receiver of for the thoughts generated by an engine in higher dimensions.

"Probability" is an assumption.

No. Truly "free" will is incompatible with causality. Anything less is just another name for determinism.

It seems self-evident that we do. I don't get how that's a question even.

It seems self-evident that we don't.

>You can always assume that there is something supernatural behind things
Look, I'm not arguing with the supernatural here. I'm talking about science.

It is not too far fetched for me to assume that the universe is "managed" by a computer and human thoughts are generated by a "thought engine" which is also a computer.
>but it would be unreasonable to do so if there is no evidence for it and the phenomenon can be explained scientifically.
I research in neuroscience and we cannot prove that human thoughts originate in this universe. That's all I'm trying to tell you.

Nothing supernatural.
>You can observe gradual capabilities of brains in animals, it is very unlikely that more complex brains suddenly work with supernatural mechanisms.
Our working theory is that most "brains" rather the brains of species that perform functions additional to managing the central nervous system are essentially receivers for thoughts generated "outside" the perceivable universe.

Parts of the brain that manage the central nervous system are automated (motor skills), but thoughts are not automated and there's no explanation as to why.

The initial variables at the beginning of the universe will still determine what number will come out. The fact that something is to complex for a human to determine the outcome has no effect on whether it is random or if free will in involved.

This is just attacking motives, it's not actually an argument.

>you will never impregnate Lauren or her sister

Counterpoint:
>printf("Do I have free will?");

>too complex
This is one part of the determinism argument that really bothers me - it's an unfalsifiable claim. Every time an event occurs that could show free will, determinists say it was just ignorance or an illusion. We could go to the beginning of the universe to find out once and for all and determinists would just say "it was just an illusion, man".

>can I know what you exactly mean by this?

We don't have free will.

> To which extent are you thinking this ?

To the extent it's been determined.

>Red herring. No science conclusively proves anything,
That's the most retarded counter argument I've heard. I'm not saying science can conclusively prove anything. Sure, you need to accept that outliers are not part of the norm and reject them to accept (rather not reject) a hypothesis.
>What we can say for sure is that we can measure the brain in the process of decisions being made before people are aware of their conscious choice.
This is the part that neuroscience can't prove. Humans "know" of their thoughts before they can consciously articulate it. Thus, we cannot "observe" the brain making the choice. The choice has already been made and all we can observe is humans articulating these thoughts.
>The choice was made temporally before you feel like you made it, your subconscious is just informing your conscious train of thought of what was picked.
Yes, this is inline with what we believe.
>it can't prove that magical pixies are controlling the fate of every atom and that classical laws of physics aren't real,
Horrible strawman argument.

I say that we can't prove thoughts originate in the known universe and you say well pixies run the universe until proven otherwise.

This guy knows what's up. In our ignorance, even the "illusion" of it - we are free.

>There's no known way of generating pure randomness.
There is no such thing as pure randomness. FTFY.

>missing the point this much

it's in the bible so atheists must try and debunk it. no other reason, as is obvious to anyone.

Your muslim. Everything is preordained according to the quran and allah.

PROTIP: Free will is just a codeword for souls.

Who exists to make decisions, other than our physical bodies? Physical objects are deterministic, or probabilistic, but never "free" (causeless). To say that "you" can make a causeless decision is to say that "you" are separate from the natural universe, a.k.a. a soul.

I'm an atheist though, but questioning your own free will is the same as questioning your own existence. Which is pretty ridiculous, even if you believe that the world is a simulation, or a dream, or whatever else. Of course, everybody else COULD just be an NPC or a figment of my imagination, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, exactly. And I believe in absence of what science has discovered, there is room for the possibility of souls. But even if science has empirically measured everything, would it be able to solve what it is about our particular combination of cells and nutrients that transform it from what was previously inanimate into something animate? If it is solved, at that point, would it be called "science"?

Deep user, but true.

in order to be able to choose you have to "break" (rather, be entirely outside of) the laws of existence (or rather, be entirely outside of existence itself, and mever ever ever having been in it)
but feel free to devolve your flimsy argument into ad hominem nonargumentation for the sake of not having to actually think objectively about anything

>Choice A is to let an RNG chose for you
From a pool of things I chose. I like all outcomes. Its basically me deciding what I will do since all those outcomes were possible I just eliminate possible priors that led me to that pick.

>Choice B is to do whatever the RNG says
You oversimplify what I stated.

I let the RNG decide what I will do, but what I will do won't be deterministic as nothing in the universe had an impact on that outcome. There was no way to know what Im about to do nothing short of God could know

>The initial variables at the beginning of the universe will still determine what number will come out.
that is false. the AI has no priors, no experiences, no background and isn't alive or connected to the universe per say. It doesn't give a shit about anything and isn't attached to anything. Youre just married yourself on muh universe at all cost and keep repeating this meme non-stop

>People who believe it doesn't exist think "free" means "able to disobey the physical laws of the universe." People who believe it does exist merely think "free" means "able to choose."
Which one are you?

>"Probability" is an assumption.
The assumption that is most likely to be true.

I agree that there is a possibility that thoughts do not originate in the brain, but considering the fact that the parts of the brain that are generally associated with decision making are larger in humans brains than they are in brains of other animals I don't see why you would make the logical leap to something outside of the perceived universe instead of assuming that we simply don't fully understand the biological mechanism behind it.

Just the fact that if the universe 'told me' what I will do in 10 minute, I would have the power to pick something else just to fuck with it is very dubious to me

There's room for the possibility, sure, but what's the benefit of believing it? Why not just say "we don't know the answer yet, but the human mind is probably just mechanistic"?

Arguing for free will is unfalsifiable as well, it's a debate about something that can never be proven completely.

>Where does original, ultimate cause come from?
No one knows. There isn't sufficient information in the universe to answer this question.
>We are made from sperm and egg cells and nutrients - at what point does our inanimate (in a non-sentient sense) mass of embryonic cells become animate (in a sentient sense)?
You've answered your own question. You have a definition of sentience, and we become sentient at a time that satisfies your definition.
>How do our intangible thoughts translate into our tangible body?
No one knows, but neurosciences have multiple hypothesis - one of which I work on. The universe is a 12 dimensional toroid and thoughts originate in the higher 9 dimensions are transmitted to the perceivable 3 dimensions via our neuro circuitry.

A computer program can make a choice, so that definition of free will isn't useful.

>that is most likely to be true.
Then you don't have true knowledge, all you have are habits learned from prior experience. You cannot make true predictions or rationalizations. For example, in the absence of any external experience, could you reason out the flames of a fire are hot? Or that coldness forms ice crystals? All you can do is predict...up until the point a case proves you otherwise. Like believing the Sun orbited the Earth, or like believing space/time is static...all science arguably has done/can do is make "predictions" up until the point it can't.

There may or may not be a benefit or cost. I simply seek true knowledge. Ultimate cause.

What a pretentious post.