Do we have free will?

>>7779339
yes

>>7779339
no

more so if you iodize your 5-ht2a receptor

>>7779339
maybe

free will implies paranormal forces, so no.

>>7779339
i don't know

I mean your hate receptor or whatever that bitch is called

>>7779339
Can you repeat the question?

>>7779339

That's a meaningless question without a clear definition of "free will." Note that saying what it ISN'T doesn't count as a definition.

wtf does 25i-NBOMe do?

>>7779339
Yes

>1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him." [GS 17; Sir 15:14.]
>>Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.[St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983.]
>http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

God left after he big banged us

the idea of free will is only used for preserving punitive institutions

I just realized I have free will. I'm going to go die now

File: tumblr_ms6y29b4jE1qcucu6o1_400.jpg (79KB, 384x211px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 384x211px

>>7779343
>>7779349
>>7779352
>>7779356
>>7779364

File: u bitch.jpg (25KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 700x466px

why do we dissolve our shit with oxidants? We should clean it with antioxidants.

>>7779350
Agonize it sure, but iodize? Iodizing the receptor where and how? What would that do?

>>7779385
stop anal eyezing

I smoke weed and yell at venus at night cause it's a bitch. What's ass trail projection?

>>7779371
So if man is master over his own acts, then God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent?

>>7779339
define "free will"
>>7779371
men wrote those down. either they imagined it or god made them to. so either bullshit or no free will :^]

if you think free will is the ability to follow/execute your own will, then sometimes. as long as you're not physically coerced, then fine, you have free will. if you're concerned with a version of free will that's any more meaningful or nuanced than that then the answer is probably no.

YOUR NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOOW

>>7779339
No, there is no free will. My attorney charged me a hundred bucks to do mine.

Only if you study pure mathematics

File: Folio_113v_-_Purgatory.jpg (698KB, 1590x2212px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1590x2212px

>>7779339
no
choice is just an illusion just like reality, and as Einstein said it best, a very persistent one at best.

The past, present, and future.
you cannot change the past, your illusion of choice is in the present, and you perception of free will is based off the future.

your lives have all been predetermined.

We all have a purpose in this world, or else it would be pure chaos.

>>7779805
YOURE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW

Not in any sense one would normally define it, no. Thoughts arise into conscience, for lack of a better word, as a random process, and any decision that we think we make is made some time earlier by our subconscious.

>>7779830
AND YOUR NOT A BIG GUUUUY

>>7779865
FOR YOU

>>7779339
Yeah we all have free will. Life is an improvised story. Each person a character determining his or her actions but limited to the options immediately around them. We have choices but some have been taught to choose certain paths, and it's these people who insist that there is NO free will. They have been convinced that they must follow a specific trajectory. That they must follow through.

But you always have that ability to change your mind. This is free will.

>>7780005
>Life is an improvised story. Each person a character determining his or her actions but limited to the options immediately around them.

life adheres to the natural laws, there's nothing improvised about it

'determining' your actions implies you being able to break the casual chain set before you, since the casual chain is what brought you to where you are now. This isn't possible unless you want to invoke the supernatural. Freewill isn't possible because you're constructed and confined by the natural laws.

>>7779528
>Define omniscient and omnipotent

>>7780014
Involving the supernatural might not be enough to salvage the concept. Causing one's own thoughts is akin to creating yourself. It's an illogical concept.

>>7780014
>>7780014
Well first off let me start by addressing the flaw with what you've just written.
You think that saying something isn't or that it can't, makes it so.
That is cognitive bias. Stop that.

As for what you wrote, the only natural law in play for humans is natural selection. Each agent still chooses from a set of actions, actions they've learned they can make. Remember making? Free will is choosing to make things. It's simply action for reason. Reasons that you see. People find reasons for doing things, then through choice/will they choose actions.

>>7780023
How do you choose things? You must have reasons.

How do you have reasons? You've learned them.

How did you learn them? You either were taught or seemingly 'discovered' the ideas on your own

How did you discover the ideas on your own? Conditions were in place (environment, genetics, knowledge provided by others) which allowed you to make these realizations.

Where did these conditions come from? Outside of you.

Your ability to 'choose' things is the same as the ability for a rock to 'choose' to roll down a hill, there were conditions in place which necessitated that it happens. If there weren't a set of conditions leading back in time then it would be an uncaused chain, which is either supernatural (impossible) or random (not in your control).

If you have reasons for your decisions, you must reconcile the fact that the source of these reasons cannot reside within you because you cannot make yourself. Your capacity to reason is an illusion brought about by the natural forces.

>>7780039
>allowed you
Excuse me. Knowledge is taken. A person must actively seek out information. You have to turn your head, seek with your eyes for information to even begin to learn.

You're presenting knowledge as a passive process of acquiring sensory information.

In truth, for most people that is, it is passive. Some of us have agency and seek or take an interest or think for our selves.

Like I was saying before, life is an improvised story. You've decided to give up on your suspension of disbelief.

You are telling yourself that all of this is out of your control. I'm telling you that you write your own dialogue. You decide your own actions. The actions you take are limited by laws.

I would love to will myself to fly but that requires technology. I can not naturally fly as a bird does. But it is possible for me to take flight in a constructed device that could carry me.

I must insist that you're a negative person and that is the reason you insist on saying "NO FREE WILL".

That we have free will is proven by my ability to write all of this; your denial, proof of your negativity.

>>7780052
Nobody's saying you're not an agent, dipshit. Just that there's no 'you' that chooses whatever action you take outside the chain of causality, i.e. free will is an illusion. An irrelevant one at that.

>>7780057
Calling it an illusion makes it an illusion. You really think you can be objective about reality from your subjective perspective?

>>7780062
The beautiful part of it is that it's hardly contingent upon reality. You don't cause your thoughts the same way you don't cause yourself.

>>7780065
I can cause my own thoughts. It's called imagination. Here I'll do it right now.

Can you focus on what you can cause instead of what you can't cause? It's bumming me out.

>>7780072
You can't cause your own thoughts. Your thoughts arise into consciousness as a product of your environment and subconscious processes.

>>7780078
I'm pretty sure I'm conscious of what I'm sensing. In my environment.

Okay, here is an example. I show you a picture I've cropped of a woman looking into the camera. You get aroused. Your arousal is the product of my cropped, specially cropped photo, and thus is the cause of your 'subconscious' thoughts of this face.

Had I shown you a cropped photo of her ass your thought would be of her ass. Simple. What you are aware of is what becomes your now conscious awareness.

i.e. You can't see what isn't there but you could think about it.

>>7780087
I don't see where free will enters the picture, mate. Physical senses are not contingent on it on any level.

>>7780091
The point is that you control your head's direction. You control where your eyes are pointing. That's where the physical comes into play here. You have free will of your body. By extension free will over your thoughts. Does that make sense?

>>7780097
It doesn't. Wherever you think you decide to turn your head has already been decided for you by subconscious processes. Which, by extension, are dictated by physical inputs and so on.

You're free to explain how you think you have free will to choose when you're literally not aware when those choices are being made, and how.

>>7780104
Maybe it is not for you. I know it is for me.

>>7780114
>this delusional
Next time a thought enters your head, and I know this might not happen soon, think about the will you exerted to create it.

>>7780116
Thinking is like writing for me. I choose the words I want to say what I want to say. I have a pretty strong will, too.

Still negative I see. Like I was saying before, you're insistence that something "isn't". Truthfully you can only speak of reality as it appears to you. Sounds like you lack free will.

>>7780130
>i'm so positive i deny causality
'Kay there, god-person. All I said was free will is irrelevant and inapplicable as a concept, but keep spazzing if you're so ideologically connected to it.

>>7780150
Now we're talking. See, as a concept it has application and can be relevant to say how to handle artificial intelligence. I think we could give a robot free will.

>>7780130
so do you have any reason for denying this guy's argument other than just wanting to believe you have free will?

>>7779382
kek

anyone that says yes doesn't belong on /sci/

this thread doesn't belong on /sci/

>>7780184
As proof of my free will, I will now.

>>7780198
You will what?

File: 11951393_161977280804906_7838211494384541933_n.png (47KB, 959x719px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 959x719px

God you're all such insufferable faggots. If you all spent as much time doing actual work as you did debating trite pseudo-intellectual topics like this, you could've actually gotten gud at math/physics/CS

>>7780218
I willed it. This that you're reading is a declaration of my will. Screenshot this. It's my declaration of free will.

>>7780222
>system.out.println("I have free will! Hear ye, humans!")
Would you look at that, my computer has free will.

>>7779339
Semantics.
No, you, your brain, and your mind cannot escape the rules of physics. Further, it may be true that your choices are determined. However, you can still have free will with determined choices.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

>>7780224
I see what we are doing as an extension of our capacity to communicate as humans. Like, these messages are still being written by humans so this is really just tool usage.

Computers capable of outputting text without human input on the other hand...

> I have free will
> I have powers that defy the physical boundries which let me break the action-reaction cycle and insert my own free will which is somehow independant of my past and anything happened previously

free willy threads belong to >>>/x/

>>7780236
Computers are input/output systems, just like us, except we're significantly more complex. I just demonstrated that mere proclamation is worthless as an argument for free will.

>Computers capable of outputting text without human input on the other hand...
Are a plenty, and are not difficult to conceive of or realise.

>>7780246
So you're saying my pc can't do things without my will to guide it? Automatic updates would beg to differ.

>>7780249
Where did you get this idea?

>>7780253
Well first off, I gave myself the idea. Remember I have free will so I can do this.

File: lele.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>7780257
Nice try, but that's not even an answer.

>>7780261
I'm serious. You asked where I got the idea. That is my answer. What the fuck.

>>7780257
So you didn't learn that idea from somewhere ? Is it not based on your past experiences ?

>>7780262
I meant where did you pick up the exact opposite of what I was saying in my post, Jesus.

>>7780263
I had to learn the words to know how to spell that sentence. That sentence came from my noodle bro. I fucking wrote that shit just now. This shit you're reading is new too. Hey look at that.

>>7780267
Cleverbot is pretty good at generating responses, too. About as likely to be on-point as well.

>>7780267
being able to type doesn't magically create free will. Would you still be typing the same things if you haven't been asked to ?

>>7780269
But do you see now? That is artificial intelligence. I know plenty of people that talk like cleverbot. And the ones that are well read and educated know how to use more words.

I think the issue with cleverbot is all the retards teaching it stupid responses. If smarter people held conversations with cleverbot it would 'learn' aka 'copy' what people are saying in an intelligent manner.

>>7780271
No. I do things for reasons. I can do things for my own reasons, too. You know, like write music or draw abstract shit. I can even talk to myself.

Sometimes I do things to just do them. To experience what doing that thing is. Yet, ultimately that is still a reason.

>>7780277
Where does free will enter Cleverbot?

>>7780226
Give me the tl;dr, nigger.
Is it defining free will differently?

This shit here?
>But she is a source all the same, and this sort of source of action, the classical compatibilist will argue, is sufficient to satisfy the kind of freedom required for free will and moral responsibility.

>>7780277
> my own reasons
"You", are the sum of your past experiences, which you had zero control over. Starting from when you were a sperm. So anything you attribute to yourself is still the result of a chain reaction that started way before you were born.

>>7780283
>Is it defining free will differently?
I don't know how you define it. Probably yes.

Many people bizarrely believe that it's bad if their choices are determined. However, consider the only other coherent choice - that their actions are random. I would much rather be a consistent, reliable, agent, where my actions derive from my past experiences, my personality, my preferences. I want my behavior to be /determined/ by my personality and preferences, and I want my personality and preferences to also be stable and determined.

Many religious people want a third option, and there is no logically coherent third option. Even positing the existence of a non-material soul does nothing to change the problem.

File: 8934792498798.png (441KB, 527x315px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 527x315px

>>7780284
Right, so then I guess you could say this reply was inevitable. Just another reaction.

Oh nooo reactions are learned and thus no choice can be made. Well except that I chose to be here in the thread. And I chose to add a picture just for the hell of it. And ▬ are you keeping track of all these choices I've made of my own free will? ▬ that proves I have will and that it is free to do as I please.

>>7780290
Define "me" without being bound completely by the physical reality, than I will take you seriously.

>>7780290
Where does free will enter a purely deterministic system, like a Cleverbot, mate?

>>7780288
Yeah, so it really is just a discussion about semantics then. Whether one's determined or random decisions are "free" really just depends on what you consider free enough.

>>7780296
Indeed.

For full accuracy, note that most of logically instances of randomness are actually otherwise deterministic systems except with some controlled random input. IMHO, a truly random system is also probably incoherent.

So, as far as I know, it's still an open question whether physics is deterministic, and whether your behavior is deterministic. But it doesn't much matter for the discussion of free will. And even if there's a little bit of randomness in your behavior, one can still talk about moral accountability, free choice, consent, coercion, etc.

>>7780293
Okay, get this. See this text. See how it was written by me? See how your message was written by you? See how language is the reading of symbols that represent sensory inputs, by necessity as a tool?

The word "Me" is by definition what you have been taught that the word "me" means, in the English language by whoever taught you English.

That is the definition of "me".

>>7780297
>But it doesn't much matter for the discussion of free will. And even if there's a little bit of randomness in your behavior, one can still talk about moral accountability, free choice, consent, coercion, etc.
That's the crucial point people hung up on free will don't seem to get. Free or not, our actions still have outcomes. We would lock up hurricanes if we could.

>>7780298
yeah, you just defnied yourself with outside sources...

>>7780300
And I'm right.

>>7780298
>>7780298
Where does free will enter a purely deterministic system, like a Cleverbot, mate?

Question is still open.

>>7780302
I should write some script that gives cleverbot free will. You know. Like have it say random shit somewhat relevant to the user. That'll really convince people that it's will is free and unbound by it's education.

>>7780301
Which means you don't have free will and your predetermined actions have been initiated by outside sources.

>>7780305
If I'm going with my first instincts all the time, maybe. I'm capable of stopping myself and rethinking what actions to take.

I think we call that self control.

>>7780304
Well, randomness isn't a path to free will in any sense, but even aside that, there's no way for you to generate numbers that would be truly random.

I'm left to guessing that you're trolling at this point.

>>7780309
I'm still serious. Dice are as random as they're going to be. So would the current way that pcs generate random numbers, system time and all. It's still random.

>>7780311
>Dice are as random as they're going to be.
And yet aren't truly random because every outcome can be predicted by position and momentum.

Regardless, again, how does randomness add to free will in your world view? Random doesn't mean caused by you.

>>7780308
Which are also pre-determined by outside sources. You're not suggesting anything that an AI can't do.

>>7780314
I'm starting to think that AI and what we do are one and the same. Which leads me to some very strange ideas about the state of the world we live in right now. I mean, video game AI with access to physical outputs are basically the robots of fiction. All it would take is for someone to make one.

Give it a camera, teach it what is the response to a given image. I mean, thats what self driving cars are doing right now. Identify where the road is. Identify what a road is.

You get a bot that can do that with words and have it talk like a human, thats AI. That sounds like people, too.

>>7780317
IMHO, it's massively more complicated than that in practice. In principle, we humans are just simple, physical machines. In practice, we are physical machines, but with a trillion moving parts, organized in just the right way, in a way that we haven't been able to replicate yet artificially (short of just growing a new human).

>>7780317
Humans are biomechanical robots. Our brains is technically an AI machine. It just seems much more complicated because it went through millions of years of evolution.

>>7780323
Right but this should be about making something better than a human. One capacity of humans is speech. Bots can do that. Next is predictability. Bots can totally do that. I fear the worse.

Like, go ahead and try to make something biologically identical to life, but as far as I'm concerned the artificial life is here because the things living beings can do are being done by artificial beings right now.

at one point I wasn't sure whether I believed in free will or not. then I saw that the only argument in favor of free will is "I must have free will because I earnestly believe I have free will"

Not in any meaningful sense.

>>7779339
no

Who cares?

>>7780308
>I must have free will because I have parts of my brain dedicated to reviewing stuff and potentially choosing a better solution
Guess what bro, the stuff allowing you that review is just more biological CPU kicking in, created by evolution, and sitting in your brain.

We can choose to act against our self preservation instinct. Most other animals can not do that and the others can barely.

>>7781424
And what do we choose to act against self preservation for?

And how does this matter at all? Most social insect species have a single member per hive who actually breeds, the rest of the colony literally lives to protect that one animal, and their lives are expendable.

Social animals act against their own self preservation all the time, its nothing special and is an evolved trait. Look up Kin Selection.

>>7781299
>stuff allowing you
Right, I bet you ascribe cause of death to your individual body parts rather than to people, right?

"He has no skill, its all just hand muscle memory."

"He just has good leg tone which allows him to run faster. Has nothing to do with his mind bro."

No shit. Free will has only to do with what we call will. You want to keep reminding us that our brains give us this "illusion" of freedom? Your arms give you the illusion of freedom of interaction with the world. You only have five fingers bro. That means you're limited to a grip of five. No free grip. True free grip would be gripping with more than five fingers.

>>7781428
>And how does this matter at all?
No one tell him. Haha. He doesn't know.

>>7781290
sorry why are you here again?

File: 10.jpg (22KB, 292x379px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 292x379px

>>7779382

kek

fucking made my day

File: Text-08-Sin-Envy-2.jpg (372KB, 1181x1476px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1181x1476px

>>7780328

Actually fetishes are good models for studying free will. After repeated pairings of a sexual stimuli with a non-sexual stimuli the non-sexual stimuli will elicit a sexual response by itself.

So what I'm basically saying is we need to find a way to make a robot a pervert and we will finally unlock the key to A.I.

No, but it doesn't necessarily mean we still can't make rational decisions based on the information/stimuli put in front of us

I wonder if irrational decisions are proof of free will.

Free will without an outside influence is not possible unless you are omnipotent so no, I'll vote no.
I see people as highly advanced robots made by similar robots. Some of which are very attractive.

File: Saturday Night Fever Reboot - Featuring Robert Downey Jr & Tom Cruise.webm (3MB, 422x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 422x240px

>>7779339
Only as much as your government or ruling body allows.

>>7781639

Yo what the fuck

>>7779339
I do but you don't.

t. God

Predetermined thread. Hope my future self believes in free will, this shit is depressing as fuck.

>>7781489
>No shit. Free will has only to do with what we call will. You want to keep reminding us that our brains give us this "illusion" of freedom? Your arms give you the illusion of freedom of interaction with the world. You only have five fingers bro. That means you're limited to a grip of five. No free grip. True free grip would be gripping with more than five fingers.
The fuck are you even talking about?

Your mind IS you, its capacity to think is what gives you the person their capacity to think. Death of your self is caused by death of the brain (not necessarily the whole thing, but enough of it to shut down the kind of ability it may have originally had).

People have skill, and people use their mind to drive their bodies, the question is: if you are in some situation, and you make a choice, what is the thing or mechanism (either purely physical or "supernatural", whatever that even means) which gives you the ability to override the physics/chemistry of your brain and the rest of your body and say no, we're doing THIS instead of what would have normally happened in a basic physical universe. The answer is: nothing, there is no physical or non-physical thing allowing us to step outside physics and chemistry as we know it and have "free will".

Your brain is a system set up by its experiences and environment, and it reacts to future experiences and environments based entirely on physical, deterministic laws.

>>7781496
In regards to the question of free will, it doesnt matter at all, unless you want to stop shitposting and explain how it does matter that some life forms display behavior that is not for their own immediate self preservation.

>>7779339

Not in the way most people think it does.

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_xEraQWvgM

Who cares?
Even if we don't, it's best to believe we do.

>>7782786
A few more on the subject of free will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCwY36a19aQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE

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

>>7779339
sure

>>7782796
I agree that it's best to believe we do.
See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnhSn_NvGbo

But if we did not have free will, then we have no choice in whether or not we believe we have it.
Either we believe it, or we don't.
That belief would have been predetermened, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

What I'm getting at is your statement implys that we have a choice, and therefore have free will.

>>7779339
No, because the universe is deterministic. Technically you could say everything is set in stone and nothing can change it, unless something foreign to our universe happens and disrupts everything, but thats unlikely.

See the thing is that if the governments of hte world go and say that free will doesnt exsist and everything is set in stone form the get go, people will lose all accountability for their actions, and would start condemning others as fated fro suffering, which, wether its true or not, isn't something anyone wants to be a part of.

If something is going to happen, nothing in our universe can stop it, so take solace in teh fact that your fate is already predetermined and all you're doing is sitting along for the ride, like a movie.

File: schrodingerscatbox.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

>>7782808
>the universe is deterministic
Schrodinger's cat disagrees.