>tfw fell for the hard determinism meme >tfw I can't

Convenient excuse

>falling for the schhol of thought meme
>not joining a freemasonic rite to learn life's real truths

ayy lmao

>>9973074
You obviously don't really understand determinism. You are like the compatableists who think having control is what the debate is about. You obviously have control. You however have limited control over the influences that determine your choices and the control you have over your influences is also influenced by other influences.

I.e. You were influenced not to leave your bed because of a faulty idea. Real free will doesn't even make sense. Do you have the will to imagine a color that you have never seen? You can't because of your limited mind. If your mind is limited by experience then how could you make some choice uninfluenced by the chain of events that led you to the fork in the first place?

>>9973126
control IS free will

absolute 150% free will does not exist, no one argues for that

>>9973126
who has ever stated they are in control of all factors and influences on their life lmfao

Hard determinism only applies from the lightspeed perspective or an extra-universal perspective, for different reasons.

Being part of the universe and subject to time, you cannot have access to a perfect prediction of a future state or states of the universe, because such a set of information cannot exist within the bounds of the universe.

The way out of determinism is letting it meme you into making increasingly bad life choices until you decide you want to start at least PRETENDING free will exists and holding yourself accountable for your actions instead of acting like a nihilistic twerp. I'm sure you will fail too, because for some reason schools don't educate people on philosophy whatsoever and they go into schools memed out of their mind and collapse in the face of the moderate amount of pressure applied to them.

See your impending failure from school as being a great adventure into the wonders of determinism, since you failed, determinism implies you were always bound to fail, you just couldn't help it, you were just a born failure. Your choices don't matter since free will is all chemicals anyways, being a failure is no less noble than being a success. This will be a more effective philosophy lesson than you'll ever get from reading a book. You will have to contend with the idea of if you were always born to be a failure, or you just chose to be one, and figure out which mentality makes you less sick in the head.

>>9973126
>You have control, except when dont lol
Almonds activated

Ben Stiller is actually a bit of an idiot and listening to him has a strong dunning-kruger effect on people. He is completely and utterly unaware of the mental leaps of faith he takes which is utterly outstanding considering he's a trained philosopher, he has to be one of the most stubbornly ignorant people on the planet.

Quantum mechanics raises problems for determinism at a much, much higher level than muh brain chemicals. If you've never looked into the philosophy of quantum mechanics, I would advise you to do so, if just because you're so fucked in the head you have little to lose. I'm convinced at this point determinism, while being associated with "sciencey" types, is so unprovable fundamentally you practically need to have religious faith in its existence. The same goes for free will, but given determinists are generally more amoral and useless, fuck determinism.

>>9973238
He's not a trained philosopher, he's a "neuro-scientist." In quotes because

>Sam had no history in neuroscience and he had never conducted an experiment in his life. It’s hard to imagine the UCLA neuroscience department accepting his PhD proposal, until you remember that Sam was by this stage highly connected, filthy rich, and becoming famous. He was given the red carpet treatment by UCLA. Sam got to pretend to do science while the professionals got to work. The various research jobs were passed to his co-authors: conducting the experiments, recruiting participants and designing the entire study were taken off Little Lord Fauntleroy’s hands. Ultimately Sam’s sole responsibility was the final write-up, which is less the account of a scientific experiment and more a screed about his personal views on religion, and a narcissistic flexing of his intellectual cred.

>>9973265
sauce?

>>9973265
Well, he also has a degree in philosophy. Yeah he's bad at it, but he is definitely "trained" which just makes his incompetence at it more surprising, which I believe is what the previous poster was getting at

you're failing classes because you're stupid.

>>9973238
>If you've never looked into the philosophy of quantum mechanics
any good papers that aren't pseud shit?

>>9973074
So you decided not to decide because you decided you can't decide?

>>9973275
rhizzone, I believe

>>9973163
Are you actually unironically making an argument based on the information density of current technology?

>>9973304
No I'm just smart but lazy

But not lazy because I was destined not to put into any effort

>>9973238
>quantum mechanics
Only being able to predict probabilities instead of absolute certainties doesn't make free will exist. Also irrelevant regardless because human brains operate on the scale of classical physics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009v2.pdf
>We find that the decoherence timescale s ( ∼ 10 −13 − 10 −20 seconds) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales ( ∼ 10 − 3 − 10 − 1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.
You are only allowed to honestly believe in "quantum consciousness" if you also believe consciousness has NOTHING to do with neuronal firing, because Tegmark established they will fire exactly the same way as predicted by classical physics regardless of any quantum effects that happens in proximity to them. The timescales for decoherence aren't anywhere near long enough to let them influence neuronal firing.

>lmao it's just your brain chemicals silly!
>every choice you make was influenced by prior causes
>in fact you don't have control over anything, Libet says your actions are completely determined!

who the hell takes this fool seriously?

>>9973238
But from a behavioral standpoint, it's still determinism if the acausal causes aren't you.

>>9973238
Quantum mechanics at best replaces some determinism with randomness, and like Ben Stiller likes to say: No mixture of randomness and determinism gives you free will. At what point does randomness somehow make your decisions "free" in some meaningful way? 1% ... 50% ... 100% ? How is making random choices more free than making causally determined choices?

>>9973126
Your own thoughts on the matter were determined so you don't know that they are true.

>>9973074
>nothing I do matters it's all chemical reactions lmao
A joke of course, but some people seriously think this and I'll never understand why. Those chemical reactions are you, they aren't separate from you.

>>9973911
if you were actually smart you'd either be passing without effort, or would be studying.

File: 1500904203938.jpg (66KB, 537x469px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 537x469px

>>9973126
>you obviously have control

Hard determinism does not equal fatalism brainlets. Such a noob mistake.

And if QM is true then we do not have enough control for FW either

From what I've seen, free will and determinism both exist. Why? Because in most areas of physics, the universe doesn't give a fuck what people think or experience as long as everything agrees the same chain of events happened.

If the second law of thermodynamics didn't exist, there would be no reason why events couldn't just go backwards and forwards in time. When particles move, you have to consider every possible path it will take because it has the potential to go through them all. The universe does just not give a shit about what happens as long as the end result is the same.

To the universe, it doesn't matter whether free will or determinism exist anymore than it matter is if the Red Sox win next season or a person stabs someone. The end result will be the same anyway, so the universe just lets us sit here arguing on imageboards about it, and it will never give us a definite answer. Its like qualia, does it matter what you or I perceive red to be as long as we both agree its red? Not to the Universe.

File: 16qmvn.jpg (31KB, 624x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 624x480px

>>9973074
>not being conditioned such that the sum of all your influences and your awareness of them causes you to embrace destiny and live to the fullest
Nietzsche looks upon you with disdain.

>What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"
>Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?... Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

>>9973911
This is what stupid people tell themselves

>>9973909

I'm making an argument based on the information density of spacetime.

One could argue that the universe is a computer constantly calculating its own state, but how then do you construct an analytical machine capable of reading the current and calculating future states without just waiting for the universe to move through time into them? The analytical machine would have to possess and store perfect knowledge of itself and its affect on the universe in order to make accurate predictions- which is already impossible- even before you get around to perfect knowledge of even one instantaneous state of the universe.

Achieving information totality is like having an over-unity machine.

>>9973126
>free will doesn't make sense because i ahve autism
>You can't because of your limited mind. If your mind is limited by experience then how could you make some choice uninfluenced by the chain of events that led you to the fork in the first place?
>presuming

>>9973238
>philosophy of invalid STEM nonsense
Fuck off, redditor
>>9973941
All physics is wrong, sorry redditor!
*begs the question*

>>9974747
Why doesn't it equal fatalism?

>>9975234
It's determinism, not predictablism. It doesn't have to be computable, only computed.

File: heeee.jpg (56KB, 568x425px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 568x425px

>benstiller.jpg

>>9973941
Determinism is false. Completely and utterly debased. Do we have free will? I sure do hope so and like to think that we do. Doesn't matter ; the important part is that Determinism is out and uncertainty gives us reasons to go on.

>>9973074
Do something. Humans are just goal completing machines. Set goals. Complete them. Die. Otherwise, the suffering you feel until you die will only get worse. Start small.

>>9973074
Knowledge is power. You now know that you are a puppet with strings and instead of grabbing hold of those strings you have chosen to let them have their way with you so you can spite your own pathetic worm-like existence. You have failed in your life. You have failed to cultivate discipline and develop the courage necessary to confront the void, hence why you think,
>nothing I do matters it's all chemical reactions lmao

Get out of bed and make something of your life you pathetic piece of shit. You have no choice in the matter, for my post necessitates your action.

>>9976906
>determinism is false
what universe do you come from?

File: IMG_1664.jpg (52KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 850x400px

>>9973074
A highly motivated person can accept hard determinism and still pursue goals, because those goals activate pleasure, which is chemical. If you don't wanna get out of the bed, it's because you're lazy and/or unmotivated, which is due to some sort of chemical predisposition. I know you're having a hard time believing there is no free will, so I want you to do a few thought experiments:
>go 20 seconds without thinking
>turn absolute love for an object into absolute hatred, or vice versa

Free will is impossible. All your actions lead back down a causal chain, which I believe goes back to God. Everything you are composed of is either natural, and obviously causal (physics, chemistry, biology) or supernatural, and therefore causal because God created you that way. Animals don't have free will but they don't have an innate understanding of the causal nature of the universe, so they have no reason to think they don't have free will. A universe without free will look exactly like this one.

>>9976921
How do goal completing machines set goals

>>9976960
But God can grant your immaterial part free will while matter can't grant your material part free will.

>>9976998
How exactly does God grant us free will? Be specific.

>>9977008
I don't have to be specific in the realm of metaphysics. It is not beholden to scientific proofs.

But the physical realm, which is, clearly disallows it.

>>9974747
>And if QM is true then we do not have enough control for FW either
Everything about this statement is retarded, kys

>>9977031
God doesn't give us free will. How can you say that your claim that he does give us free will is more reasonable than mine?

>>9977038
Because I experience seeming free will every waking moment of my life, yet it is inadmissible in a purely physical universe. And I experience it through the same faculties that bring me mundane scientific truths of cause and effect.

Therefore it comes from either an elaborate ruse nature plays on itself or from a metaphysical truth.

At that point, you can flip a coin and go with it. Or you can agree that since a causal universe denies choice, you can't choose the metaphysical explanation and be wrong, since if the metaphysical explanation is wrong, you couldn't have chosen it.

So why not?

>>9973074

>because
>because

what even is this word

>>9977059
So do you think all animals have free will too? If they don't, surely you don't think they understand that they don't?

>>9977088
But if they don't, they still they haven't made an incorrect choice in assuming that they do because they have no free will and have thus not made a choice at all.

Same with us.

>>9973074
>Determinism
>Okay let's talk about the determination ones race makes on behavior which is currently the highest predictor along with iq of ma-
>Hold on there Nazi

>>9977115
Both determinism and racial superiority are true

>>9973080
How do I do this

>>9977108
My point is we can live in a deterministic world and still think we have free will. It wouldn't make sense for us to come out of the womb thinking we don't have free will. It takes observation and reasoning of the human capacity to realize how meaningless a concept free will is. Either the past decides our actions or our actions come partially from nowhere. I prefer believing the former.

>>9977291
But you can't live in a deterministic world and choose to believe you live in a deterministic world.

>>9977281
>Both determinism and racial superiority are true

Absolutely, but Wh*te scum are not the master race and are doomed to all die off.

>>9973074

read emerson. absolute determinism logically includes being determined to have personal freedom. they aren't mutually exclusive.

>>9976934
At least Quantum.

>>9974321
what does that even mean

>>9977287
Ask a mason if you can join their lodge. Become initiated. Make your way through all the degrees over a few years. Learn the unexciting mysteries of old white men. Possibly drive a miniture car during parades.

>>9973126
>If your mind is limited by experience
he thinks there is mind and experience and the two are not same

>>9976688

The entire point of my first post is that it doesn't matter that the future states are computed, because it's impossible to access knowledge of those future states.

That information does not and can not exist within the universe until the point in time in question has been reached, therefore making the concept of determinism irrelevant for points of view embedded in the universe.

>>9977500
no. the very power of calculation is the power to calculate future states of determination

determinayion is not.meaningless. determination can be calculated

ehy is lit so stupid. do you guys all have postmodern lit majors

>>9977511

Did you just have a fucking stroke?

Do you have any concept of information density?

>>9977522
you dont need to calculate all information to know a future state within reasonable boundaries. statistics works precisely because the world jis deterministic

you calculate the most salient factors and you have information relevant to that future state.

are you asking to predict the weather? thats useless even if you could

anything else ither than macro weather is calculable. fucking IRREGULAR stellar orbits for fucks sake

>>9977536

Again, did you have a stroke? Are you trying to tell me that anything but macro-scale weather patterns are predictable?

This thread is discussing free will, which for the purposes of determinism requires perfect knowledge and calculation ability for every particle.

>>9977551
wrong. the brain is an amalgamation of modular units, most of which use threahold calculation. the most complex units of calvulation do so stochastically from ergodic units.

we can already map facial visualizations from brain scans of monkeys.

we dont need knowledge of every atom any more than we need knowledge of every atom kn a computer to surmise its basic functioning principles, and to figure out what its terminal value is

are you dumb?

>>9977568
have you read any literature on free will at all? pop science doesn't count

>>9977586
>have you read any stoned musings on free will?
>cutting edge neurology doesnt count
jesus fucking christ

>>9973074
chemical reactions?
The brain is composed of atoms, molecules, chemical compounds...
But it isn't
These are just concepts for people to establish some kind of reference point concerning their microcosmic being in the world

Everything is actually poetic in substance

Only when there is a science of poetics or a poetics of science will people really see things as they are

Science as science will just create people like yourself, existentially anxious that everything is a "billiard ball equation" clanging about in the void

That is a really trite picture to paint about the expansive reality, the endless perspectives to inhabit, it has its place only as a point of reference as a crippled perspective that through its lack propelled civilisation into considering perspectives that compelled people to repsect themselves and life and beauty and poetry and art and eternity and the universe and love and god and religion and science, yes science as one among a congress of functions of the eternal function

>>9977592
most discussion of free will is scientifically informed and for the last few decades has thoroughly discussed the libet and split-brain experiments which are probably more relevant to free will than the jumbled mess of whatever you picked up from the latest sam harris book/intro-to-neural-networks course/whatever

it helps to understand what you're talking about before you talk about it

Meaning could be considered a predisposition of sorts. A very core, causal link that borne understanding would will to impose on the sensibility of life within scope. We constantly search, muse, to dwell and sort the very underpinning of our own deep-set considerations and fear. I am afraid that this very exercise is a sort of rabbit hole. In itself, it does not perpetrate forthwith, as far as I can determine... and as it so happens... inevitably, two stances develop on the presupposition of logic, and truth: otherwise regarded as an esoteric, coincidentally, subliminal, justice. Stance one: there is none. Following a presupposed path is tomfoolery; life is but a begin onto another, yes? Every birth a rebirth of a sort, yeah. We as thoughtful beings cannot allot for the whole breadth of creation and destruction. It is not in our grasp, better known as will, ever. This is the bay of the layman, or, cynic. Stance two: Logic, truth, are both emblematic and transient...corroding an inherent chaos in everything...even the cosmic-sum countenance which happenstance misery is rule; that too holds silver lining. Virtue proceeds ... not begotten by scorn or envy, but its very own precedence. Virtue is devised of us, for if we continued on absent of that very sacred thing, we would no longer exist. Of course, that inclination is, in sorts, a kind of confirmation bias. Propagation does not equal salvation, but it can beget hope to a better end, I believe: and the continued survival and contrivance of mankind would give hope to that. And this would be the bay of the transcendent, or, lunatic.

File: images (19).jpg (11KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 229x220px

>>9977600
You are right, my brother. Every moment of instantiation of the real truth into the manifold of multiplicity is a moment that frees us from the crushing tyrrany of vituperative taperings of existence.

Science is nonsense.

>>9977614
>nonsense philosopher reads some science and spins it into wild fantasy
>totally informative
>what an actual neurologist who xan brain scan monkeys writes
>its nonsense
oh. got it buddy

maybe you should go and jerk >>9977623
and off. offer them your anus

>>9977618
jesus christ. did you even graduate high school. if i was your english teacher i would beat you

>>9977628
dude kill yourself

>>9977633
To be fair i'm about a half case deep and it's 4 AM here. I wanted to see if I could type out some bullshit that sounded philosophical and if anyone would buy it.

>>9977643
you are literally trying to invalidate neurology

>>9977651
kay. my mistake. sorry for blowing your cover. i think most of the idiots here would believe it

>>9973074
nigga you are chemical reactions, the level of complexity that is your whole allows you to chose. Though most of you is just an autopilot machine of unconscious reason and instinct, and completely automated processes. You still have some choice.

File: IMG_1708.jpg (30KB, 321x319px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 321x319px

>>9977297
But I do, though

>>9978285
No, you only imagine you do, by your own dogma.

>>9977411
>At least Quantum.
Go back and read this:
>>9973941
You personally are the activity of a deterministic brain. Quantum scale phenomena have literally no involvement with nor impact at all upon neuronal firing. At best you can argue phenomena that have nothing to do with you aren't deterministic, in which case congratulations, you might have the possibility of beginning to make a failed argument for the free will of subatomic particles (will end up being a failed argument because randomness isn't any more "free" than determinism; random number generators don't have free will).

>>9978394
quantum effecta do change biology actually. we cant tell why. look up differences in iodine metabolism. majoe differences

that said, yea, the poster you are replying to is an idiot

>>9973074
Why is he so dead-eyed? Is that what a lack of free will looks like?

>>9978413
I'm talking about neuronal firing, not all of biology. Your iodine metabolism isn't really relevant to free will.
That said, do you have a source for the iodine metabolism / quantum effects thing? I tried a regular search engine and didn't see results that matched what you're talking about.

>>9975615
I forgot about >presuming
Do we still use that? When did it disappear. I member it from /b/

>>9973265
I just had a quick did of his neuroscience publications and they're all well underpowered. The most cited one is an fMRI study of neural correlates of 'belief' with 14 participants, with some flimsy results vaguely pointing to regions well associated with decision making behaviour already

>>9978428
100% possibility Stiller is a zombie.

>>9978394
>You personally are the activity of a deterministic brain. Quantum scale phenomena have literally no involvement with nor impact at all upon neuronal firing.
Neurons have literally no impact on me, since they are too small to matter, like Quantum mechanics.

>>9978505
No, that's not how physics works.

>>9978505
We already know neuronal firing matters for you. Try continuing to have thoughts with no neuronal firing. It probably won't work out well.
There's a timescale for when quantum decoherence can operate and neuronal firing isn't compatible with it. Your neurons will fire the same way as predicted by classical physics regardless of any quantum scale effects.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009v2.pdf
>We find that the decoherence timescale s ( ∼ 10 −13 − 10 −20 seconds) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales ( ∼ 10 − 3 − 10 − 1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

>>9977536
statistics doesn't work

>>9977436
Do I have to fuck and eat children too?

>>9977551
>the purposes of determinism requires perfect knowledge and calculation ability for every particle
No. This claim fails to take into account the existence of irrelevancies. Not everything has causal influence on everything else.

>>9978530
It was a joke. Quantum is everywhere especially because it is so small.

>>9978565
I know it was a joke. You were trying to use that joke to make a point that isn't true.

>>9978640
>Quantum doesn't affect us
Shame about perception.

>>9978716
You're confusing the term "observation" with literal human perception. An inanimate tool can be an "observer" in the quantum sense. And again, your brain's neurons will fire the same regardless of any quantum effects. It doesn't operate at the quantum scale.

>>9977660
hey retard how is paying careful attention to recent developments in neurology and seriously discussing experiments that seem to pose a threat to free will such as the libet and split brain experiments "invalidating neurology?" you really think philosophers aren't aware of a topic popular enough to inspire a host of shitty pop-sci books (that you've probably gotten your knowledge of neuroscience from)

>>9978793
you are dumb. I am saying neurology explicitly nullifies free will as a valid concept

>>9978809
yeah and instead of providing an argument for how neuroscience proves determinism you just posted a jumbled mess of facts

why don't you read some actual philosophy and see how people who aren't retards connect neuroscience with determinism

>>9978832
i understand neurology in a professional capacity. I am not going to accept your pop philosophy as valid evidence. kill yourself

>>9978839
i am telling you to read papers on free will published in reputable philosophy and scientific journals you retard

>>9978855
>philosophy journals
topkek
>psychology papers on free will
extrakek

whats your iq? 110 at the highest? can yoy even explain the extinction phase in impulse?

you just read smug bait and switxh arguments. go kill yourself

>>9978877
>admits he's never read a single argument on the topic

please go to reddit where you might actually fool someone into thinking you know what you're talking about

>>9978892
no. please. lay out the basic argument for me. please give me one that dorsnt boil down to "this small threshold of calculation is difficult to measure directly, therefore, magic"

no one in neurology, psychiatry, or psychology believes free will is a valid concept. NO ONE.

neurologists can literally control the walking of a rat with electrodes and reconatruct visual stimulation with specific neural modules from making monkeys wear helmets

these people say there is NO free will

whatvthe fuck can you do, you limp dicked virgin? can you reconstruct what a monkey sees?

no? then shut the fuck up. no one cares. give us your argument and associated proof it correlates to the real world because your knowledge gives you control over the environment or KILL YOURSELF

>>9975615
Okay sorry didn't realize there were people who can imagine colors outside of the visible light spectrum. Can you also hear an H note?
>>9974731
Just roll with it. No one wants to turn this into semantics on who "you" really are. I just mean when I choose to get a ham sandwich instead of pb and j I get ham and make it with my nervous system. Now maybe it wasn't really my choice because my body was lacking in amino acids I get from ham or maybe in blocking out a negative memory that has to do with peanut butter. That's what I mean by control and influence.

>>9975816
Because fate can be hopeful.

>>9974718
He could have a higher than average IQ and lack both a photographic memory and a motivation to study and there are many factors to this that can arise during and after the crystallization of his intelligence.

>>9978906
Read hume retard.

>>9979012
Literally nonsense

>>9977614
you are aware that sam harris argues for the legitimacy of libet and split brain experiments right?

>>9979092
ah, yeah, someone that had no idra neurons even exist is a competent counterpoint ti neyrology

right

care to update his argument?

>falling for the hard determinism meme
>pretending you understand the nature of the world at the same time
makes no sense

>>9979323
>falling for the 'some level of chaos on the smallest level means meatsacks have magical agency' meme

>>9979335
no, just because the dice may land on any of its sides doesn't mean the dice has any say on it

that doesn't mean you understand the nature of the universe

>>9979399
Free will remains a meme though. That's the essential thing.

>>9979416
it's not more of a meme than anything else like being sad about it

>>9979300
His argument doesn't need to be updated, and as a matter of fact he didn't even come up with it. Nobody has solved the problem of induction and necessary connections. And that's the main point of Hume. You can't empirically prove causation. All you show is a habit of one thing following another.

This might seem trivial, when causes are so reliable between material things. But the idea of the universality of a notion you can't even prove, but just assume out of habit, is a way bigger stretch than you think.

The problem with talking down on philosophy is you're just priding yourself on ignorance. Everyone makes fun of philosophy but then take philosophical stances without a second thought. Stop it.

>>9979435
you are stupid. you are unfamiliar with basic arguments that form the basis of computational and information theory

calculation is inherently anti entropic. organizing against entropy, energyvis expended to perform calculations. the very nature of organizing anti entropy is inherently calculable, there are finite means and calculably more efficient methods by which it is accomplished, always. that means intelligence itself is inherently deterministic, because there is always, singularly, a better way to do it.

this forms the basis of all computers which are built, and progressively conplex ai systems.

we solved the problem of induction. this is it. no one here is ignorant besides you, becauae you refused to learn anytbing practical

>>9979435
just to update the scorecard

neurology 1: (they made shit)
free will: 0

computational theory:1 (they also made shit)
kant: 0

show me what some kant scholar that is obsessed with the smell of his own farts has built and i might relent

>>9979472
>becauae you refused to learn anytbing practical
anyone who ever brings up practicality is basically admitting their own stupidity.

>>9979551
no. computation theory plays directly into the workings of neurons and circuits. they can make basic circuitboards out of neurons now. did you know that? of course you didnt. reproducibility is the heart of science

you fags are making extraordinary claims about the workings of the human mind and refusing to show evidence of it working at all, like idiots

>>9979566
science can't exist without free will

>>9979566
>you fags are making extraordinary claims about the workings of the human mind and refusing to show evidence of it working at all, like idiots
You sound like the one making an extraordinary claim kiddo.

>>9979566
Evidence doesn't exist.
Science is an invalid ideology.

im done. you idiots need to be shot in the head.

i should have known not to think you fags would understand math philosophy or anything remotely related

>>9979589
STEMpleb can't handle the banter. Sad! Many such cases.

>>9979589
go back to your train sets.

>>9979589
>falling for the stem meme
never come back

>>9979435
>you're just assuming things based on habitual experience, you can never know shit because muh quantum uncertainty in the brain therefore free will exists QED

the problem of induction is honestly the most retarded thing to come out of philosophy and is testament to the fact that it's a dying discipline only studied by pretentious know-it-alls who overestimate their own intelligence

>>9979581
>Evidence doesn't exist.
of course you'd say that, otherwise you'd be proven wrong

>i'm right because evidence doesn't exist and evidence doesn't exist because i'm right

>>9979632
It paved way for Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

>>9979632
Would love to hear your solution

>>9979566
>they can make basic circuitboards out of neurons now.
We can make circuit boards out of wood or rock if we want to. Heck, we could even do it within Minecraft, Super Mario Maker and other simulations.
>we can structure stuff
Yes. Yes, we can.

>>9979673
A poster above already provided one. You have refused to interface it like most sophists, or like muslims and basic science.

>>9979684
das raycis

>>9979515
Doing anything doesn't really matter without free will. An action without a worthy wielder is yet another pattern amongst patterns. Heck, this is the main reason for the strong belief in determinism; I'm not in charge of my own life.

File: 1490758139920.jpg (2MB, 3000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1500px

>>9973177
so i rode this meme into academic suspension and a good pile of debt
>still no ambition

how much further should i go?

>>9979708
not an argument. christian deontology cannot will into being meaning in only the apecific.instances it demands, in order to.prove a point about cognition

>>9976990
make it ur goal to set goals duh

>>9979805
moreover, make it a goal to augment procesaing power. woo, you end up with basic axioms that allow decision structure. you created sentience without free will.

woo. so difficult

>>9973074
>>tfw I can't bring myself to leave bed because I thought that I don't have any choice in the matter
If you're still thinking about choices, and if you still recognize a difference between action and inaction, then you still do not understand what determinism actually is.

>>tfw I'm failing all of my classes now because "nothing I do matters it's all chemical reactions lmao"
Now you are assigning a value to chemical reaction, more importantly you are assigning value to the act of avoid effort. Basically to you effort is a net negative (for it does not result in anything) and rest is a net positive. This is still a very arbitrary way to look at this picture, and it is still entirely dependant on what emotions this pseudo-knowledte have provoked in you.

>>9979573
How so?

>>9979781
>free will is only a Christian thing

>>9979891
how are you going to set an experiment if you can't decide anything?

> I don't have any choice in the matter

You can always just kill yourself

>>9979891
Science is the measurement and description of physical phenomena, which means that what science refers to can be intended outside of the human experience. That object is still going at that speed, if you measure with this and that instruments (which are the product of engineering), wether it's a human measuring it or not.

>>9979902
Werher I can decide or not, my body will still act, and this will still account for science.
Your mistake is thinking that you can get behind the deterministic point of view, and see it from "above", as if by retaining this knowledge you can act according to it. This is not the case, therefore talking about choices is meaningless (as long as you accept these axioms).

>>9979902
Decisions can still be made, they're not just made by the experiment and desu they're not even really decision

File: 1494696283591.gif (1022KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 640x480px

>people in a 4chan thread have solved the problem of induction, one of the most difficult problems in philosophy for centuries

holy kek

>>9979920
but to do science you need that "above" view you are talking about, otherwise it's meaningless

>>9979942
those aren't decision then, just things that happen. here we are talking about hard determinism, if you want to get into some shitty compatibilism we can do that

>>9979911
So?

>>9979962
Nope, you're just trying to idealize it. Science is not meaningless in this way: you can replicate its result. Sure, tomorrow everything might change in ways we could not imagine, disproving this way our science, but if this does not happen we can reliably use it to measure phenomenons, derive other conclusions and replicate them. In this process your "choices" are meaningful only in the formulation of experiments, but even thos eintuitions can be treated serially, eliminating the need for human insight (we don't do this because it would take thousands of years for even the simplest experiment, yet the experiment would still be valid)
Science can be made by computers. Think about that.

>>9979995
So it does rely on "choices" only tangentially, and said choices take no part in the experiment and results but in the formulation of said experiment.

>>9979920
>as long as you accept these axioms
I can't accept them as I have no free will

>>9973074
>tfw fell for the will to power meme
>tfw realized any meaning I assign to life is subjective and thus pointless without an objective arbiter in place
>tfw nietzsche was a hack fraud

File: philosophers.png (31KB, 233x255px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 233x255px

>>9979323
>You can't know nuffin
I'll take two cheeseburgers and a McCafé to go.