What's the hardest blackpill you've swallowed? Me:

>>39053396
I actually like this type of existence, i find having no control on the long term exiting

>>39053396
No such thing as free will. We are all slaves to our programming regardless if you aware of it or not.

I almost want to go on to say thats the source of struggle for most people, not coming to grips with that fact. You can't rise above your own nature. Might as well strip of meaning and deriving purpose from it.

>>39053396
the voice in my head told me that, but I'm pretty sure it just wants to defeat me.

I might unironically be insane but have no resources to talk to a professional and get help.

there's a lot to think about in that

fuck

>>39053396
The fact you can be aware of the conditions you're subjected to is evidence of a component of your being that isn't totally influenced by them.

>>39053396
I always figured it was a crapshoot. We can't accurately predict how atoms act simple because at a certain level particles don't always play by the rules like photon splitting and non-relative entanglement.
While correct in that they set our "destined" behavior there's more than likely a set of options just like theres 1's, 0's, and 2's in a quantum computer leaving only a set of possible combinations.

>>39053442
Every first world country has some form of free mental healthcare, america and britain especially, there's various organizations, sites, hotlines, etc. you can contact for that.

>>39053396
While that theory is technically correct it's not actually relevant to the question of free will. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and momentum (how much it weighs and where it is going) of a particle beyond a certain degree of accuracy. Quantum mechanics then tells us that until a result (in this case the position/momentum of a particle) is observed it does not exist except as a sort of field of potential outcomes, any one of could happen.
Given these two facts about the nature of the universe, the conclusion is reached that there is a layer of built in uncertainty at the most fundamental level of existence and it is because of this uncertainty that we possess and are required to exercise free will.

Speaking purely in terms of the laws of physics, the only thing with any control over you is you.

>>39053396
People born with horrific physical and mental disabilities. Knowing their struggle kills any delusion one might have about life being fair or something that anyone can put their mind to and be successful at.
The people are at the extreme of the spectrum, they never had a chance of any normalcy yet a lot of em will have enough awareness to desire the same things we do. A hot gf, a good job, nice friends and hobbies etc.

On one hand it makes me grateful that im better off but it also shows that reality is a souless abyss that doesnt owe you anything. Bad things can happen and keep on happening with no rhyme or reason.

>>39053396
The universe put me into existence just to fuck your mum lol

File: IMG_5876.png (10KB, 214x236px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 214x236px

>>39053396
So basically you came to terms with determinism and the law of cause and effect? Cool, make sure to take into account random quantum fluctuations which can change the course of things majorly.

>>39053459
I find it unlikely that any human being has ever been aware of the exact conditions they've been subjected to in any given moment and just as unlikely that we're even capable of such a feat. The conditions of a person in a single millisecond are formed simultaneously on the cosmic and the atomic levels and every other possible level there is. You wouldn't just need to know how, in a moment, every single organ, organelle, neuron, muscle cell, nerve cell etc. is presently functioning in your body and what they're all doing, you would need this type of knowledge and more for every single thing in existence in order to be fully aware of the conditions you're subjected to.

With the human brain? I don't think that's possible, I think you would need omniscience and a processing speed faster than the speed of light itself to know all the conditions you're subject to and even then I doubt the possibility. The thing that makes you aware of all this has to be a physical object as well right? How could a physical object not be affected by anything nor affect anything?

>>39053888
>Cool, make sure to take into account random quantum fluctuations which can change the course of things majorly.
Why am I not a 10 armed tentacle monster? Why is every human the same species? Why are there things that always work very similarly each time(e.g. gravity on Earth)?

I don't doubt the random quantum fluctuations thing but I simply do not understand it, can you explain and can you explain why its affects don't /seem/ major?

>>39054002
It's 'random' because they can't figure out a pattern.

>>39053888
"""random""" quantum fluctuations
No such thing as provably random events. Just because we don't know what causes them doesn't mean they happened out of nowhere.

>>39053430
Before we could confidently assert that, we'd have to understand the phenomenon of consciousness.

We don't.

At all.

Our attempts to date to duplicate it have been pathetic failures.

It's kind of amusing to me that people who consider themselves philosophical can pretend to be so sure about the one area of existence we know the least about.

>>39054199
Consciousness is an illusion, and your thoughts are just a side-effect of deterministic processes. If your brain is a lightbulb, then your consciousness is the heat that radiates from it as a by-product. In reality the only difference between a human brain and a computer program is complexity. There is no "phenomenon" to understand.

>>39053578
You're saying that human beings can't predict the exact result of a particle in motion after X amount of time so...any result is possible? and because any result is possible human beings are able to makes choices independent of our brain chemistry, our bodies, our environments, our upbringings, our genetics, our species, our position in the solar system, galaxy, universe, multi-verse?

How? How do you go from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to this?

>>39053888
strong law of big numbers makes sure, that quantum fluctuations have no impact on the macro scale. And as neurons are far larger then the quantum scale, the worst part about this blackpill - the fact that you have no free will - remains 100% valid.

probably the fact that the people in control want me and my family dead so we can be replaced by obedient brown people or AI within 70 years.

>>39054270
It's literally absurd to make that statement and no one remotely familiar with either the state of computer programming or the state of neurobiology would make it.

Empiricists are confident that we will *eventually prove* that thought is a side effect of deterministic processes, but no one pretends to have already proven it. The only possible way to prove it would be to create a consciousness from scratch, using methods of construction that were understood and replicable. (And no, fucking your girlfriend doesn't count.)

>In reality the only difference between a human brain and a computer program is complexity.

There's absolutely no proof of that whatsoever.

>There is no "phenomenon" to understand.

Explain how a non-conscious being can experience an illusion.

The entire concept of an "illusion" only makes any sense in the context of consciousness and given the assumptions of consciousness.

At a minimum, we'd have to be able to understand why and how deterministic processes have produced an illusion of consciousness. Because that illusion of awareness is (even if it is an illusion) nothing that we have be able to duplicate in a machine medium. And we haven't even come close. We're not even sure, at this point, how we'd be able to tell if we succeeded.

You got it OP. We're all subject to causality. Awash in a sea of shit we have no control over. And it doesn't even matter.

>>39054315
Because the quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle imply that the chemical reactions and electronic impulses within our brains do not correlate directly with our actions. They are a useful indicator and can even reliably predict future trends, but there is no possible direct relationship.
What you decide to do is not 100% set in stone by the particles in your brain. A perfect prediction of human consciousness is physically impossible and therefore implies free will

>>39054393
It's literally absurd to state that you are observing the world on a higher plane and that your brain is able to operate from outside the fabric of determinism and causality.
>There's absolutely no proof of that whatsoever
There's no proof of consciousness existing whatsoever. The only thing you can know exists is your own specific personal experience, cogito ergo sum... but this happens to take place entirely within your own (deterministic) brain. You are a brain telling itself that it is experiencing the feeling of "consciousness", in much the same way that I can tell a computer program to output its current workings to a console. That's the illusion right there.

>>39054002
>Why is every human the same species?
We're not.

>>39054336
Quantum mechanics does have an effect on the macro scale, two scientists won a Nobel prize a few years back by getting a small lump of carbon to interfere with itself in the two slit experiment.

>>39054588
You're a fucking dipshit, all that means is that the factors are too numerous and have too granular an effect for us to be able to predict them. Just because we don't understand all of the processes that go on in the universe, does not mean that they exist outside of determinism. You need to actually prove that, instead of using this equivalent of god of the gaps. "We don't know how it works, therefore it's non-deterministic" is not scientific in the slightest.

>>39054593
You idiot, you literally took the exact opposite of what cogito ergo sum means. It literally means that regardless of any empirical data you encounter, the only thing you can fully trust is your own subjective experience. If a malignant demon changed what you *saw* you would make different conclusions according to empiricism, but, you would still be aware of your own conscious experience. The only thing that you are certain of is that you are conscious, absolutely nothing else.

>>39054593
>There's no proof of consciousness existing whatsoever.

...he typed into his laptop.

Fucking listen to yourself.

>You are a brain telling itself that it is experiencing the feeling of "consciousness", in much the same way that I can tell a computer program to output its current workings to a console.

How do you know that? By what mechanism? Name it.

>It's literally absurd to state that you are observing the world on a higher plane and that your brain is able to operate from outside the fabric of determinism and causality.

I've made no such claim.

I've pointed out that until we can duplicate consciousness, we don't know enough about it to make any definitive statements about it whatsoever. Full stop.

"Wah, but everything is subject to causality!" assumes your conclusion and is a primary logical fallacy.

The only reason to instruct a computer to output its current workings to a console is so we can read them. Who's reading the output of consciousness? If your answer is "You are!", well, then, you just moved the problem and didn't solve it. Because that would mean that whatever is reading the console's output *is* the consciousness, and not the output itself. At some point in the process you need awareness, or the entire existence of the Rube-Goldberg-esque system makes no sense.

>Hurr durr no both the output and the perception of output are illusions

That is incredibly circular logic and violates Ockham's Razor fairly brutally.

>>39054666
>"We don't know how it works, therefore it's non-deterministic" is not scientific in the slightest.

Of course not. But "we don't know how it works, therefore we don't know whether it's deterministic or not" would be.

>>39054730
I know exactly what I'm talking about. You think that you are conscious because that's what your brain tells itself. You can say "but I KNOW that I'm conscious because I can feel it" but that's just what the brain tricks itself into believing. The only thing you can know and trust, is that you are a brain (not necessary a biological one, could be anything that processes inputs and outputs).

>>39054826
Literally why though? We could fucking sentient toasters with souls who just dream about bullshit all day. This is your logic
PREMISE: I think and have subjective experiences
CONCLUSION: Therefore, I don't have subjective experiences, it's an illusion.

>>39054751
>...he typed into his laptop.
P-Zombies are fully capable of typing.
All of your points are moot because you're working from the assumption that consciousness exists, what's your basis for this? Literally prove it. "i say so" isn't good enough.

>>39054588
If the electric impulses and chemical reactions in our brains can be used to predict future trends in a person's life then they do directly affect our actions. Moreover, people who go through ECT or take SSRIs and other drugs behave differently, their electric impulses and brain chemistry changed and they make different actions and have different desires. Implying direct correlation between these things and a person's actions. If anything affects my will and thus my choices then the will isn't completely free.

>>39054780

Even if it's not deterministic, we still don't have libertarian free will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joanVUoXY0s

>>39054666
>all that means is that the factors are too numerous and have too granular an effect for us to be able to predict them.

That is exactly why they exist in a quantum state. until they are observed (presumably by our conscious mind making a decision about them, these numerous will continue to exist as all possible outcomes simultaneously.

A less abstract example of this occurring can be observed in recent attempts to miniaturise electronics. At this point we've gotten them so small that the wires we are using have diameters smaller than the wavelengths of the electrons we are attempting to keep in them. The result observed result of this is that the electrons occasionally teleport outside the wires they are traveling through.

What is happening here is that while a given electron is not being observed it exists as a sort of 'potential electron'. This potential electron could at any given moment be anywhere within the area dictated by its wavelength which, thanks to quantum mechanics, means it behaves as if it is anywhere within its given wavelength. once you observe the electron (by say requiring it to power part of a CPU) this state of quantum uncertainty collapses and the electron will appear at one discrete point within its 'probability field' (the area covered by its wavelength). The point it appears at is completely random which means every now and then an observed electron appears outside the wire, on the other side of a solid wall of copper it should have been incapable of passing through.

This 'quantum teleportation' is a result of the inherently uncertain nature of our universe. It, when considered in terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, implies that a fully deterministic universe is impossible, and that therefore OP's 'blackpill' is bullshit.

>>39055047
I am absolutely sure that you subjectively experience consciousness, and will discount any statement from you that you do not as a lie advanced purely for the sake of argument.

Besides, whoever upthread tried to argue that it's "an illusion" has already allowed me to stipulate it as a given for this discussion.

>You can say "but I KNOW that I'm conscious because I can feel it" but that's just what the brain tricks itself into believing.

How does it do that? *What* is tricked?

Again, this argument is utterly circular. Only a consciousness can be "tricked". You are "tricked" when you falsely perceive something that is not true. But even a false perception is still a perception.

In any event, in order to know that you are being "tricked", you need to possess knowledge of the true state of affairs. How do you acquire that knowledge?

I can't trick a rock. Rocks don't play a lot of three-card monte.

The only type of existent that can "believe" anything is a consciousness. Therefore, if the brain "tricks itself into believing" that it is conscious, it is in fact proven conscious by that very event.

>>39053578
Same thing is true for rocks, so if we have free will then so do rocks

As a woman, men do not and will not respect you. I've done my best to be my own person, paying my own way and having my own personality and interests. But men, even my boyfriend, see me as lesser than even low-tier men, with my only value being for sex. For me, gender doesn't factor into how much I respect someone. You can be a badass or a loser as either gender. I don't know why men can't see it that way, but it hurts knowing I'll never get the respect I deserve from them.

The only thing in this world that you can control is your mind

>>39053396
That we're in a simulation run by a child playing with the equivalent of ants.

File: hmM6meEh3f-6.png (19KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x250px

>>39055173
>This 'quantum teleportation' is a result of the inherently uncertain nature of our universe. It, when considered in terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, implies that a fully deterministic universe is impossible,
*sips coffee*
*burps*
mmm, is that so?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/88601/does-the-uncertainty-principle-make-simulation-of-systems-impossible

*sips coffee*

>>39055427
>mmm, is that so?
Yup, its pretty basic stuff.

File: Safe_image.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>39053888
>random

uhhhhh

>>39055569
>>Yup, its pretty basic stuff.
Go to the linked website, read then go back to being a peasant.

>>39053459
>YOU CAN NOTICE THAT YOU HAVE NO FREE WILL, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE FREE WILL
wut?

A computer has no free will, and it can express that it has no free will. Does that mean the computer has free will?

>>39053888
>determinism
>random quantum fluctuations which can change the course of things majorly.

They don't its still deterministic because these are minute scales of time that have no relevance to the world you see before you. Its perpetual fluctuations that create existence itself.

>>39054199
Being aware of one selfs actions and consequences is about the best definition of conciousness there is because even animals understand cause and effect to some degree but its subliminal in the fact that it generates purpose. The purpose to eat and procreate to continue survival which is basically what all your hard-wiring is designed to do and nothing else. To propogate your genes within the rules of our society.

Stripping yourself of meaning here is wise because there is none. Only purpose because with purpose you create meaning. Meaning is not inherent.

>>39055391
You don't even have control of that, we're all basically along for a ride that we didn't ask for.

>>39055589
I did, nothing in that discussion disagreed with what I said.

>>39055635
>A computer has no free will, and it can express that it has no free will.

No, it can't.

Computers don't express anything, any more than a CD player or TV does.

>>39053578
Just because there may be intrinsic randomness to the universe does NOT mean that we have control over our own will.

All it means is that the control over our own will is determined by pre-existing particles, and uncertain randomness. Neither of which give us free will.

How the fuck do we have control over our own bodies? Are you saying that we are able to control the fucking quantum physics involved in the universe?

File: oh no.jpg (9KB, 368x158px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 368x158px

>>39055707
>nothing in that discussion disagreed with what I said.
Well, this is over.

>>39055709
>Computers don't express anything, any more than a CD player or TV does.
And humans don't express anything... at least not any more than a CD player or TV does.

A computer's "expressions" are entirely physical. Bit of electricity here, bit of transistors there... and you have a computer's "expression".

Your expressions are entirely the same. A bit of neurons firing here, bit of electricity there, and a dash of environmental influence... and you have a human's "expression".

You can predict a computer's output because computers are relatively simple. Human minds are a lot more complicated, and are thus harder to predict the outputs of.

Saying a human is nothing like an electrical computer, would be like saying an electrical computer is nothing like a mechanical computer.

What separates your mind from a computer besides complexity? Nothing. Unless your consciousness exists within an ethereal realm, then you're bound by the laws of physics, which means your thoughts are determined by entirely physical means -- much like a computer's "thoughts".

If you have free will, then so does the PC I am writing this post on.

>>39055809
We haven't figured it out yet, so what you have is a belief. There are two possibilities we do and we don't. By assuming we do have free will, you allow yourself some sense of control over your life. By assuming we don't have free will you become a defeatist.

>>39055809
So is it your claim that a computer has a subjective awareness of its existence and an experience of self?

I'm not part of the free will discussion. I'm only part of the consciousness discussion.

>A human is just like a CD player, only more complex

What's your basis for asserting that if you made a really complex CD player, that it would possess awareness? Describe exactly which elements of the CD player need to be more complex, and in exactly what way. And tell us all how that increase in complexity would actually produce the awareness.

>>39055384
>As a woman, men do not and will not respect you
I'd say we respect women less, not that we don't respect them at all. Marie Curie has a lot of respect.but maybe not as much as Nikola Tesla.

We do have control

But the scope is just very, very limited

File: 1384033672175.jpg (8KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x184px

>Accept that we have literally no control over our lives, not only on the deterministic level, but also in a lower "societal" level
>Accept that our sense of self is illusory, and the "we" don't exist
>Accept that there is no life after death
>Accept that there is no god, no justice, no meaning
>Accept that everything in the universe will "die"
>Accept that life is horrible on many levels and that being horrible is part of life itself
>Roll with it

>Still can't talk to people
How do I do it, bros?

>>39055861
>By assuming we don't have free will you become a defeatist.
This sentence is ironic for a pro-free will person to say. You wouldn't become a defeatist if free will existed and you didn't choose to believe in it, you'd have to consciously choose to become a defeatist.

>>39055861
>We haven't figured it out yet, so what you have is a belief
No. What YOU have is a belief. Human minds exist within the brain. And the brain exists within the physical realm on a very macro-scale (meaning very large and easy to manipulate).

It's quite easy to prove. Take a human, open up their skull, and take out a piece of their brain. If they survive, they will have an altered mind. That is proof that the mind exists within the physical realm. It is so easy to prove, that we are able to do it right now. It's called a lobotomy.

If free will existed outside of physicality, then how comes we can alter someone's "FREE WILL" by physically altering their brain?

>There are two possibilities we do and we don't
Yeah except there is zero evidence we have free will, and a whole lot of evidence that we don't.

>By assuming we do have free will, you allow yourself some sense of control over your life. By assuming we don't have free will you become a defeatist.
But it doesn't make any difference. Everything (besides some quantum noise) is pre-determined. Just because you THINK you control your actions, does not mean you do. My computer can tell me it thinks it has free will... but it doesn't. If you could ask a fly if it has free will, I am certain it would say it thinks it does, but I assure you it does not have free will.

>>39055915
What is the scope, anon?

>>39055881
>So is it your claim that a computer has a subjective awareness of its existence and an experience of self?
No. My claim is not that a computer has free will just like humans. My claim is that a computer does not have a free will, and neither do you.

>What's your basis for asserting that if you made a really complex CD player, that it would possess awareness?
I never made that assertion. My assertion was that you can make a really complex CD player, and it would still not possess awareness. Just like if you make a really complex series of self-replicating molecules it would not possess awareness (hint: that's you).

>Describe exactly which elements of the CD player need to be more complex, and in exactly what way. And tell us all how that increase in complexity would actually produce the awareness.
I never said a CD player could be aware. I said that you could not be aware.

Here's a similar question: Describe exactly which elements of single-celled organisms need to be more complex, and in exactly what way for them to become aware. Tell me how a single-celled organism becoming a multi-celled organism would actually produce awareness.

You cannot answer that question, because a multi-celled organism CANNOT become aware.

>>39055384
>As a woman, men do not and will not respect you...But men, even my boyfriend, see me as lesser than even low-tier men, with my only value being for sex.

I see this claim from women quite a bit, and I honestly think it's mistaken.

It's based on the (false) belief women have that men *have a lot of respect for each other* and that's just not true.

I also think one complicating factor is that men and women seem to define "respect" differently. On the rare occasions when men do respect each other, we tend to actually express that respect by insulting each other and treating each other like shit. This counter-intuitively represents respect because we are allowing our group of mutually-respected men to act in a way that we would not allow outsiders to act. But women seem to find it very, very difficult to relate to men in this way, because it's impossible for them to accept that someone who insults them "respects" them. But because of that, the type of respect women demand is (to men) actually just a kind of condescending false courtesy - something like the way you'd treat someone else's child. But when women receive that type of treatment, they resent it (despite the fact that they have demanded it) because they can perceive its falseness.

File: Johncuckington.jpg (92KB, 1024x640px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x640px

>>39053396
>free will vs determinism thread
>no racebaiting
>no boipussi/traps/ or orbiting
What a great thread god bless the robots

>>39056074
>we tend to actually express that respect by insulting each other and treating each other like shit
I must be the most respected man on Earth.

>>39053578
The fact that something is uncertain doesn't mean we're controlling it any more than we would have been if it was predetermined.

>>39056089
>that image
hahahahha holy fuck that guy's an idiot. i nearly forgot about him

>>39056072
You'd have to be really committed to your childish position to assert that you have no awareness.

Your problem is this: if you are not aware, then you can't know anything. Your positivism is utterly meaningless if you can't know anything.

The only reason to view a scientific outlook as superior to an animist one is if it's a superior tool for acquiring knowledge. If we can't acquire knowledge, then there *are no* "laws of physics". How could there be?

BTW, if you're the same guy who asserted that he can "prove" that the mind exists in the physical realm - well, no you can't. A "proof" is an epistemological concept that only has meaning in a context where knowledge is possible. If we do not possess awareness, there are no proofs.

>>39056074
Do you mean teasing? There's such a thing as talking shit out of disrespect and doing it playfully or teasingly with no real ill will toward the other dude. You blur the line too much and a lot of dudes get upset, how much you can blur the line and not piss someone off depends on the relationship between you two, from what I've seen with myself and other people.

A dude calling you a cunt or son of a bitch could be fighting words or a friendly poke depending on context.

File: proof.jpg (18KB, 319x516px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 319x516px

>>39056188
>You'd have to be really committed to your childish position to assert that you have no awareness.
Do I? You'd have to be really committed to lying to yourself to go against modern science.

>if you are not aware, then you can't know anything
Really? Well my computer knows stuff. My computer knows that when I push the "W" key it should produce ASCII or some shit in this text box. Look, I'll test it: "W". See? Does that mean my computer is aware? No. It has just been designed to take particular inputs (the key stroke) and produce particular outputs (a "W"). Human minds operate in precisely the same way, albeit with more complexity.

>Your positivism is utterly meaningless if you can't know anything.
How so?

>The only reason to view a scientific outlook as superior to an animist one is if it's a superior tool for acquiring knowledge
I never said that knowing you have no free will is "superior". I just said it is correct. I would say it is better to go through life believing you have free will... but that does not mean it is factually correct. Religious people tend to be happier, so I would also say it is better to be religious, even though it may not be scientifically correct.

>"proof" is an epistemological concept that only has meaning in a context where knowledge is possible. If we do not possess awareness, there are no proofs.
So a computer cannot prove that 2+2 equals 4, because it has no awareness? Is that what you are saying? You're a fucking idiot. Pic related. The computer has definitely proven that 2+2 equals 4... but it has no awareness. Tell me how my computer did it, dumbass.

>>39055173
OP here, I don't understand how any of this disproves my post. At the most it seems to limit where you can take it.

>>39056188
>in order to prove we do not have free will, you must have free will
That is a logical fallacy. You are presenting something that is unfalsifiable.

If I prove that we do not have free will, you will say that I cannot prove anything because I do not have free will and that my interpretation of the facts is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

If you went up to some scientist bloke and presented him with an unfalsifiable hypothesis, he'd call you a daft cunt and smack you in the gabba.

Is this the anti-buddha thread?

File: 1476866369772.jpg (61KB, 562x527px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 562x527px

tfw to intelligent to understand this thread

>>39053396
No one asked but here's where the OP gif is from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shLSWO659vs

Upcoming Van Gogh movie where the "animations" are all actual oil paintings