Has science categorically, unequivocally, beyond any doubt, 100%

>>8398251
Who cares? Even if we don't have it, or do have it, we have the illusion of it.

>>8398251
it depends on how you define free will

File: 0034.png (197KB, 394x529px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 394x529px

>>8398251
>categorically
>equivocally
>beyond any doubt

This seems like the kind of thing that even if scientists confirm it, it would be left out of the curriculum, and you could lose your job for advocating it.

>>8398251
No because we are all connected to a simulation, we are free agents in a simulated world.

File: 13277832_286196655058528_1727072231_n.jpg (34KB, 393x393px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 393x393px

>>8398254
>Who cares? Even if we don't have it, or do have it, we have the illusion of it.
I care. It would mean that my life as I've believed it up until now is a lie.

>>8398257
EVERY DAMN TIME. By free will I mean that I AM the decider of my decisions, the thinker of my thoughts, and the intender of my intentions. That I can take pride in my accomplishments and am responsible for my mistakes. Yes I know it;s obvious our environment and genes influence, but I want to know that ultimately I could make something out of my life.

>>8398259
I used such stupid wording to emphasise that I want a clear cut answer. It doesn't seem to have worked.

>>8398263
Not sure about that.

>>8398267
I don't care if it's a simulated world. All that bothers me is that I am a free agent.

>>8398293
>All that bothers me is that I am a free agent.
You are a free agent, go make something of your life anon. Just bee urself.

>>8398251
Free will isn't even a coherent concept.

File: 1468939049950.jpg (262KB, 1284x980px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1284x980px

>>8398257
No it doesn't you fucking retard

>>8398293
>By free will I mean that I AM the decider of my decisions, the thinker of my thoughts, and the intender of my intentions.
you see, it is not so simple as your every attempt to demonstrate your free will to break the spell of determinism has basically been predicted by determinism the moment the idea of determinism was planted into your head
it's basically The Game of science

>Has science categorically
So this is a category theory thread in disguise?

>>8398323
oy vey

File: download.jpg (10KB, 182x277px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 182x277px

>>8398299
>Just bee urself
Don't fucking meme me.

>>8398317
How?

>>8398320
I do know about the reasoning behind determinism lad. I just don't want to believe in it and it makes me physically sick. And thinking that even my responses are inevitable makes me feel worse.

>>8398323
no

>>8398355
>I just don't want to believe in it and it makes me physically sick
then don't because it's just a smarter term for 'fate'

>>8398251
Yes. Free will has been debunked. There are fMRI and EEG experiments where a subject is asked to choose one or the other, A or B, press one button or the other button. The subject is given as much time as they want to deliberate between the two and make a decision. Then, the subject is asked to look at a clock and remember the time that they made up their mind as to which button they're going to press.

In these experiments, the fMRI and EEG data allow scientists to predict, some several seconds beforehand, which button the subject is going to choose *before the subject is even aware that they have made up their mind*.

In other words, our brains make decisions before we are even consciously aware of making that decision. We are nothing but a stream of thoughts and actions that arise from our brain. We aren't actually consicously authoring our thoughts and actions.

>>8398369
I haven't felt in control of my thoughts in years

File: 1407119379594.png (129KB, 724x611px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 724x611px

>>8398364
But with science that tells us it is very likely.

>>8398369
That proves nothing against freedom of the will or where our choices come from. I could argue that yes we have free will and we chooses, we just don't become aware of our free choices.

>>8398372
brainlet detected

File: 1475489420963.jpg (45KB, 690x460px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 690x460px

>>8398375
Disprove any point and I will accept the refutation and admit I'm wrong. I type this using my very own conscious effort and free will btw.

>>8398251
>this thread again
Saged, reported, called the cops.

>>8398369
it's because the soul makes the decision before it passes it on to the body
check and fucking mate boiiii

>>8398376
Fuck america

>>8398376
hahaha stay mad brainlet

File: 6a00d8341c565553ef01156f6a7840970c.jpg (76KB, 468x437px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 468x437px

>>8398377
>archive
>ctrl-f "free will"
>1 results

>>8398384
Agreed.

>>8398385
Please leave troll. This is the only board for reaoson on this cesspit of a site.

>>8398388
lmao brainlet detected

>>8398251
No, it has not. We barely have a basic model of how our brain works and we'll never be able to prove what makes consciousness. Think for yourselves, sheep.

Who cares if we have it or not. Existence is not any more or less important, with or without it.

File: 1475825251113.jpg (11KB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x333px

>>8398402
Thanks for the encouraging words. However, how can very distinguished scientists claim that there is no free will with such certainty? e.g. Sam Harris/Hawking
>>8398446
I have trouble believing existence matters even if there is free will. If there isn't then nothing would matter.

>>8398471
If it makes you feel better know that I can't directly influence your actions any more than you can I. In a sense you are free from other people, your will is free relative to other people but not necessarily relative to the universe as a whole.

>>8398471
brainlet detected

>>8398506
I'll report you to janny if you don't stop being an imbecile in this very serious thread of a very serious board.

>>8398523
brainlet detected.

File: image.jpg (96KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x480px

>>8398293
And again. The brainlet who can't understand what is free will, starts a thread.

>>8398528
You are a very funny guy, did you know that. I also like the b word too ;^=)

>>8398471
>"matters"
What do you mean by it?
What do you mean by "free will"?
Is your consciousness the source of your decissions? Obviously no, like this post of yours says.>>8398372

You cannot know what's your decission process. You cannot prove yet what's the exact source of your decisions, so you don't know what are your limits and the things that are actually conditioning you. The ingnorance is the "free wil".

Even the thoughts your head is thinking right now are conditioning your subconsciousness(decission maker).

Brainlets, heh.

>>8398251

Yes. Your neurons behave according to physics. They will do the same things physics says they will do as surely as a rock rolling down a hill will obey its own circumstance of physics.

>>8398556

Is this a picture of yourself?

I hope you know that you're not helping your case if you're trying to fend off attacks from /sci/. It's pretty widely believed on /sci/ that people of your ethnic background are the least capable yet most meme-worthily seekers of STEM degrees.

>>8398565
Thanks for the reminder.

Are you OP?

>>8398569

No. I'm just a lurker who has developed a prejudice towards people of your ethnic background after noticing some trends in college and grad school.

I really don't have a problem with individuals because of this background, but the wording of your post, the inferred intent of your post, and the fact that your post includes a picture of your face reminds me of those instances which have informed my prejudices.

File: image.jpg (215KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 960x720px

>>8398574
Wow, you like to express the process of your reasoning too!

I don't actually want to talk about social problems an shit. I don't want to attract niggersneverrelax kind of posts.

>>8398355
>I just don't want to believe in it
it's not like you have a choice whether or not you believe

>I want to know that truth
>I don't want to accept I'm not free
keys you're self op

>>8398293
Hey free decider: Name your favorite something and try to explain why It is your favorite something. YOU CAN'T! You can only tell that you prefer it over other stuff but you can't tell what makes you do so.

>>8398251
No, nor should you ever expect it to.

Science at present heavily suggests there is no such thing. Just enjoy the rest of your life experiencing a series of mechanical steps that might as well be deterministic, as a decision making process and the sensation of agency.

There's always uncertainty so determinism fags are also fucking stupid

>>8398251

If it is beyond any doubt, it's not science

>>8398251
Not only will science never disprove it, science [math]\textbf{needs}[/math] a concept of free will, of intentional action.

>>8398251
I rather think that if science claimed something like that, it would dig it's own grave. Who wants science which tells you that you have no free will if you can believe in a magical diety that tells you that you do (even though by the definition of omniscient that wouldn't work)

It's better to leave this topic to each individual to figure out on his own. As I said many times already, It doesn't even really matter. free will or not, the world and people in it will still work the same way they did until now.

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

>>8398293
top post. I agree.

>>8399202
shit post. Koyaanisqatsi. It's my favorite movie because it alligns with my own thought processes (which are non-free)

>>8398257
tautological. same for every argument ever

>>8398251
No. Quantum Physics.

File: tumblr_lw08498TJr1qh7jlwo1_1280.jpg (67KB, 544x550px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 544x550px

>>8398251
>>8398259
>>8398293
>>8398320

Let me provide anecdotal evidence that it is impossible to know with certainty wherther free will exists or not.

>I decide to prove free will is real with an objective experiment
>The idea is that I will or will not hit or not hit a baseball with a baseball bat.
>If I hit the ball, then it was determined, but if I don't, that was determined.
>If I choose to swing, everyone will argue that I never chose to swing
>Its a stupid argument, because somehow, by magic, determinists will always be right without knowing whether my choice was my own or determined "from the beginning of time" by some kind of invisible force.

its a losing uphill battle, so it ultimately comes down to what you choose to believe in.

Ill believe the batter chose to swing the bat by their own decision.

>>8398251
no
the von neumann interpretation is correct and is the mechanism behind free will

>>8400394
Yeah, I don't get why this is an argument or what it's trying to prove?
I never even knew about this seemingly bullshit definition of free will until recently. If someone forces you to do something, it's not of your own free will, and if someone doesn't then it is.
This whole universal question of it is stupid

>>8400404
>giant globs of meat spitting chemicals at each other when stimulated are somehow magic and control the quantum world
>but rocks dont because we're super special

>>8400418
You're not thinking about the bigger picture, and you're not really understanding what you're saying.

As begin to generate your response, bear in mind that you didn't choose to process and store the information I've just typed out. I forced you. Likewise, if I yell at you, your response was spurred by me. You do not choose, you were chosen for. I did not choose, I was chosen for. No one chooses.

This was my earlier post:
>>8399229
I didn't even choose to be among those who became of this fact.

>>8400426
no
there is a non-material component to human beings that is observing the current state of some neurons continually, facilitating both consciousness and free will

>>8400418
...and yet philosophers are praised for the bullshit no-such-thing-as-free-will philosophy they pump out of their assholes.

>>8400427
read this:
>>8400394
now understand that you are a determinist faggot and no matter what argument people bring into the discussion, you will always find a way to be a prick about it by saying that "oh, but that was determined too!!".

This frustrates me to no end.

>>8400432
Proven by absolutely nothing except feelings.

We barely posses a fraction of the power of our subconscious, that's something everyone can observe personally. Why would a weaker region of the brain be magical?

>>8400443
your theory isn't proven any better either
you can choose whatever you want to believe

>>8400441
Whether it's deterministic or probabilistic is irrelevant. You are very likely simply a slave.

Not to say there aren't other possibilities that are apart from the dichotomy I just laid out, that get pretty trippy, but there isn't really any indication that these are the case. I tend to operate on the notion that the universe is deterministic with a variable spectrum of error. And it works, because you don't get to tell the universe how it is, and how it's gonna be. It tells you. That's what it looks like. In the repurposed words of Feynman, don't like it? Then go somewhere else.

>>8398251
It's not a scientific question.

>>8398355
>believes the bible
>DONT FUCKING MEEM ME

>>8398251
>ctrl+f
>libet
It's my first day here and I don't know shit about science, get your dick's in a row /sci/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjCt-L0Ph5o

>>8400824
Irrelevant. You're in /philosophy/, so we're discussing "free will" strictly within the old world religious frameworks.

Also, I think the notion that consciousness is merely a watcher is an inane conclusion that can only come about within a specific highly compartmentalized context. It ignores scale and takes a very naive view of the different regions in the brain and their I/O.

In the context of reality it's enough to know that it's not free will if you never consciously decided something. You wasted a whole day on 4chan although you wanted to do something else? Slave to yourself and your habits. You decided in the morning to spend the entire day on 4chan? Congratulations, you have free will.

So we actually have the illusion of free will our entire lives although we probably live 95% of our lives purely on instinct and our habits. That makes us no better than robots since will live on auto mode. But does it matter when those habits are exactly what you want and lead you to your goals? Not at all. Although such a case doesn't exist.

Because we are embedded in the causal web of interactions that comprise all matter and energy in the universe, we cannot act as though we have no free will, because from our perspective, we do.

An observer capable of being aware of the state of the entire universe could, with sufficient processing power, perfectly predict all future states of the universe and thus would not consider us to have free will. They would essentially view the universe as a static object. This observer cannot, however, exist within the universe or be part of its causal structure.

We, who exist as parts of the causal structure, are capable of envisioning this external perspective, but we can never attain it in much the same way that a computer cannot perfectly simulate itself.

tl;dr Nobody inside the universe can claim to exist without free will, but an external perspective would not consider you to have it.

>>8398251
If there is no free will, does it matter? If you were destined to try your best at whatever you wanted, how could that be bad?

"Someone once asked me,
Why do you believe in free will?
I replied,
Because I cannot choose to do otherwise."
– James Champagne

>>8398254
The illusion of having it is an illusion.

>>8398471
Sam Harris thinks science can 'solve' ethics
He's mostly right on Determinism but let's parse your question
>how can very distinguished scientists claim that there is no free will with such certainty?
By being wrong and confident, I.e what is the logical connection vs the metaphysical connection between being distinguished, confident, and right? What if two distinguished confident people espouse two different viewpoints (like plenty of extant scientific controversy)?

>free will
>>>/x/

It's another episode of early to mid twenty millenials that jerk off to anime pretending they can offer an answer to something highly complex trough argumentum a priori but it ends up being an armchair philosophy circlejerk on a science board.

>>8401461
Americans don't teach philosophy in HS, tho.

It's something inevitable.

I've just started watching this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftIllWczf5w

I'm a John Conway fan but I'm skeptical. We'll see how he does.

>>8398369
Lol because you're the observer and your body's another chemical reaction that you are observing

>free will means you can disregard the factors that lead up to your decisions, or make decisions that are based on no factors

This shit gets bhuddist fast. They say we're all "god", the universe is a giant chemicals reaction, and living things are the windows god looks through to watch the chemicals reaction


If you want to test if you have free will, just make the independent decision to lie still. If your really are bound to your factors, you'll force yourself to get up because of one of them.

>>8401458
>free will
>denial of free will
>>>/x/

This board would be better off if it was discussing actually scientific questions instead of speculative metaphysical questions or questions we don't have the tools to solve/falsify/verify.

>>8401448
Best post!

>>8400443
Proven by von Neumann interpretation of quantum physics. Seriously, do you have memory span of goldfish?

Just like with god. People who believe in free will should provide the evidence not the other way around.

Even if we don't have free will it doesn't change anything. We already know that all our choices are based on the enviroment. In that sense there is no free will but it doesn't really matter.

What bothers me is that manchildren use that as another excuse to do nothing. It just means you can never make objective decisions free from any influence. If anything the people that are not ignorant should have the necessary information and influence to go into the direction they want. Imagine all the people that live their lives in absolute ignoracy. They have no chance at all to make conscious decisions.

Well anyway, this topic is pointless. It's like talking about death. Either you distract yourself from it, use it as fuel or use it as a source of depression.

File: me getting euthanized.jpg (205KB, 1439x1374px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1439x1374px

>>8401502
>use it as a source of depression

>>8398251
>Compute your future actions
>Act oppositely

File: 13135345343.jpg (45KB, 635x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 635x600px

>it's predetermined that I should be successful
>it's predetermined that brainlets and depressed fucks will fail
Honestly feels pretty damn good.

>>8398369

That experiment was done in where the subject has to press a button either way. Both paths lead to the same ending. Your brain, in that situation, already knows that it has to pick one choice or the other. A better experiment would have given the subjects an option where they could either press a button or not.

If you can predict any future action of will, and choose whether you will partake in that action, then you are necessarily free in will. Determinism only comes about from applying the concept of causality to one's past decisions, which while it may make it seem as though you could've predicted all of you're past decisions given a good amount of wisdom, you didn't, and it is merely an illusion of the imagination that you could've (for, if you did, you could've chosen another path).

>>8401479
We definitely need a /phi/losophy board to skim off these meta-bullshit threads.

This disscusion is about as retarded as the one abotu consciousness

File: 350px-04_Isaacs_big_shit_R.jpg (16KB, 350x237px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 350x237px

>>8402122
Truest Thread yet. Just imagine it

>comment 1: how can we see mirrors if our eyes don't exist
>2: check out this furry porn
>3: you phi/losi-faggots need to calm your tits
>4:how are we even sure we exist? If we don't exist
>5: @4 shut up u fag

it will be truly wonderful

>>8398251
NOT A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION
GO TO FUCKING /LIT/ YOU FUCKING ENLIGHTENED HIGH SCHOOLER AND READ A FUCKING BOOK

>>8400433
The majority of philosophers are compatibilists, anon.

>>8401479
Free will isn't just metaphisics.
>>8402122
Are you actually retarded? We've had /lit/ for years, and /his/ recently.
But yeah, >>8402231

>>8402122
>>>/his/
history AND humanities

>>8402122
>>8402197
>>8402231
>>8402297

> hurr philosophy and science do not mix

t. brainlets

>

You are nothing but the meat.
Even if a soul exists we already have proof it won't know who it is.

I've been injected with drugs to knock me out which had amnesia properties. I'm completely missing a day where I was fully conscious and talking to the doctor, I might as well have not existed in the time.

Then you have Clive Wearing who has chronic anterograde and retrograde amnesia. For 31 years he hasn't formed any new memories and still thinks he's the same guy from 1985.

He's nothing but a biological mechanism stuck in a loop. Where's his free will when he and others like him are proven to repeat themselves when presented with the same stimuli?

>>8403219
>Even if a soul exists we already have proof it won't know who it is.
I agree with everything you've said, but we don't. The soul could be simply some part of a grand pool, with only one way communication. We, and any other arbitrarily delineated system of particles, are all rendered tiny little gatherers. Perhaps we're part of some sort of brute forcing process.

>>8403133
Some questions are strictly scientific, some are strictly philosophical. This thread falls into the later category, dumbass.

>>8398251
The universe is probably deterministic, but we'll never have enough data to make the lack of free will useful.

>>8403284

By a technical approach, all scientific questions are philosophical questions, but not all philosophical questions are scientific questions.

Science is a subset of philosophy, there isn't a dichotomy.

>>8401490
The evidence is your immediate experience.

>>8402290
/lit/ is not a philosophy board.

>>8400327
Except that this concept actually needs a concrete definition

>>8400394
There's nothing to be known, it's a constructed truth which depends entirely on how you define free will

Free will is the product of delusions of grandeur.

We are just observers experiencing the best approximate simulation of the universe we can conceive.

>>8403439
>/lit/ is not a philosophy board.
It was unofficially that for a long while though
>>8403561
No lol

>>8398293
> By free will I mean that I AM the decider of my decisions, the thinker of my thoughts, and the intender of my intentions.
Yes, for intuitive definitions of 'I'. However, you are a deterministic (technically stochastic, because quantum mechanics) process yourself, so changes to yourself, like changing what you saw five hours ago, does change what you decide.

> but I want to know that ultimately I could make something out of my life.
Most people are not able to decide this (evidence: they would choose it, but most people haven't succeeded). While you do have free will, your power over your own thoughts, habits and skills is very limited.

You are free to decide that you will learn to throw baseballs at 50 mph, but training your body and brain to do it may take months, or be impossible, and you may find you're still not a good pitcher becauce you can't aim for shit.

You are free to decide that you will change your decision-making process to stop for a second and check whether a decision will actually make you happy in the long run, but to actually train your decision-making process to do that may take months, or be impossible, and you may find that you still can't make yourself happy because you don't know how to make friends or get a decent job or study well.

So basically, whether or not you have free will is a semantic/philosophical/scientific debate that you don't really care much about. What you want to know is if you have the power to improve your life, making you happy and satisfied. And that is a much more practical question, which also has a simple enough answer:

GO SEE A PSYCHOLOGIST

Your problem is not uncommon, and most western nations take good care of their citizens because the power or leaders is somewhat dependent on the people being satisfied, and people aren't comfortable with the idea that they or their children could be discarded and left to rot the moment they don't function properly.

Solutions to your sadness exist.
Now choose.

>>8398293
>By free will I mean that I AM the decider of my decisions, the thinker of my thoughts, and the intender of my intentions.
Okay, then you have free will.

What if I go outside spin a bottle and stab the person the bottle points to? Is that free will?

>>8403942

No. Every part of what you described can be predicted with physics. Even if you used a truly random number generator to make a decision it wouldn't mean you were acting freely.

>>8403997
How is it relevant that physics can predict it if I can't?

>>8404012

Because it means you didn't have a choice.

>>8404017
So this is what it boils down to people who don't believe in free will.

If I develop a game and give the player the choice to either slay the monster or use stealth to get past it all it comes down to is that the player never had a choice because the game has set parameters to work at all.

>>8404023

Your analogy fails because you're implying the game lets a player choose between two options. Physics doesn't let you choose.

>>8404028
My analogy is spot on since the real world is just more complex with infinite choices instead of just one.

The real problem with the no free will philosophy is that people seem to seperate the brain and yourself for some retarded reason. If your brain decides something it means the brain worked out something and for some reason it wasn't your will which makes no sense. The brain and all of it is you. There is no seperate soul or some shit like that.

>>8404036

Nobody mentioned anything beyond the brain existing as "you." Also the brain doesn't exist outside of physics. Its various components follow the laws of physics as slavishly and absolutely as a rock rolling down a hill.

>>8404045
Literally half the thread was about the brain making decisions is not free will.

If there was a computer that could perfectly predict future outcomes and we read that outcome we could freely change that outcome. That means free will exists and the future is not set.

>>8404055

>If there was a computer that could perfectly predict future outcomes and we read that outcome we could freely change that outcome.

You wouldn't be able to freely change that outcome. It would predict what you would do and you would do it.

>>8404071
That's retarded as fuck. It's literally impossible for it to predict what I will do and for me to know that information and still being unable to do something else. At this point you don't know what you're talking about.

More accurate would be that it would immediately change the future outcome the moment I get that information which means the future was never set in stone to begin with.

If you say such a machine is impossible, that it's impossible for us to ever predict future outcomes than no free will is completely meaningless since the physics behind it are so extremely complex that not even civilizations billions of years ahead of us can predict the future.

>>>8398257
>EVERY DAMN TIME. By free will I mean that I AM the decider of my decisions, the thinker of my thoughts, and the intender of my intentions. That I can take pride in my accomplishments and am responsible for my mistakes. Yes I know it;s obvious our environment and genes influence, but I want to know that ultimately I could make something out of my life.
Yes, your decisions are yours from definition. And your thoughts are your as well.

>>8404055
>>8404071
>>8404082
Such a computer can only predict events that happen before this information reach them because of halting problem.

>>8404129
>Such a computer can only predict events that happen before this information reach them because of halting problem.
That computer has the information that I will look up the information after he calculates it. He still gives me predictions I can change. That means the future is not set and free will exists.

This whole example makes it blatantly obvious that information shapes the future and not set parameters. If we operate under this pretext we can live freely once again believing that small things changed the entire outcome of our lives.

>>8404142
Have you even read my post? Such a computer cannot predict outcome of events after the information reach that place because of halting problem. You are information as well. Ie. When computer tries to predict future of place 5 light seconds away from it, it can only predict next at most next 5 seconds. If it could predict more, it would fall into halting problem therefore it couldn't exists.

>>8404182
Even 5 seconds would be enough time to prove this concept.

Seriously, why are people so obsessed with denying the free will?
It seems to be quasi religious at this point - reminds me of atheists who don't seem to understand that atheism is just another believe with exactly as less evidence to it as deism.
Every fucking day there pops up another thread about it, containing pretty much zero scientific argumentation or data... and the anons arguing don't seem to know even the most basic literature (both the neuroscientific and philosophic one).
Just stop it, please, this is really annoying.

>>8404182
>supercomputer that can predict the future
>haltingproblem
Try again. Such a computer goes way beyond artificial intelligence.

>>8404082

>That's retarded as fuck. It's literally impossible for it to predict what I will do and for me to know that information and still being unable to do something else.

Prove it. It seems counterintuitive to me, but not impossible. Maybe the computer's display kills you when you look at it and by giving you a bad enough seizure and that's also what it predicts you will do.

>>8404208
Since we are talking about purely logicial conclusions there is nothing to prove.

Why would the computer kill me though? It seems childish, as if the computer is trying to stay right. All that matters is the point that information changes the future.

If you want to further argue about free will not existing find another point. At least that we have no free will because everything is set in stone is complete bullshit. There are other things though like having no objective free will outside of any influences though, but who gives a shit?

File: enhanced-buzz-26895-1445458041-7.jpg (31KB, 540x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 540x360px

>>8404185
What concept?

>>8404198
And how supercomputer is capable of avoiding halting problem?

>>8404224

It doesn't have to kill you, but that's one example of how it could make a prediction, give it to you, and have it still be accurate. Another could be that it's prediction is so complicated that by the time you think through it you realize too late that you've already done what it predicted before you could sabotage it with a non-predicted behavior.

>Why would the computer kill me though?

Maybe making a prediction that is also lethal upon viewing is simply the only future there is in a world where you view a prediction machine. It would make that prediction because it's in fact what everything in that room was predetermined by physics to do.

>>8404237
>real artificial intelligence
>halting problem
Are you retarded?

File: 1475353668531.jpg (147KB, 400x392px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 400x392px

>>8404238
Are we seriously gonna argue about some computer creating a multi paradox where the computer destroys all evidence by elimnating all human evidence and manipulating the system?

>>8404208
>>8404238
Killing doesn't make sense. It's not like only people are capable of doing actions.
You should think about any observer, it might be human, light sensor or anything. Computer can not possibly predict future that could be changed by that fact because of halting problem.

>>8404243
Halting problem doesn't apply only artificial intelligence. It applies to every process of predicting events that can be changed by the fact of prediction. Such a problem is Undecidable problem and cannot be solved by anything, human, artificial intelligence, supercomputer or quantum computer.

>>8404254

It wouldn't be a paradox.

>>8404260
How the fuck does the halting problem apply to an ever evolving super computer which has the parameters of the universe for its usage?

>>8404270
An omniscient computer that knows everything about the world it inhabits can be reduced to the halting problem/some kind of paradox.

>>8404263
Easy then. I ask one supercomputer to predict the future and another one to change the future based on that information.

>>8404260

I guess a computer predicting the future of a room that its own prediction was influencing would be like holding a camera up to a tv screen it was plugged into. You'd get a feedback loop instead of a terminal solution.

In that case op we still wouldn't have free will. We would just have the capacity to cause a feedback loop of constantly updating predictions as the computer incorporates the new context that includes its own interference from t-1. You wouldn't be any more free than a camera pointed at its own screen.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (100KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1280x720px

>>8404275

Forgot pic.

>>8404272
And why exactly?

>>8404275
If anything this exactly would prove that the future is not set in stone. If everything was predetermined there is no reason for a feedback loop as there is no reason to calculate the future more than once.

>>8404270
>>8404282
Let's say you have ever evolving super computer which has the parameters of the universe A that can predict future in finite time, it can answer your questions.
And you have machine B that halts if it receives "NO" and returns immediately in case of "YES"
You connect output of A to B and ask A if B will halt.
And you are in halting problem, it's undecidable. Such a computer cannot exists.

But if the B was 5 light seconds away from A, A would be able to predict at most next 5 seconds of B. This way there is no way information about the prediction will reach B and change future. You don't fall in halting problem and it doesn't cause paradox. It could exists in theory.

>>8398251
Both free will and determinism are categorically stupid things to believe. Realizing this makes life easier to live.

>>8404302
What's stupid about determinism?

>>8404305
>hur hur everything is just chemicals therefore every phenomenon can be sweepingly dismissed

it's over reductionist because we can't explain the world through deterministic means

>>8404308
>hur hur everything is just chemicals therefore every phenomenon can be sweepingly dismissed
That's not what determinism means.

>>8404302
Believing them is retarded either way since those are philosophical questions.

>>8404299
This doesn't make any sense at all and you force the supercomputer to apply to the halting problem not the other way around.

In the first place this only applies if the computer halts after calculating a result but not if it endlessly keeps streaming results.

>>8404309
That's literally exactly what it means: everything is deterministic action, so all phenomena of action are a fantasy.

>>8404310
>le ebin philosophy is stupid meme

Go back to your containment hole publishing worthless "science"

>>8404289

It would be able to predict the future, it would just need to not pollute the prediction area with its own predictions. It's just like the camera pointed at its own screen example. A camera can render images of what it's pointed at just fine as long as it'a not pointed at its own screen. Otherwise you're constantly increasing the scope of its input. It's not that the future isn't set in stone, it's that you're constantly increasing the amount of input you're predicting off of if you make your prediction machine influence the room it's predicting.

>>8404326
Fuck off nihilstic cunt. Keep jerking it to anime and cry about your pathetic life over on /r9k/.

>>8404332
I'm not a nihilist, and I don't watch anime, keep flailing.

>>8404325
>This doesn't make any sense at all and you force the supercomputer to apply to the halting problem not the other way around.
If it is possible to create paradox using that machine, it means it cannot possibly exists. There is no forcing anywhere.

>In the first place this only applies if the computer halts after calculating a result but not if it endlessly keeps streaming results.
Let's say you have ever evolving super computer which has the parameters of the universe A that can predict future in finite time, it can answer your questions.
And you have machine B that endlessly keeps streaming results if it receives "NO" and returns immediately in case of "YES"
You connect output of A to B and ask A if B will endlessly streaming results.
And you are in halting problem, it's undecidable. Such a computer cannot exists.

>>8404326
>everything is deterministic action
yes
>so all phenomena of action are a fantasy.
like what? Ever heard of causation?

>>8404331
If you can influence the predicting machine it's already proof that the future is chanegable. If everything is predetermined it would be impossible to influence the machine.

>>8404343
>If everything is predetermined it would be impossible to influence the machine.
The way you influence the machine is also predetermined.

>>8404340
Causation is inert matter bouncing together and is metaphysically imposed by the human mind.

You can't explain why love feels good through deterministic means. You can say something true with no meaning. When you realize the world of causation is literally the least important thing to being human you'll transcend your autism a little bit.

>>8404337
A computer providing infinite solutions can solve infinite problems period.

>>8404356
No it can't.

>>8404356
[citation needed]

>>8404348
That's why there is only one outcome. If it can't come to a result because it keeps recalculating it effectively changes future outcomes.

File: 1455262213765.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>8404358

>>8404350
>You can't explain why love feels good through deterministic means.
Yes you can.
>You can say something true with no meaning.
What does this have to do with anything?

>>8404366
>Yes you can.
Right, in the same sense that you can say rocks want to be at the center of the Earth because they desire to. Just having an explanation isn't enough, the explanation has to be useful. Causation is not useful for nearly everything humans care about.

>What does this have to do with anything?
Because meaning trumps truth.

>>8404343

The trick is you're not talking about the same scope if you're constsntly adding the prediction machine's predictions to the prediction room.

Here's an analogous recursive task: let X=1 to begin with and then calculate X=X+1. You could say the answer's 2, but then you'd be saying X=2 which would mean X would now have to equal 2+1. And then it would be 3 so it'd have to be equal to 3+1, etc. This isn't free will, it's moving the goalposts of what you're predicting. A terminating prediction would need to be made by a machine that isn't part of the system being predicted.

>>8404362

No, you'e not changing the future. You're changing the scope of what you're predicting the future of. System A's future wasn't changed, you just created a System B that includes more than System A.

>>8404371
A predicting machine wouldn't use a single variable since it knows the exact value for everything.

>>8404376

Define everything.

>>8404369
What are you even doing here if you get butthurt by basic scientific concepts such as causation? Noone's asking you to care about any of that, go do something else.

>>8404377
Everything relevant to predicting the future with 100% accuracy.

>>8404376
>>8404377

To elaborate, if everything is just a single system the prediction machine isn't altering, that's fine. But if the machine is adding new information to the system then what you actually have is a new system. You conflating system A's future with system B's and system C's and system D's etc. You need to have a clearly defined input you're predicting off of.

>>8404384
If everything is predetermined the machine has all values that it needs.

File: 1461810902413.gif (2MB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x252px

>>8404350
>You can't explain why love feels good through deterministic means.
Of course you can. Love feels so great because it makes your body generate various hormones.
>You can say something true with no meaning.
Example? And why saying something like that disproves determinism?

>>8404369
>Right, in the same sense that you can say rocks want to be at the center of the Earth because they desire to.
Rocks doesn't desire anything because they are not inteligent.
>Just having an explanation isn't enough, the explanation has to be useful. Causation is not useful for nearly everything humans care about.
Usefulness is means how useful something is. It doesn't disprove determinism.

>>8404371
>>8404376
>>8404377
>>8404379
Why are you guys even arguing about it?
It's impossible for such a machine to exists because it causes paradox. It doesn't prove if future is changeable or not, because it cannot exists.

>>8404386
If such a machine cannot exist it just means determinism is too complex to be practical and effectively doesn't exist.

>>8404385

It depends on the scope of "everything." The machine can't add to the "everything" itself or else it'll create a new "everything." This is exactly what Godel warned us about. A system can't prove everything about itself, you need a system outside that system to do that for it, and then you'll need a new system outside it if you want to prove everything about it, etc.

>>8404395
>This is exactly what Godel warned us about.
You're making this sound quite dramatic.

>>8404378
Nobody's "butthurt" about basic scientific concepts, I'm just explaining why determinism is a babby-tier concept.

>>8404400

Why are you afraid of determinism? Do you want to feel special and meaningful or something? I don't get it.

>>8404394
It cannot be used to ideally predict future.
However if it's true it means it's possible to simulate universe. Imagine a machine that could do it. You could ask it "What would happen in next year on earth if machines to predict future didn't existed". It would be extremely useful because eg. it could predict asteroid hitting earth.
It there was machine that can predict future of universe it is in and determinism is true, it would be useless as well, because it's predictions would be absolute.

>>8404400
You do sound quite butthurt.

>>8404407
Doesn't change that the concept is too high to apply to free will. After all none of us can even begin to grasp it since it's just too complex. And if we could we could effectively manipulate it which means free will exists in any shape or form.

>>8404406
>afraid of
Nothing to be afraid of, it's just not a useful perspective for anything but science.

>>8404421
First, define free will.

>>8404426
Advancing science is useful for engineering, economy, technology and many other things.

>>8404429
I can jerk off now or decide not to.

>>8404449
If that's how you define free will, then it exists.
At least as long as you are potent.

>>8404436
Think of it this way. When I ask "why is 17 prime?" you can't give me any concrete, grounded answer. We can't know WHY the a priori truths of math are true through examining causation. But the MEANING of 17 being prime is quite apparent: nothing divides it but 1 and 17.

This is true of everything science does. It's true that chemicals can change our body composition, but this is worthless without the MEANING of healing the body. We can use engineering to get an idea of how rigid bodies work, but this is worthless without the MEANING of people needing to get to work.

A deterministic world view doesn't allow you to parse meaning, it only allows you to parse causation. So it's not a good world view.

>>8404454
So why again doesn't free will exist? Oh because of a high concept you will never grasp in your entire existence and you can just use it in an extremely oversimplified form that changes the entire essence of the concept.

>>8404458
>When I ask "why is 17 prime?" you can't give me any concrete, grounded answer.
I can. 17 is a prime because we define prime as natural number which can be divided evenly only by 1 and itself. 17 cannot be divided by any other number.

>We can't know WHY the a priori truths of math are true through examining causation.
We know why truths of math are true because we defined what makes mathematical statements true. The truths are true because there are proofs that prove their correctness.

>But the MEANING of 17 being prime is quite apparent
The question was simple and `prime` term is rather simple, so it shouldn't be surprising that the meaning of 17 being prime is so plain.

>this is worthless without the MEANING of healing the body
Medicine and biology is just a tiny of fraction where chemicals are used.

>this is worthless without the MEANING of people needing to get to work.
Engineering not only creates workplaces but also solves most of problems. After all it's about solving practical problems.

>A deterministic world view doesn't allow you to parse meaning
It allows. Meaning is something we define. No matter if the universe is determined or random events exists, people will be able to observe universe and think about meaning of various things.

>So it's not a good world view.
If some world view is good or bad is matter of subjective opinion. It doesn't change correctness of world view.

>>8404462
>So why again doesn't free will exist?
Oh, it exists. After all you can jerk off now or decide not to. As long as you'll be potent, free will will exists.
It's you who come up with this definition, so we should stay with it or the conversation will lose it's cohesion.

>>8404490
>I can. 17 is a prime because we define prime as natural number which can be divided evenly only by 1 and itself. 17 cannot be divided by any other number.
That's not an explanation of what causes 17 to be prime. Yes, 17 is prime because 17 fits the definition of prime, that doesn't explain why.

>We know why truths of math are true because we defined what makes mathematical statements true. The truths are true because there are proofs that prove their correctness.
We don't know what causes them to be true. Proofs provide meaning, they do not explain deterministically why the proofs are possible.

>Medicine and biology is just a tiny of fraction where chemicals are used.
Yet every application is based on human desires, not on determinism.

>Engineering not only creates workplaces but also solves most of problems. After all it's about solving practical problems.
Yes, and solving problems is a human activity, not a deterministic one.

>It allows.
No it doesn't. In a deterministic world there is no reason to do anything.

>Meaning is something we define.
No it most certainly fucking isn't. I can't define meaning to be pissing in my own mouth and make it so.

>It doesn't change correctness of world view.
Correctness is only one way to judge a world view.

You simply do not seem to be able to grasp these concepts because apparently they're complicated. I'd suggest you try reading a philosopher or two.

>>8404498
>That's not an explanation of what causes 17 to be prime. Yes, 17 is prime because 17 fits the definition of prime, that doesn't explain why.
Humans causes 17 to be prime. We come up with sequence of symbols, called it 17 and we called 17 a prime number.

>We don't know what causes them to be true. Proofs provide meaning, they do not explain deterministically why the proofs are possible.
We know, it's humans what causes mathematical truth to be true. We defined what is a mathematical truth and what makes them true. Because it's usually too hard to determine if some mathematical sentence is true, we created tools(proofs). Of course correctness of these methods are also provable.

>Yet every application is based on human desires, not on determinism.
>Yes, and solving problems...
How do you imagine using chemicals for determinism? Determinism is a doctrine, it doesn't create demands.
Also not every application is based on human desires. Imagine a robot that malfunctioned and caused fire in chemical laboratory. Chemicals were used in causing fire, but it wasn't human desire to cause it.

>No it doesn't. In a deterministic world there is no reason to do anything.
In deterministic world, your reason to go to job is to make money so you can live longer.

>No it most certainly fucking isn't. I can't define meaning to be pissing in my own mouth and make it so.
You can, humans come up with words. But if you define meaning as something like that, no one will take you seriously, because this word already has been defined.

>Correctness is only one way to judge a world view.
True, you can also judge a world view basing on simplicity, person who says it or even count of letters in it's proper name.

>You simply do not seem to be able to grasp...
There are no too complicated concepts. To disscus concepts, first you need to agree/explain on their definition.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." I like this quote.

>quoting single lines and going trough the entire post like that
Please both of you, kill yourself.

>>8404553
Make me.

>>8404555
I just want both of you to kill yourself since you reached a point where you just want to be right and don't give a fuck about reaching the conclusion of your argument.

>>8404566
It's hard to make conclusion of argument, when he suddenly writes so many new different arguments.

>>8404574
If you wanted to reach a conclusion instead of just winning you would give each other points for making correct or believeable statements. Instead you're literally picking up every single argument and denying it. That's just being salty as fuck and will waste both of your time.

File: 1454278176197674710.png (67KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x665px

>>8404583
Well, I had fun.

>>8404498
>I can't define meaning to be pissing in my own mouth and make it so.
Actually you can and I suggest you try.

>>8404543
>Humans causes 17 to be prime
Literal retard.

>>8398251
No, but the more it goes on, the more it seems free will isn't a thing. There was an experiment iirc that demonstrated how some choices we make can be seen in our brains a few seconds before we commit them. It was a true/false quiz thing, and they were able to predict what they guy was gonna press, 1 or 2 seconds before he pressed, and seemingly before he even knew what he was gonna press. Something like that.

Free will not existing seems like the simplest, most logicial explanation for now. Don't see any reason to believe otherwise, and these reasons are getting slimer and slimer as neuroscience progresses.

>>8404543
>We come up with sequence of symbols, called it 17 and we called 17 a prime number.
No.

>We know, it's humans what causes mathematical truth to be true.
Try to imagine a triangle who's side lengths are 1, 2 and 4. Can't do it? Of course not, because the assertion that humans invent math is literally fucking retarded.

>We defined what is a mathematical truth and what makes them true.
Humans did not make the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter pi.

>Because it's usually too hard to determine if some mathematical sentence is true, we created tools(proofs). Of course correctness of these methods are also provable.
It's impossible to prove a proof true, that's an asinine and ignorant statement.

>Determinism is a doctrine, it doesn't create demands.
This sentence makes no sense.

>Also not every application is based on human desires. Imagine a robot that malfunctioned and caused fire in chemical laboratory. Chemicals were used in causing fire, but it wasn't human desire to cause it.
??? an accidental human fire isn't an "application", it's just something that happens.

>In deterministic world, your reason to go to job is to make money so you can live longer.
What's deterministically wrong with suicide? Nothing. There is no purpose with determinism. You're not comprehending why practical human choice is incompatible with a deterministic world view. Whatever causes your curtains to be red has no influence on decorating choice.

>You can, humans come up with words. But if you define meaning as something like that, no one will take you seriously, because this word already has been defined.
The meaning of words is use, not definition. Read some Wittgenstein.

>True, you can also judge a world view basing on simplicity, person who says it or even count of letters in it's proper name.
Yes, but humans still only ever pick what's useful to us because we don't ever do anything but that.

>>8404779
This has literally nothing to do with free will, why are so many people bringing up this retarded example? When we talk about free will we talk about how in a greater sense everything that happens is predetermined trough the set parameters of the universe. That your subconcious reacts before your concious has nothing to do with it. Otherwise not acting on impulse would suggest free will.

>>8404787
It does has something to do with it.

If you don't define free will as being this conscious experience that goes on while we are awake, how do you define it?

>>8404790
And your subconcious is suddenly not yourself? A choice made by your subconcious is not your own choice? That's just not how it works since everyone can change subconcious habits.

If we can change the future free will exists and if we can't change it then it doesn't exist. We will never know for sure since we will never be able to look into the future.

The real question is if it really matters if free will exists or not. If you get depressed because of this and can't work towards your goals you were just a shitty human being anyway. You should kill yourself or live the rest of your miserable life quietly. Since all no free will means is that I was predestined to become great and reach my goals from the very beginning I have nothing to fear.

>>8404785
>No.
So like, we received a stone from the sky which says "17 is a prime"?

>Try to imagine a triangle...
I can, it's not much of a problem. It will have to use non standard metric, like Taxicab geometry.
And humans didn't "invented" math, we defined it.

>Humans did not make the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter pi.
Of course, it wouldn't make sense. We called circle's circumference pi. We didn't know what pi is before we defined it.

>It's impossible to prove a proof true, that's an asinine and ignorant statement.
Of course you can. You can reduce proofs to logic and then you can reduce these logic operation to axioms. Axioms are true because we defined them as true. They are base of all our math. But we say axioms are true only because it's useful for us, you can leave some axioms and make new own and make new logic, but it just not practical because all other mathematical truth might become false.

>This sentence makes no sense.
So does "Yet every application is based on determinism."

>accidental human fire isn't an "application", it's just something that happens.
Then what is an application? If we say that applications is only when it's from desire of some human, then how it disproves determinism?
The fact something happens and you like it or not doesn't suddenly change how universe works.

>What's deterministically wrong with suicide? Nothing.
How can something be deterministically wrong? Like, what determinism has to do with mentality?
If you kill yourself you die and cannot love longer, that's what is wrong with it. It doesn't change the fact how universe works.

>There is no purpose with determinism. You're not comprehending why practical human choice is incompatible with a deterministic world view. Whatever causes your curtains to be red has no influence on decorating choice.
What curtains? If I have red curtains in my house, it means I chosen to have red curtains. Color of my curtains doesn't change how universe works.

>>8404785
>The meaning of words is use, not definition.
Definition:
an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
We define meaning of words.

>Yes, but humans still only ever pick what's useful to us because we don't ever do anything but that.
I think people pick whatever is interesting to them. Eg. Pastafarianizm.

>>8404839
Free will exists depending on how you define it.
If you say that free will is when all your thinking process happens in soul that is separated from body and this universe then we can clearly say it's not a case.
I like thinking that free will is just intelligence. "ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." In that case free will exists.
>You should kill yourself or live the rest of your miserable life quietly. Since all no free will means is that I was predestined to become great and reach my goals from the very beginning I have nothing to fear.
It doesn't make sense, if you kill yourself you won't archive all this. First you would need to know what future will be, but it was shown before that such a information causes paradox and cannot exists.

>>8400427

You did not force the other anon to process the information you typed in because if determinism in a mechanic sense is true, then everything is causally related to everything else. Someone with true free will would not be able to interact with the system at all, because he would HAVE TO experience it, but, if he does, he is influenced by it. If you approach this logically, you will see that free will does not make sense at all on the existential level. Like, it's inconceivable, not just impossible.

You were influenced by something to write your post and the other anon was influenced by your post and other factors (and this goes on further down the line ad infinitum). There just is no conceivable agency if we are talking about entities (and where does the entity end?) in "creation" as a system at an existential level, but on lower levels of discourse that of course is irrelevant. What in your life would practically change if you knew you are determined in your thoughts and actions? Nothing. Experience-wise, it's the exact same thing and nobody knows what that other, "true" freedom would feel like.

>>8405672
>You did not force the other anon to process the information you typed in
Yes, I did. I spurred the mechanical processes in their brain to occur, and they had no choice. I just didn't have a choice in whether or not I did so.

It's a strategy to start micro and expand to the macro. You need to get a foot in the door with people.

>If you approach this logically, you will see that free will does not make sense at all on the existential level.
That's exactly what I said.

>>8398251

Free will can't exist because you didn't create your brain, you will always be a slave to pre-determined mind patterns.

People who didn't like Ergo Proxy just didn't get it.

Prove me wrong.

>implying particle interactions' seemingly random results aren't the manifestation of free-will
>Implying subatomic particles don't possess free will within the constrains of their environment, just as we do