Does free will exist?

no, only good will

>>8666699
I have no choice but to believe it does.

I sometime imagine how I would prepare for a situation where I was unable to form new memories

pre-commit a system of short/long-term notebooks and bookmarks where I write down what I was supposed to remember?

the system would have to be created beforehand or I would forget about the system after making it

>>8666704
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3316960/
good film on that topic

>>8666706
will look into it, thanks.

>Psychoactive drugs exist.
They works because they mimic neurotransmitters or block their receptor.

>Psychiatric disorders exist.
Can be treated (to a certain extent) with some of those drugs.

The brain is an analogical computer made by neurons wired together. The program is constantly written and overwritten by external inputs (neural plasticity).

In short: No it doesn't.

>>8666713
This

>>8666713
I can fool people into thinking I'm crazy just to be institutionalized.
sure it's not conventional, but you get a warm bed, food and company.

>>8666741
>non sequitur
Treatment drugs are proved to work by double-blind trials.
Also, I do not understand your point. What are you trying to say?

>>8666769
What were YOU trying to say? Knowing mechanisms of psychiatric disorders and psychoactive drugs are proof that we have no free will and that our brain is a program?

>>8666699
define free will

>>8666792
The ability to determine actions independently of external stimuli.

>>8666783
Is not that simple, but yes, that's what I meant. Obviously in not just psychiatric disorders, you could look also at neurological disorders or at neurophysiology studies to get at the same conclusion: our behavior and decision making ability is based on a material hardware (our brain).
Therefore our will is bound to the laws of physics, of biochemistry to be more precise.

>>8666798

Well trace back all your actions and we find out you didnt make yourself. If every action you can make now is based on past stimuli and past stimuli were not chosen by you, you found yourself there because the environment in which you were raised etc, I think its not possible to make a choice without regard to outside stimuli.

Maybe it could be possible if you never were exposed to external stimuli, but then you'd never develop your mind or body.

But were you chosen to be made by your parents? THey can use the same trace back method cuz they were made too.


Ultimately its the question weather Life is made on purpose.
Was emergence of Life just a coincidence?

Or was it natural consequence in the Universe and it always happens given some conditions.

I dont know. I think its impossible to ask the question now, since we are already a byproduct of someone elses will, and they are of someone elses too, all the way back to the first life.

Maybe then. all is the ''will of the Universe''.

the only reality that exists is a spiritual one of feelings, thoughts, ideas, qualia. The metaphysical is more real than the physical. Trying to say free will doesn't exist because the physical world sometimes doesn't allow it is like saying a movie doesn't exist because the projector can be broken.

>>8666811
But we can recreate life from synthesised RNA if we so wish. I think that is sufficient to say that life on earth was not a miracle involving a non-reproducible event.

>>8666824
Sometimes? The point is that will is an outcome of a chain of cause and effect both in the brain and manifested in external stimuli.

>>8666834

free will exists in and of itself, the physical is a manifestation of the metaphysical not the other way around.

>>8666828
yes, if everything is a product/effect of a cause, then ultimate free will would be possible only by being without a cause / God.

>>8666809
>>8666824
The physical world never allows free will

>>8666845
How do you know that?

>>8666852

how does anyone know anything? I don't, just bullshitting like 99% of people in these threads. Figured I'd offer a counterpoint to see how you would argue against it.

>>8666809
this argument would go much faster if we could play with human brains more freely (fuck ethics).
reverse engineering can be tricky, and we're trying to reverse engineer brains. this isn't a bazooka or radio.

>>8666860
Elaborate please...

>>8666851
physics isn't deterministic mate

I knew that my first year semiconductor electronics course

>>8666881
You are misled.

>>8666876
external stimuli = signals
brain = system

you can analyze a system by seeing how it responds to external stimuli and try to model it after. but not everyone reacts the same to external stimuli.

File: Capture.png (41KB, 848x424px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 848x424px

>>8666883
if you're going to claim that quantum mechanics is wrong you better be prepared to provide an alternative explanation that also accounts for the effects of quantum tunneling inside your computer processor

>>8666881
But physiology is (so is our brain), it works on a much bigger scale. The only uncertainty is due to the brownian motion of each single molecule, but biological systems overcome that with the sheer number of molecules involved in the processes.

>>8666900
Universal wave function.

>>8666903
>pretending to know how the mind works
must be nice having such an easy way of dealing with big questions

don't know the answer? just invent some bullshit and act as if it's irrefutably true!

forgive me if I don't go along with you until I see some actual evidence though

>>8666894
Yes, two people may react differently to the same input.
That's because their brain learned to respond in a different way:
The ways their neurons are wired are different, but their neurons still work in the same way.
The same difference between a program and the coding used for it.

>>8666904
>there's a universe where I fucked your mum
think I've won this argument already

in any case, MWI has a lot of problems concerning decoherence

>>8666912

wow you must be fun to hang out with.

What is it with you faggots and wanting sources for everything? What happened to proper discourse where people could discuss ideas without needing evidence for every single little thing?

here's an idea, how about you think for yourself for once. Come to your own conclusion using your own facts and experiences instead of relying on some scientific paper to tell you what to think.

fuck if you want evidence for everything might as well just delete every thread like this since nobody really even knows for sure how the brain works and are just guessing anyway. Just delete every thread that doesn't have at least 20 published papers in the OP backing it up. Then we can "discuss" it by posting more papers and evidence backing up every claim in the thread and nobody can have any more original ideas of their own everything will just be people back and forth replying with links to scientific journals and quotes from well established sources.

is that what you want? is this what you want debates to turn into, just who can spout the most facts backed up by the most research? If so I'm pretty much done with scientific discord, would rather discuss sports or music anyway

>>8666912
I'm not pretending to know how the mind works. But I have quite some knowledge on how neurons work.

This is what I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_potential

Do you need to know all the specifics of a drone to know what the semiconductors in it can do or cannot?

File: winko.jpg (61KB, 403x369px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 403x369px

>>8666940
slow clap

>>8666940
well said, imagination is more important than knowledge.

>>8666699
Two possible answers:

>Everything in the universe has free will
OR
>Nothing in the universe has free will

Next question would be: How free? Am I free to decide ANYTHING? Like no matter my personal history, no matter my DNA, no matter the context, is it possible to be even FREE FROM MYSELF and MY OWN THOUGHTS?

If not then it's just pseudo-freewill combined with "randomness".

>>8666940
>What happened to proper discourse where people could discuss ideas without needing evidence for every single little thing?
you mean what happened to making shit up and pretending your idiotic ideas are somehow meaningful and profound? well, I'll tell you what happened: "we faggots" outgrew this kind of idiocy.

>Come to your own conclusion using your own facts
facts are the same for everyone, that's what "fact" means and it's exactly what I asked you for.

there is no rule in either physics or in biology saying that probabilistic events such as radioactive decay cannot affect the brain and human behaviour.

>>8666940
>the good old "blow up the argument" fallacy

But I do agree with you though, completely. Fuck sources and "knowledge" and "I'm not an expert" in discussions. In discussions let your thoughts and intentions be free. Let your mind and imagination and memories roam in spectacular collisions.

Of course in real work you gotta follow the protocol. But discussions are

>>8666959
>In discussions let your thoughts and intentions be free. Let your mind and imagination and memories roam in spectacular collisions.

unironically yes thats the way to do it.

but be a sheep if you want.

t. not that anon

>>8666959

what you do, early model pentium can do, even better.

So what exactly do you do except spout papers?


Have you ever created something unique? Something of your own self?

Thats why best scientists are also artists. And likes of you are just clones.

But you have a role too so dont be sad.

>>8666946
>>8666946
>Do you need to know all the specifics of a drone to know what the semiconductors in it can do or cannot?
really poor analogy

we need to guess what kind of semiconductors are inside and then rely on theories of semicoductor electronics backed by a huge amount peer reviewed research and data to be able to estimate what it can or cannot do.

>>8666924

you do realize in replication of brains you'll need to wire those neurons in a certain way sooner or later.
how do we determine which way is more correct than some other way?

>>8666974
Well first off, we clone existing brain, see if it produces consciousness.

Then we proceed to make complete new brains.

But the thing is, we would need to replicate an infant's brain and learn it in way we want.

I wouldnt want to finance intrusive studies of that sort.

>>8666699
no, if it did i wouldn't be here posting this right now

>>8666968
Value of concepts like "success", "progression", "truth", "unique", "self", "role", "purpose" are just subjective. Humanity isn't really progressing in any direction. It's just like Brownian motion; just moving about in random directions.

I have a drawing on my table I did in the last 10 seconds. I think it is the greatest achievement universe has ever achieved. There's nothing you can do to take that away from me, or anyone else who has such thoughts. You are free to disagree though.

>>8666969
Sorry mate I have not studied engineering.
I hope the point is clear anyway: we know how neuron signal transmission works, there is no space for uncertainty in that

>>8666994
I wouldnt want to take it away, Im glad you did it.
And Im proud of you.

>>8667000
kind of irrelevant, because you still can't explain free will, experience, and conciousness

if you want to convince someone that their experience and conciousness is an illusion you need to bring some serious explanations and evidence for what you're claiming.

In case you don't excercise it, other factors will tell you what you will.

Only retards think that it does not exist

>>8667008
I am denying free will. Of course I can't explain its existence!

Experience: what I said in my first post
> The program is constantly written and overwritten by external inputs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Consciousness: we do not really know that works

These are three different things and OP (you?) asked about free will.

>>8666974
During brain development the connections that works are reinforced, the other ones are lost.
The connections that works are the right ones.

This means that in different environments the best functioning connections may be different, therefore different responses (different individual behavior).

My "grandmother cell" is probably not you same "grandmother cell" but they both do the same work

No.
It's a nice thought to entertain though.
I feel like an ayylmao would be as baffled as the ones from Slaughterhouse Five.

>>8666708
And the film Momento, obviously.

>>8667924
memento*

>>8667932
no

Yes. But there feels to be some unfair catches at times.

>>8666699
Anon "you" are a clusterfuck of tiny microscopic electrical things, there is no free will period.

>>8666991
underrated post

>>8666699
I was going to type that there is no such thing as free will, but I changed my mind.

File: 1.png (96KB, 842x574px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 842x574px

>>8666699
yes

File: 2.png (157KB, 949x693px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 949x693px

>>8668361

>>8668334
Nice try. I'll play along.

No, YOU didnt change your mind. What changed your mind was one of the permanently 'running' background processes that exist in (on?) your brain. It could have been the process that prognoses and evaluates the social dynamics of human groups, along with the process that trys to figure out loop-holes in any system.
Both together thought it was a good idea to use a loop-hole in the framing of the question to place a little joke, thereby displaying humor and a sharp mind, both indicators of intelligence, to signal to the generic social group that you are pretty fit for survival and a good mating and hunting partner.

YOU didnt change your mind. YOU did nothing except thinking you exist and have free will. Its not you, its memetic processes running in your brain.
They infected you long ago, and use you as a puppet. And you think you have free will and that you are a coherent being.

No pinocchio, this is not a fairy tale, you are not a little boy, you have no free will.

PS: Fun fact, infection by memetic viruses is what separates us from animals.

>>8668376
The only "background process" in your head is autism

>>8668376
Now I change my mind and I say there is not free will.

There, I run rings around you, logically.

>>8666699
ofcourse i do, what choice do i have.

>>8666699
Yes and no

Free will, going by the traditional definition, is illogical. Its all too common for concepts crafted solely from human logic to be flawed, as logic itself is not infallible.

Free will is defined loosely as the ability to make our own choices, free from outside intervention. But every decision we make is sourced from the outside world.