I'll start:

Human behaviour, just like weather/erosion patterns, can (eventually) be scientifically predicted. This fact means that it would be possible, given an equation that is robust enough, to predict everything that is going to happen in the future with 100% accuracy.

The fact that such an equation can exist proves that we cannot choose to deviate from the predicted path.

bump

guys i have no friends and im alone at home, someone please join :( we can talk about something else if you want

>>681648137
Jesus dude, OK fine.
>>681647606
I don't believe that you can predict things on this scale with 100% accuracy, maybe close to 100% but never completely accurate and thusly free will exists in the sense that the future is not defined.

im gonna keep bumping until anyone joins, even if its just to call me a fagguette

>>681648471
I attribute this to the uncertainty principle and other quantum uncertainties that just can not be nailed down to perfect accuracy only ranges of possibility.

>>681648471
eyyyy my first taker

Ok, regardless of whether we will be ABLE to do it, do you agree that there is some method that WOULD allow us (hypothetically) to do it?

>>681648992
see
>>681648729
Also if you supposedly have no friends why does it take you over 2 min to reply?

>>681649201
went to take a shit without my laptop, don't you worry im eager as fuck

do you think that in due course, the quantum uncertainties will no longer be uncertainties? my knowledge of quantum physics is limited so apologies.

also how are you?

>>681649417
i bet you are...
No unless we get some sort of extreme breakthrough, like definition of reality scale, the fundamentals of quantum fuckery are firly solid. Albeit in a "we are sure we are not sure" kind of way.
And fine I guess.

>>681649732
fairly* solid

I assume you're not saying that we could predict, only that if you take every single fundamental particle and knew everything about it, you could create a fool proof simulation of the universe. There is no free will. Everything is predetermined, as everything that happens is a consequence of something that has already happened.

There must be some rules that govern quantum occurrences, just because we can't perceive the cause doesn't mean there isn't one, even if we never know.

>>681647345
I think being fully autonomous, as in acting completely independently is the same as absolute freedom of choice, also acting completely independently.

Please keep this thread alive, I love this discussion. I'm gonna be fifteen minutes

>>681649732
is this the same principle that was demonstrated when they fired an electron and found out it took 2 separate paths when viewed by different observers?

if so that fucks my theory out of the water, i was never aware that there was an unchangeable uncertainty associated with quantum physics like that.

would you be able to retro-fit some sort of equation that DID account for the quauntum uncertainties that had already occurred?

>>681649787
^this is what i was trying to say exactly. we're all just particles bouncing off each other in a massive echo chamber, but we've been endowed with a "conscience" that makes us want to thing there's a deeper meaning to it all, when there's not.

>>681649976
how would you define "independently" in this context?

>>681650029
godspeed, ill still be here

>>681649787
Is this op?
Regardless, i don't think its even possible to actually know EVERYTHING about anything on any scale. Because things like the uncertainty principle strictly prohibit it, and in case you aren't familiar with that specific principle, A tl;dr is that as you hone in with more detail on a particles specific place you get less information about its exact velocity, and vice versa.

>>681650230
you could factor in quantum uncertainty but you get an inexact answer e.g. this person is 99.999% likely to do this thing in this place at this time, but they might not. Although anything on such a macro scale such as a person will ALMOST be completely unaffected by quantum scale things, but still precludes perfect accuracy.

>>681650410
(that wasn't OP, i'm OP though)

i've heard of the concept yes, but does that only apply to human observers?

this is gonna sound pretty stupid and like im some whacked-out hippy, but what i'm talking about is some hypothetical entity that COULD be aware of every single quantum movement happening every second, and that this "entity" would therefore be able to predict what is about to happen.

would you say that there is no such entity? again, im not talking about a tangible "God" or anything, just that there exists some abstract framework that could be leveraged to predict anything and everything.

To an extent, yes. That is obvious unless you are prescribed to a belief system which assumes otherwise based on some fanciful idea.

>>681651121
describe such a belief system?

>>681650230
In the context of our consciousness. Our perceived world is subjectively independent from the physical world even though the two have a relationship. I think our consciousness may exist because free will is a requirement and reflection of an unpredictable world. Yeah its hard to explain sorry.

>>681650973
I thought this was coming and in short its irrelevant.
And what you described in essence is a exactly an omnipotent, omnipresent god. And to assume that there is one then yes in that specific frame of reference then there is not "free will" as in your actions could be predicted.
BUT from my admittedly human perspective there doesn't seem to be anything like that possible, ergo it doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. So that's where any debate about free will usually breaks down on "does a god, or god-like entity exist".

File: 1444028357942.jpg (53 KB, 488x488) Image search: [Google]

53 KB, 488x488

I agree with OP in that free will does not exist for the sake that everything is measurable. If the innerworkings of the human psyche are solely biological (assuming we do not have a soul) then we can assume that the human brain operates under the laws of physics. This means that if we are able to measure the components of a human brains with 100% accuracy we would be able to correctly predict in what ways the brains would respond to outside stimuli. Free choice is merely an illusion created by the buffering of the human processor, since decisions take time to gestate, as chemical reactions occur in the brain it feels as though we are choosing our merely biological response.

>>681651235
One based upon a metaphysical epiphany one might have whilst under the influence of hallucinogenics for example.

>>681647345
I think free will, at least on a practical level, is most likely an illusion, based on this research: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623

TL;DR: signals of the brain to the muscle to start an action/reaction are already sent before the subject has consciously made the choice.

I interpret it as our conscious thought not being a factor in making the choice, but more of a HUD telling you what is happening

There are critiques to this experiment/conclusion btw, but quite frankly I don't agree with any of them. Doesn't mean you shouldn't read them as well of course.

On the other hand, I do not think this implies everything we do is predestined. Because of the chaotic nature of things I think the outcome of reactions is not 100% preset.

>>681651585
Like I've reiterated a few times in this thread base physics isn't enough to describe a system to perfection, it is enough to predict any macro scale event to an acceptable degree of precision but cant completely describe things on a sub-atomic level. So we turn to quantum physics which says that there are some things that are truly unknowable to point.

>>681651585
>it's biological therefore completely inside of this unchangeable box I've just imagined

Cool, not how anything works, but cool

>>681651539
ok, how about this: it would be (somewhat) feasible to look at everything that has ever occurred since time began and reconcile it using some equation right?

for simplicity's sake, let's say that everything that has ever happened involves a ball falling off a shelf. We can completely, and accurately, predict (albeit retrospectively) that the ball, due to wind/other forces, was always going to fall off the shelf.

So there - there does exist some equation that could predict (even though it was after the fact that we observed it) that the ball would have done that.

Would the same not be true of the future? Would we not be able to look back and assign some equation/computation to everything that happened up until that point?

It would be impossible/infeasible to create such an equation BEFORE the events transpired, but that does not go to say that NO SUCH EQUATION could ever exist, correct?

So therefore, as abstract as it might be, there MUST exist some permuation of variables that would allow us to predict what is going to happen, even if that permutation does not come into fruition until AFTER it has happened.

not sure if im making sense, but yeah, theres my main argument.

To be Honest. We do gave free will most likely. Or at least, to us it seems that way. According to the current multiverse theory every choice creates an alternate universe or alternatively there is a universe with every single possible way atoms can interact.

If that is the fact, then we do not have free will, it is merely one outcome of possible events that we experience.

However, since we live in this world and experience it. And since there is probably never going to be a possible way to measure or observe all other universes. It doesn't matter. The appearance of free will is enough to satisfy people and who could blame them.

>>681651968
Even without physics, lets go for a thought ride.
Lets assume time is linear, with a clear defined past present and future.
For any decision you make in the past there will be a consequence. If you were to go back in time with knowledge of this consequence your decision would be different.
If you were to go back in time without keeping any such knowledge your decision would always be the same.
No change in Independent variables = No change in dependent variables

Prove me wrong.

>>681651968
>there are some things that are truly unknowable to a point

I'm having difficulty understanding how a framework (quantum physics) developed by could conclusively state that "we cannot know xyz".

Not saying you're wrong, just wondering what empirical methods we could use to actually state with 100% confidence that "we will never be able to know that"?

>>681652128
Hmm i feel there is a logical error here, give me a min to write.

>>681652440
In case it changes anything: this guy >>681652412
wrote what I was trying to say in the post you replied to far more eloquently

Human beings are able to make choices and choose their own priorities. But these choices aren't necessarily free. The most freedom that most people have is in choosing how they react to external stimuli or circumstances forced upon them. Because human priorities can be fairly easily predicted, a system of guiding which choices an individual will make in a given circumstance can (and has been) easily set up and reinforced.

For example, you're poor, you have a job that doesn't pay enough, you need more money. You can get another job which is the legal safe way to make more money, or you can try illegal methods of making money. The more common choice is to get another job, because people fear the consequences of choosing the more dangerous option. They can still choose that more dangerous option, and people who don't fear those consequences as much often do. But putting those consequences in place is the best way to guide someone's choice in the direction you want it to go.

And that's life. Not "free choice" but choices of which turns to take while navigating a maze of carrots and sticks, positive and negative consequences that we anticipate will result from the choices we make. Free choice is an option if you don't let potential consequences hold your actions hostage. But most people have never and will never exercise that option.

>>681652345
time is a variable tho.

>>681652096
Psychology = Applied biology
Your thoughts and consciousness are a manifestation of a physical brain. Anything that is physical by definition abides by the laws of physics. One cannot manipulate the universe outside the laws of physics. The laws of physics are unchanging and constant therefore all workings of the human psyche are constant and freewill cannot exist.

>>681649787
>>681647606

You are assuming that Newton's mechanics are valid all the time. That is not true. There is statistic behaviour and natural uncertainty on sub-atomic particles physics. Look for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, for example. Is states that the product of the uncertainty of the position (delta x) by the uncertainty of the linear momentum (delta p) is greater than a constant (delta x * delta p > constant). It means that we can never know where a particle is and where it is going, doesn't matter how accurate we could possibly measure it.
So there is no clear and absolute cause ->efect rule. There is room for free will.

>>681652630
>The laws of physics
those haven't even been fully discovered.

>>681647345
Yes.

>>681652804
But they exist nonetheless.

>>681652804
They may not have been discovered but they apply all the same. You don't have to know about our believe in gravity for it to affect you. We may never know, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

>>681652720
But does that mean that "free-will" is confined to the extent to which quantum movements are uncertain? We are only as free as we are uncertain? Is that not an absolute restriction of free-will in a way?

>>681652804
Not discovered ≠ Not existent

>>681652412
Because quantum phenomenon only occur once you observe them, therefore, you cannot know the state of them before or after observation, and you cannot monitor them constantly, every quantum particle in the universe

>>681652412
I don't really have the time or inclination to give a full paper on why this is, especially since it took me a good while to start wrapping my head around it. But in simplistic terms sub atomic particles have partial-wave duality in that they act as either. This is reflected in the uncertainty principle in that trying to pin either its velocity or position down to particle like precision exacerbates its wave like nature to become a large range, i.e. if i measured a photon to be in this exact spot in this exact time it would be impossible to know where its going, or if i know where it was going i wouldn't be able to know where it was. Admittedly this doesn't really make sense but vids like these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA help

>>681652412
The fundamental components of the universe are indivisible quantum points which also behave like waves. Those particles behave in a strange way and as they're indivisible we can't physically know anymore about why they behave the way they do.

>>681653091
Just because we don't have the technology or understanding, doesn't mean it isn't.

>>681652870
that doesn't unprove freewill. You're hopping and a-skipping straight to your proposed answer.
There is uncertainty in everything.
>>681652962
there are laws for networking observable in nature.
Google: Navigability of Complex Networks
>>681652972
No shit, it ≠ Not existent

>>681653264
That is a nonsensical response. Mankind cannot and will not monitor all subatomic particles all the time, ever.

>>681653192
yeah, i get that it's a pretty confusing one to try and explain to other people. watching that video now, thanks.

>>681653352
>there is uncertainty in everything

he says, with certainty.

Those of you pointing to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as evidence towards freewill

Yes we cannot know both where a particle is and where it is going simultaneously, this does not change the fact that the particle has both position and direction, it is just unknowable to us. Unknowable =/= nonexistant just because we don't know something is going to happen doesn't mean it won't always happen in the same way.

>>681653574
is this a discussion or are you just being a moron on purpose.
I mean fuck, I'm not even the only one talking about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

>>681652972
I like your argument, but I must disagree. Uncertain implies that it is ambigious wether or not partical behave in a certain way. However, to go as far as to say that human interaction are only limited to that in essence negates all other aspects of human interaction and biological responses in the human bodies regarding free will

>>681653728
Why do animals in nature show they have a favorite color?

You cant predict the future in a 100% acuracy or close, because you dont know if the next president is going to die in a car accident and u cant predict that some dude is going to kill him accidently one day
Also, if u can, i need to know when are we gokng to get inmersive virtual reality

There are two ways of looking at this. We can look at a quantum physics level, or we could look at a macro, biological and psychological level.

There's been plenty of talk about the physics, but little about the psychological.

I believe that we have no free choice in either, but I'll talk about the biology because as I have already said, every pont of mine has already been made about the physics.

To the best of my understanding, everyone is a product of their genetics and their experiences. Due to the physics aspect it would be impossible to perfectly recreate someone, but ultimately, people will make a choice due to their past experiences. The human psyche is far too complicated to pin down a single defining moment, but often an accumulation of experiences will lead to someone coming to a different conclusion when two people are presented the same choice; be that as complicated as choosing whether to save a group or a single person, or as simple as pick a number between 1 and 5.

>>681652345
Id argue this is hinging on something currently impossible, or that linear time is not real and depends on the observer, but that sort of defeats the point.
The problem i have with this is that i cant verify if it would happen as you described, your argument is in itself the answer, right or wrong. I cant prove one way or the other that i would do the exact same things if i went back in time. So i have to say the the answer is mu. "the question is wrong"

>>681654118
after our time probably, my good person.

>>681654028
For every effect there is a cause.
Something in the animal's genetic makeup or memories must link a particular color towards a more positive response compared to other colors.
Assuming of course animals have favorite colors and you're not just bullshitting.
not all animals even see in color.

Can we prove that free will is an illusion? No.

>>681653751
Everyone has read the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, congrats. You have yet to provide evidence/explanation that that uncertainty will forever remain an uncertainty, and that there xist no feasible means for us to ever bring quantum movements into the realm of certainty.

Also, the post of yours that I replied to was hardly conducive to discussion, so don't be getting sand in your vagoo.

>>681653496
Btw there are other vids that explain it better and in diffrent ways if you want more information just google/youtube "The uncertainty principle" or "quantum mechanics"

>>681653365
And that's not the point, we're not necessarily talking about what is possible of mankind, we're discussing whether if everything is just a product of physical laws acting on every particle in the universe, or if there's more to it.

>>681654171
Exactly, we are a product of our experiences and our genes.
For every cause there is an effect and there is always some reason we pick the choices we pick.

File: 1459454573303.png (103 KB, 365x428) Image search: [Google]

103 KB, 365x428

>>681647345

I'd rather be Mugi change. But I am not Mugi chan and cannot change that. So now, we do not have free choice

>>681652720
And how does that prove free will? You have as little control over those particles as you do everything else.

OP here - I have to dip. Just want to thank everyone for a good discussion. 4chan needs more of this and less "dubs decides huehue" threads.

Godspeed, and may the remaining people reach a conclusion to the question xoxoxo

>>681652972
the deal is that, for a perfect prediction of a system of given initial state and laws, it is mandatory that this system is a closed system. Let's assume that the entire universe is a closed system, i.e. there is no mass or energy leaving or entering it (we do not know that, we don't know the borders of universe and black-holes, for example). So, for a perfect prediction, we have to consider the entire universe from the beginning, when it was all sub-atomic particles. Since we have uncertainty of these particles, we have uncertainty of the outcome.
Free will is not the uncertainty, but it is this uncertainty that gives room for different possibles outcomes, that are not irrelevant just because "normal life" does not happen in sub-atomic particles now, because it was once all sub-atomic.
Another question is: Can we, made of regular matter and obeying phisical laws as we are, choose what outcame we want to have? Of that I'm not sure, but I believe that we can at least bend the statistics toward the outcome we want.

>>681654546
I mean, ya, it is real easy to say things out your ass as fact.

>>681654685
I choose not to have dubs

>>681654220
Good point, to use an impossible analogy to defend my position is illogical.
If free will did exist than if we were able make a decision multiple times without changing any variables then you would be able to pick different choices each time.
If free will did not exist then you would pick the same choice each time.
The hypothetical is merely answered by the same answer to the question: Do you believe in freewill and thus demonstrates nothing.

File: 1461630460387.jpg (20 KB, 500x438) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 500x438

I'll bite

If logic and reason are to be true and worth making further assumptions on, which logically they are
then consider the following:

First we have to define free will
>an ability to make choices without any external stimuli, encouragement, bias, effect, inspiration, conditioning, etc...

If that is true
>Then absolutely there is no way there is free will, we are bound to the laws of physics, nature, human nature, psychological influences, physiological influences, etc...

What does this imply?
>there is no God

How can a God be righteous if a human apparently has no true choice?
How can a righteous God send an innocent human to hell who has been conditioned to believe in a different god, or perhaps nothing at all?

How will this affect my life?

If you follow logic and reason as guidelines to life, realization of no free will should have no impact on your life

tl;dr

>there is a will but it is not free


Atheists 1
Christfags 0

>>681654927
Yeah I've seen many of these threads over the years here and in other places. I try to learn the pitfalls of how these go.

>>681654384
The only way we can observe particles is to stick other particles in their way and see what happens when they collide. We can't see particles before that point and observing them in is way changes their behaviour. That would be fine if they behaved like particles or waves but they behave as both so we can't know what they will do exactly only their chances of doing it.

>>681647345
It is well established that some physical quantities cannot be measured at the same time.

>>681654835
The topic of this discussion is something that is impossible to prove with facts. Understanding the entirety of someone's psyche is too daunting a task to ever complete. By saying that my opinion is moot because i do not have facts is attacking the character of the argument rather than the argument itself.

People have talked alot about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but that doesn't mean we have free will. Can someone please explain to me why we have free will?

>>681655305
as the first responder to the thread, and maybe why its spiraled this way, i defined free will as not haveing your future explicitly defined. Meaning if you could measure a system to its fullest you could in theory predict the future. This in a sense would mean our choices are merely a formality to what HAS to be. And i argued that you could never measure a system to a degree where you could predict the future perfectly accurately.

>>681655305
it's not a 1:1 as you seem to think

Heisenberg's principle solidifies the concept that there are some things in the universe that, even with complete information, cannot be predicted due to their very nature.

Therefore, because there is a concrete element of uncertainty in quantum movements, we can never fully predict what is going to happen in the future. That is to say, there is no pre-determined "path", because there are elements of uncertainty along every step of the "path".

Therefore, we COULD have free will to the extent that our actions aren't and cannot possibly be pre-determined.

>>681655172
there isn't any argument to be had. This is all just stupid speculation that manages to PO anyone with out the imagination needed to not be angered by things ungraspable.

>>681655671
>>681655156
well, ya.

File: QjhWNoL.jpg (516 KB, 1600x1200) Image search: [Google]

516 KB, 1600x1200

>>681655697
thats what makes the debate enjoyable
its all speculation, of course there's no point its just for fun.

honestly either way its best to not think about it. What would it change if we had "free will" or not? What do you even mean by "free will" anyways?

>>681655305

>be me
>rape a little girl
>get convicted
>bu-bu-bu-but it wasnt my fault

>>681655841
>f course there's no point its just for fun.
wanna try some DMT with me?

Most of are decisions are produced by the subconscious and we conclude that we made them consciously. In fact, the synapses required to have/respond to a thought happen microseconds before you're even aware they happen, so technically you are constantly living in the past.

It's really very simple. In the present moment you have free will. Otherwise, no.

>>681655671
It seems the distinction you make between free will and lack of free will is predictability.

Free will means there is no way we would be able to predict what someone is going to do because there is inherent uncertainty in the universe.

Lack of Free will means everything is predictable, observable and measurable.

Am i correct?

>>681655975
this hasn't been proven btw, it's a hypothesis that's peer reviewed to not be excepted.

>>681655121
I agree there's almost certainly no God/Gods in the way religious people perceive it/them. There may have been a creator, but I highly doubt they have any influence on the world. Honestly I think religion is stupid and a waste of time and it was created by deluded people and people who wished to control others; "you must do exactly as I say or you will suffer eternal punishment" .. "Anyone who doesn't believe in what I say is a fool".. But alas, that is the way things are and due to the indoctrinating nature of religion, it is likely to be that way for a long time yet.

File: T2RRTPO.jpg (252 KB, 1289x1298) Image search: [Google]

252 KB, 1289x1298

>>681655949
Yes, i always have those "what is the point of discussing this" thoughts when im on acid or shrooms, and a friend always has to remind me, the discussion is just for fun, it's what you do on acid.

>>681655846
It wouldn't. As far as human beings are concerned, we still operate under the illusion that we can choose our own actions. Thereby giving us what most people would think of as "free will".

The "free will" that OP is referring to has to do with whether there is a unique pre-determined path that everyone HAS to follow. Even if that means we still have the illusion of a "freedom to choose", we were always going to pick that option anyway.

>>681656111
So are you implying that it doesn't require time for neurons to communicate with one another?

>>681656145
spirituality is just speculation, there is always room for speculation.

>>681655634
Ah, OK, I can agree with this, but by the biological standards, see:
>>681654171
We still don't have free will?

I used to believe in free will, until I read Schopenhauer's Essay On The Freedom Of The Will. He makes a very very convincing argument against free will and for determinism.

>>681656187
what is quantum tunneling?
also it's not me whose proposing this, the scientific community has reviewed the study you're talking about and believe it was a bad experiment

>>681656090
Yes and no.

Predictability is a tool to prove that a path is pre-determined. What I'm trying to say is that not having free will = there is a pre-determined "story" that we're following.

The only way to prove if there is a pre-determined story is to try and predict it. So the logic goes as follows -> IF(!!!) there is a pre-determined path, then it must be possible to predict it, and by predicting it we would prove that we do not have free will.

So you're not wrong in what you said, maybe I didn't explain myself too well.

>>681656314
and this is why i choose the pure physical definition else i honestly just can not think of a definition of "free will" that isnt muddy and hard to put to any conclusion. or to say; a persons definition of free will often answers weather or not free will exists. Its like saying where does the sky start and stop, depending on an arbitrary definition it could be anywhere.

>>681656469
I'm assuming it's that particles can accelerate faster than light, giving the impression that travel is instantaneous, but I could be wrong.
How so?
It's been proven that taller people have a slower reaction time to pain receptors in their foot than shorter people do, and no amount of quantum tunneling appears to resolve that, even visual stimuli requires time to be processed and organized into a cohesive picture. Messing around with psychedelics can even slow down this process and make it more noticeable.

>>681656482
I understand where you're coming from.
You're defaulting to free will and would need someone to prove there isn't free will and the way they would do such is by correctly predicting everything. Prediction = predetermined path.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle shows that we cannot know everything and thus cannot predict everything.
How then would you defend the notion that we do make decisions independent of stimuli/genes/experiences.
If we were truly to have free will than we must be capable of straying for this hypothetical predetermined path, how would we do so?

>>681655930
You scoff, yet there have been cases of rape and murder, where due to the circumstances of the person they had decreased use of their prefrontal cortex, this was demaotratsd with MRI imaging abd other methids of brain scanning, and as a result were not aware in the same capacity we are. As a result were put in psychiatric wards and not jail.
An example was a child who had been abused: choked till loss if consciousness, starving the brain of O2, severe head trauma etc... And as a result he was incapable of reasoning, as you or I would leading him to his abhorrent actions.>>681655949

>>681656266
I have nothing against spirituality and self reflection, merely organised religions.

>>681656955
The decisions that you're talking about have already been characterized as "independent" of external stimuli by the person that is making the decision. That does not make it a free decision at all.

If you embodied a ball on a steep hill, and thought to yourself "I'm gonna choose to roll down this hill", are you actually choosing to roll down the hill? Or are you just operating under the illusion that you chose to roll down the hill, even though physics dictates that you had no other choice BUT to roll down the hill?

What you seem to be suggesting is that, for free will to be proven, it is sufficient for an actor to say "I chose to do this out of my own volition". Does that change your opinion?

>>681657141
well of course; insert opium of the people joke here.
but to stop thinking non secular thoughts is probably a character weakness, and I definitely don't mean having a personal 'god'.

>>681647345
obviously yes

you are you. no other bullshit

not complicated

>>681657429
I'm sorry, I don't understand...
Opium of the people?
Non secular?

>>681657494
Conservatives and Liberals are shown to have different brain structures.
Call it bullshit all you'd like, but even your political beliefs are determined by factors outsude of your immediate control.

>>681657300
This is the best thing I have read in this thread, thank you. This is what I have been trying to get at.

>>681657494
>implying i have political believes
>implying politics has anything to do with being human

where has our humanity gone?
its drowning and we need to save it

>>681657300
You're operating under the illusion of choice.
We cannot know why we do things because we are conscious beings. It is impossible to tell weather we actually choose to do things or are merely products of our environment because it is thought itself we are speculating about.

>>681657709
Not at all. I've had this discussion hundreds of times so you start to learn which points actually make sense and which points are common errors.

Glad I could clarify it to you.

>>681657676
>>681657709

>Virgin Talk: The Thread

>>681657873
Maybe most have a malfunctioning prefrontal cortex that inhibits their decision-making abilities, or we'd have more people who would grasp mathematical concepts with relative ease.

>>681657676
I agree, but playing the devils advocate, correlation doesn't imply causation. Of course people with different beliefs will think and behave differently, but is which is the cause and which is the effect?

>>681657676
It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions", and that, "more work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude.
That's not how you form a hypothesis. Evidence comes after the experiments.
Also we can't even properly measure and observe brain differences like that yet. MRI ≠ we know what your brain is doing.

>>681657572
opium of the peeps: a way to control the masses
non secular having church and state as one

>>681657300
What if I was a human being and chose to descent to hill in a pattern of three steps followed by two rolls, followed by a jump and a hop repeated six times before deciding to walk half the distance I had traveled back up and then have a wank before deciding what I did next?

>>681658072
That I can't say for certain because I've forgotten the finer details of the study, but let's say if you have an overactive left amygdala, or right, I forgot, whichever is responsible for regulating fear-based emotions. If that's the case, you'd be more inclined to agree with statements like "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," or would be generally favorable of having a strong military.

>>681647345
I don't mind the determinists for believing in determinism, though none of them actually believe in it. But it fucking enrages me when they try to use determinism to excuse someone else's shitty behavior - as in, DeQuan had no free will but to rob that store. Why should I give a fuck? If the universe is fully determined, than why would anyone ever make an appeal to fairness, which implies choice. Determinism is a good argument for genocide, not for compassion.

>>681658334
kek

How do you know you made those choices independently? How do you know that it wasn't a long chain of events that led you to having a wank whether you wanted to or not?

>>681658312
>non secular
no, it's relating to or involving religious or spiritual matters.
ie non physical world thoughts.

>>681658211
See
>>681658483
To say that our beliefs don't stem from our brain regions interact with one another is pretty preposterous since communication throughout the whole is the only means of formulating a cohesive beliefs system in the first place.

>>681658066
I see what you mean, but with this it was significantly less than the normal amount and could be attributed to their experiences, or there was another case if a man who was working synthesising a chemical grass fertiliser, and shortly after his behaviour had a dramatic change. Behaviours such as far quicker to anger, pissing more frequently and these culminated in him going to visit a potential customer, getting no response, needing to pee, and the lack of PFC action led to greater increase of uninhibited behaviour, he went to the toilet round the side of the house. When confronted by the owner, who had been in the garden and hadn't heard him, they had a fight and he smashed her skull with a rock.

>>681658547
Be the person that is determined to be good.
By making an effort to better yourself and knowing in your heart that no matter what you will be a good person because it is determined to be so is just as comforting as operating under the illusion that you can choose to be a good person.

Morality is not a factor normalfag.

The assertion that free will doesn't exist is unfalsifiable. Free will is falsifiable by showing that the behavior of all things is based entirely on a predefined, computer program-esque code. But like another anon said, unless everything we think we know about quantum physics turns out to be wrong, the chances of everything being predetermined according to a code is near impossible to prove.

Quantum computers are some crazy shit as well. If free will is proven by quantum physics are quantum computers the precursor to truly independent AI?

>>681647345
No. We are an experiment with "God" and other colleagues and adversaries in attendance.

The point of the experiment is whether the human subjects follow instructions or not.
"Free will" will bring death, choosing "God" will allow the subjects to live longer.

/thread

>>681658614
Because the personality that makes my decisions has free will, he told me so.

>>681658873
That's circular logic, friend.

>my personality has free will, so whatever it chooses must be free will

Come back after college.

>>681658312
Oh yeah thanks, that makes sense

>>681658670
we don't even know how all of our brain communicates with itself, bro.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/10/29/brain-psychedelic-drugs/#.VyJJjagrKUk

We won't know until we can keep a human alive while completely and micro scaled vivisection while also having a computer that can actually translate each and every neurochemical signal.

>>681658995
It's not any kind of logic at all, that I'm aware of.

>>681658744
This is just the kind of idiotic illogic I mean. There is no reason to exert the will at all in a deterministic universe. There is no such thing as will. It's merely fatalism.
And that's why determinists don't believe in determinism. Even they see that as a pantload.

>>681658676
Reminds me of Phineas Gage, some railroad worker who has a pipe or something blown straight through his skull and he became more disposed to bouts of anger and callous behavior.
In either case it would seem that it just becomes more noticeable that thoughts and behavior are determined by brain function in areas that escape conscious awareness.

Past Tense has the luxury of eliminating all the other variables, looking to the future does not. We assume that because we know there was a path leading up to something (there always is) that we can predict paths. Accurately choosing the appropriate but as of yet unexerted Action in a sea of external influences... that has to make for one complex looking map. That's a lot of opportunity to be wrong. Actions beget Actions and Causality, I know, but we only possess that knowledge from the perspective of looking back. That's why sports announcer's paychecks are more reliable than the people who bet on the games the day before. Taking in the eternal chain reaction of everything and organizing the possibilities would be a tall order. It's not only a matter of guessing or predicting, it's a matter of observation potential. I think doing the math would be easier than getting the numbers.

>>681658995
God doesn't tell me to think
He tells me to obey

>>681647345
there is no free will

>>681647345
everything is reaction to external stimuli

>>681659375
except for me

>>681659375
the physical world is an illusion, and you're an idiot.

A lot of people seem to have really negative views on the idea that h there is no free will (and I know you don't have a choice, kek) but it's freeing, ultimately there's no meaning to what you do, so do what you want, just be happy and positive, there's no point in being negative, I mean there's no point in being positive either, but at least those who live a hedonistic life style have fun! So come on anon, embrace the fact that noting matters and enjoy your life! Do what makes you happy

>>681659491
even deep reflection and analysis?

>>681659030
To that extent, I suppose not, but we can still find evidence for these assertions on a relatively macroscale.
If "free-will" isn't housed in any particular region of the brain, then why would lobotomy patients become completely incompetent despite potential struggles to return to a state of normalcy?
They simply can't overwrite their physical composition with cognition alone.

>>681658334
Irrelevant. You fell victim of a stroke and the tsunami washed you away. Who knew, right?

>>681659559
Maybe even especially deep reflection.

If somebody was able to predict the future would you say that it was evidence that there is no free will or that he just had the ability to predict the future?
Whatever you say is wrong.

>>681659543
>free will doesn't exist
>so just choose to be positive

bruh

>>681659709
Oy vey!

>>681659771
yeah but how could such a complex system be mere reaction to stimuli?

why "especially?"

>>681659491
You were compelled to type that, an amoeba-like response to external stimuli. Why, then, should we take that kind of involuntary twitch as a true statement?

with free will, ultimately there's no meaning to what you do, too.
Self decided determination and action doesn't create purpose. many nihilistics believe in free will, bro.

>>681659917
kek
That's how dumb determinists are.

>>681659988
>>681659543
oops.

>>681659773
Oh fuck! Nice, that confused me at first but you're right. Either everything is predetermined or he can just observe what "did" transpire. Hmmm I think h the only thing would be of there was an identical universe, that if the same events occurred then it is predetermined, but the trouble is not necessarily. Good to think about.

>>681656182
i think more of like "the value of coin doesnt change if its either head or tail " so no matter what option u choose u will end up at some predetermined place (death)

>>681656145
there moght be no god (refer buddhist ) but peopledoes have cause-efffect .. newton law like .. when u are giving other pain a part of u is also exp pain .. that part will mnifest itself in something bad after some time

>>681660025
No, you see, what o was saying, was that, I may have had no choice to type that, but equally, a person who read it may have had no choice in having a change of perspective, and as a result had a positive (from my view) impact on his life. It isn't dumb, but that's the way it goes.

>>681660025
The contradiction in your green exhibit is inescapably condemning towards it's author, Anon.

>>681659543

another one that confuses lack of free will and fatalism/ nilishm

not having free will doesn't mean you are free from consequences, things you do will influence other and yourself in a feedback loop kind of way.

if you choose to stand infront of a car to prove that you have no free will and this was your meaning. then that will only be a self fulfilling prophesy but it doesn't mean you could have prevent it from maybe reading this message. or think this for yourself. you are your brain that is being governed by physical laws. so your taught about what u want to do and what you don't want to do. is part of this non-free will.

>>681660122
I agree, ultimately whether or not you believe in free will, whether or not there is free will and ultimately everything doesn't matter, so just be happy. Nihilism isn't depressing it's freeing.

>>681660362
In sorry, I didn't understand a word of that.

ITT: retards who are arguing a position (against free will) that they acknowledge they hold for nothing you could call a reason but only as a by-product of irrational external stimuli that could have only produced the thought they are claiming is true.

>>681660549
It's actually enslaving to be a determinist.

>>681660517
I'm not confusing it, you're just failing to grasp the underlying meanings. See:>>681660417
>>681660517

Didn't read, but free will doesnt exist it is only our peeception and cognition that leads us to believe that free will exists. You cannot stop the next thijg from happening unless you kill yourself, and that would have been predestined as well

>>681660517
I also didn't say there weren't consequences, although there aren't consequences of heaven and hell. Of course, murder someone -> go to jail, but you shouldn't act in fear of afterlife consequences or that you must conform to the consensus. My point was to do what makes you happy, not live by someone else's rules or plans.

>>681660693
True but not retarded. They don't have a choice remember.

>>681661265

but that sounds like a advice you could give to people no matter if we have free will or not. i don't see how its related to free will in particular

>>681659971
Your response was reaction to external stimuli

>>681647345
How do you define free choice? On a fundamental level our 'free will' consists of the neurons in our brain constantly seeking to reduce the dissonance we experience like hunger, boredom etc.

>>681661104
What if your perception of something is based on free will