Is something that causes other things to happen but it itself is not caused by anything a requirement for something to have free will?
Even if our minds cause changes within our brains which leads to the mind having an effect on the physical world, isn't the mind itself caused? For example, a robot's built-in computer program causes it to do certain things, but the computer program itself is entirely caused by its circuits, logic gates, etc. Aka the computer program is just physics or the world operating according to the laws of nature.
Secondly, even if our minds were an un-caused cause, that doesn't necessarily mean free will exists. Because what if our minds operated randomly, and things in our mind just happened randomly? Kind of like quantum mechanics. This is like saying yes my mind can cause things to happen, but the entirety of my mind's contents are from pure randomness.
Honestly don't know if free will exists but I'm inclined to say it doesn't. I think we are all like spectators to a show or movie, and we are ultimately just observing the physical world operate according to the laws of nature. We have no control, we have no causal affect on this movie.
I'd say that consciousness aka minds evolved because it provided a reproductive benefit. Does not having free will make the evolution of consciousness wasteful and pointless? Maybe consciousness is just a byproduct of something useful, but it itself has no ability to affect anything in this world. Perhaps consciousness is required for intelligence.
Side question:
Is work-ethic innate? How can it be permanently improved, if that's even possible? (work-ethic here is defined as ability to instant gratification or short-term gain, in exchange for longer-term goals)
Also I'm liberal because I believe that most of the factors responsible for your success are very obviously out of your control:
- Work ethic
- Social upbringing and instilled values
- Starting socioeconomic status
- Intelligence
- Creativity/ingenuity
- Social skills
- Physical attractiveness
If you dont believe in the freedom of the will, you know that your political views are a result of factors you dont have much influence on
>>69391058
Yeah this is probably true.
>>69391241
Have you read schopenhauers work on this?
Very interesting
>>69390006
Another thing to think about:
We know how things work by figuring out the underlying principle of operation.
For an example - our organisms largely rely on chemical reactions. These chemical reactions take into account whole loads of variables like elements from which these compounds are made of, polarity, size, chirality etc. Then if we find out a lot about these basic principles we are able to predict pretty accurately a lot of stuff, keeping in mind that these "rules" are still something we made up in our brains.
So we start to figure out what do these basic elements consist of. We know that hydrogen consists of 1 proton and 1 electron in its stationary state. Then if we figure out how electrons and protons interact we can generalize stuff even more.
But we want to know more, so we built particle accelerators which blow shit up at minuscule scales. Now we know that the proton consists of 3 elementary particles - up up and down, which total to elementary charge of +1.
Now the point is, we know that everything is guided by an underlying principle.
The question: How far, how small can we go and cannot go any further.
Does this final level define as god, because every other piece of information sources from this one entity. And the most amazing thing is, there is order in this system.
And if this system does not exist, it means, that we can go ifinitely deeper and never reach the bottom.
Day to day i find it hard to grasp. There is more to all of this than we might understand.
>>69390006
i will not try to explain but fuck ur a stupid
>usa
>white
>>69391519
I haven't, from what I've briefly seen on Wikipedia it looks like he doesn't believe in free will.
>>69391694
There may not be a final level, or one final thing. It may god down forever, and there may be multiple final things. Even if there is one final things, can we really define it as the Judeo-Christian God?
Maybe the Big Bang was just the repeat of another universe cycle. Perhaps there was no beginning.
>>69392114
Are you trying to say that I'm a stupid white American? lol you haven't explained anything.
>>69390006
You are ignoring the philosophical implications of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, as well as the fact that the nature of causality is not fully understood, to the best of my knowledge.
The existance of free will depends very much on these two things, biology, not so much.
>>69392280
pff usa is not white you must a nigger or a mongrel
>>69392185
If god does exist, it sure as hell wont be something that petty mankind made up.
God might not be even aware of itself. Sometimes i have dreams of this. I see god as being everything. We try to understand the universe and existance by learning small particles but these particles alone seem random, chaotic. But if we could see all of them, we could see a perfect system in which every particle does exactly what it needs to do.
Also: If speed of light would be infinite, nothing would really exist. As all of electromagnetic and field effects would have instant effect.
It might be infinite but we just experience it as being an finite value.
>>69390006
Free will does not exist in a deterministic world.
>>69392895
Determinism is hugely flawed.
>>69390006
It does. If it didn't then rational self reflection wouldn't be possible, thinking about what's good and what's not as well. Sadly people have forgotten the ancient tradition of Greece and came up with all that determinist bullshit
>>69390006
What significance is following order if you have no free will to do it. God doesn't want mindless drones. He wants people to choose him because they know it's the best path.
>>69392979
Said no scientist ever.
there is no reason to believe that free will exists. it is a lingering belief from religious doctrine.
>>69393413
It literally depends on QM and the nature of time.
Has nothing to do with religion. Or biology.
>>69393543
How the fuck does free will have nothing to do with biology? I would like to hear your explanation.
>>69393130
I consider myself an scientist so your statement has failed.
I work on nanomaterials.
Also there are shit load of physics professors who believe in god, many of them however do not believe any of those culturally evolved gods. Hell, half of the CERN is like that.
It seems absurd because we are not used to the idea of this. But on macroscale conventional phsycis fail to realize.
There have been made tests which are beyond any reason, in which particles seemingly alter their behavior in the past.
Every time scientist try to bring some light into the room, so much mindfuckery get uncovered that no one really knows what the fuck is going on.
Newtonian fatalism defines there's no free will.
Consider you have a system with some amount of particles. If you have every variable and knowledge of how each interacts then you can predict an outcome. Let's make the system even larger. Even if the system is larger if you have all the data you can still predict the outcome.
Now apply this to the big bang. We don't have the processing power or the knowledge, but that doesn't mean matter will interact in a different way just because you can't predict it. In this vain every action we make and every occurrence in the universe is predetermined so there is no free will.
> read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/014303622X/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1459379893&sr=8-2&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=antonio+damasio&dpPl=1&dpID=51RDFACRXJL&ref=plSrch
Free will is a myth.
We are a collection of matter and have as much free will as a rock.
>>69393790
There are plenty of explanations as to why, but I'm shit at wording things so one of the simpler ones will have to do.
Biology is malleable, and somewhat irrelevant, due to the fact that if we do not have "free will" we could modify ourselves to have it. Our physical form is putty. Consciousness is independent of it anyways.
>>69394294
Universe only exists in the present.
So Newtonian fatalism is scientifically wrong.
>>69394512
What do you mean by the universe only exists in the present?
>>69394294
If newtonian physics explain everything, then why is everything relative?
You have to remind to yourself, that everything we observe and then transform them into equations for later use are the products of our imagination. They are the generalizations of reality, they never achieve the reality in terms of accuracy.
>>69394730
Quantum mechanics.
Unless it is forced into stability by a conscious observer, reality exists as a set of probability waves.
Only the present can be observed.
>>69394871
Newtonian physics doesn't explain everything. The principle is things react in determined ways based on their qualities and environment. There is no occurrence which is empirically random
>>69394908
>reality exists as a set of probability waves.
By this I mean all particles, if it wasn't clear.
It's what wave particle duality actually means.
>>69394294
Actually deterministic universe is false due to quantum mechanics.
If you could predict every probable outcome of ever particle then yes. But it seems that randomness is inherent in this universe. One might say that randomness is free will, one might say that randomness controls free will.
>>69394040
>an scientist
Go an hero
>>69395096
see
>>69391694
Determinism is a slippery slope. It does seem logical at first but if you start looking into quantum world, all of this is blown sky high.
Determinism is a natural tendency because it seems logical due to our observations of the universe and everything that seems to defy this lifelong observations is often disregarded.
It is very hard to look things objectively rather than subjectivity.
Yes and no. You have to give up free will if you want to participate in society.
>>69390006
Yes, unfortunately, but only for Christians. Read Kierkegaard.
>>69390006
The computer program relies on the circuits to carry out the instructions of the programmer. So the robot has no free will but the question is if the programmer did. So even if you are the robot and you are correct that you don't have free will, you can not conclude free will doesn't exist.
Does anyone actually care if free will exists? I find that hard to believe. Ones ability to exert their will on others however, that's been sought after since the beginning of mankind, and isn't that really the driving force behind humanity?
So I would advise you, even if you think free will doesn't exit, play life as if it does.
>>69394294
Laplace's demon (yeah, the same guy behind those transforms you learned in college) is a thought experiment that posits exactly that. If there were a demon that had every piece of data about the past, present, and future of every thing, he would be able to explain and predict the behavior of every thing.
That's pretty cute until you realize that there's a very big assumption being made, which is that every system in existence follows equations of some level of complexity that can predict behavior with certainty. Scientists were pretty cool with that, because it puts value on their quest for knowledge. Until they noticed that shit seems to get increasingly more complex as soon as you think you have it figured out. Suddenly electrons don't behave the same when you observe them as when you don't, because the light reflected off them is caught by your eyes. And then they have spin. And then for some reason they seem to appear randomly in atoms.
Everybody agrees that phenomena like gravity are reliably predictable. When you drop an object, it falls to the ground. We know this because we've dropped a lot of objects and they've all fallen to the ground. But we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that just because the past has predicted the future a few times, the future can be predicted with certainty. Hume calls this inductive reasoning. The classical example is this:
Say you see a swan and notice that it's white. Then you see five swans and sure enough they're white. Ten, twenty, a hundred swans, white. You'd be tempted to think all swans are white, but what if the 101th swan is a black swan? You can't know for sure until you see every swan, and then there are other factors that could cause the birth of a black swan.
We like to think we can understand the world we live in, but maybe we haven't met out black swan. Or maybe we have, bit we're obstinate enough to believe it's a problem that can be solved.
>>69394040
You have failed to understand my statement. By "said no scientist ever" it was implied that science is not conducted in a non-deterministic manner. Hell, if determinism was "severely flawed" then we wouldn't have fucking science in the first place. I guess they don't teach philosophy in your shit country.
>>69394512
>Biology is malleable, and somewhat irrelevant
You can't mention biology then use biology to denounce biology, that's retarded.
>Consciousness is independent of it anyways.
Why don't you research neurotransmitters and dementia, fuckwit?
>>69392313
What about the Copenhagen interpretation? If I'm understanding it properly, you're suggesting that mind affects matter. Even if the mind has the ability to change matter, I think that is not enough.
It is necessary for there to be uncaused causes (the mind) for there to be free will, but that alone is not sufficient for free will to exist (i.e. randomness).
I think parts of the human mind must be "causally isolated or independent" from reality or nature in order for there to be free will AND it can't be random. Aka parts of our mind can't be caused by the brain. This doesn't seem to make a whole lot of scientific sense though.
>>69398075
Science is based on empiricism and empirical research, retard. We try to predict things according to how we see them through our senses, by organizing experiments. It often works and then sometimes shit goes awry and we don't know why. Don't conflate that with determinism.
Science isn't based on the fact that every single effect has a very unique cause that can be used to predict the future. We'd like to believe it to be so because it's a relief to think we can understand the crazy world we live in even a little tiny teeny bit.
If I slap your face every day for a year at exactly the same time, are you gonna predict that it's a fact of nature and that it will always happen?
>>69393021
Why does rational self reflection require free will?
My arguments for why we may not have free will do not depend on determinism. Instead it depends on causality.
If everything about your mind was caused by physical reality or nature, how can you have free will? Are you really in control? Or is your mind and body a slave to the laws of nature?
Who is in control? Can you, your mind, ever be in control? Or do the laws of nature dictate the outcomes of everything (deterministic OR probabilistic from QM), leaving no room for free will?
Another thought I've been having, that's not fully formed, is how suicide plays into the idea that there is no free will. We know depression is correlated with low serotonin and dopamine level, but the will to kill yourself goes against the very essence of the animal whose goal is to survive.
We're on 4chan so I can assume that most of us have had suicidal thoughts. I strikes me as weird that the conscience can wish to die so much, and yet the body will still scorn pain. As if it were a machine that was focused on simply operating. You still eat, you still shit, you still won't willingly inflict a papercut severe physical pain to your body-machine. There are thousands of websites out there about the best way to end your life without pain. The body doesn't like death, it runs away from it, despite chemical imbalances and despite the overbearing desire to end your life to escape from psychological pain.
>>69396403
But aren't humans also robots, in a sense? Bio-mechanical structures that simply follow the laws of natures.
I play life like this: I realize that I would prefer certain life outcomes over others and that certain actions would lead to those preferable outcomes. And I also realize that certain actions would lead to very miserable outcomes with suffering for me. I hope these realizations are enough to compel me towards achieving life goals and avoiding a shitty life.
>>69399431
here is how i see it
that randomness is what makes us consciouss, we are that randomness
our bodies and brains are mere instruments that relay information to our consciousness
each fundamental(by fundamental i mean smallest possible like strings) particle has an aspect of consciousness and each truly random event is the choice of the cosmic consciousness
each of our consciousnesses are different manifestations of the same entity.
our brains are just one of the ways that the consciousness can manifest itself
we see free will as making choices in life and in the moment, but its actually our control over the quantum randomness
>>69399439
>by organizing experiments
How are you going to organize them without cause and effect? hmmm
>Science isn't based on the fact that every single effect has a very unique cause that can be used to predict the future.
Actually it is.
> it's a relief to think we can understand the crazy world we live in even a little tiny teeny bit.
What, do you think that we can't? I think that the men who built rockets, nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, light bulbs, tesla coils, skyscrapers, cars, and atomic bombs had more that a "teeny tiny" understanding of reality.
Science and determinism are intrinsically linked. Try again Canadian faggot.
>>69400195
Most people on 4chan are suicidal? Why do you think this? You're right about me.
>>69396161
If you're a Christian and believe in an omnipotent omniscient god it doesn't make sense how free will can exist.
Doesn't an omnipotent, omniscient god implies determinism.
>>69400494
Interesting.
So if every "truly random event" is the choice of some cosmic mind is anything truly random? Doesn't randomness and free will go against each other?
Like if someone's actions were a result of a dice-roll, how can that lead to free will?
Life is strange...
>>69401426
when the entity is dormant events are truly random
eg. creation of the univere
when the entity manifests itself it is choice
eg. our minds
>>69401010
>Calvinism
