During my time casually browsing the fields of philosophy and science there's been a recurring theme of stating "X is an illusion" wherein X is some massive thing that defines how humans interpret the world. I've seen it all, I've seen serious heavyweights in the field say things from time itself (a few quantum theories), reality (ala the Matrix, Descartes) to movement (Zeno) to consciousness, to free will (determinism), to the concept of the "self", to morality (Stirner and friends), to basically everything (solipsism)
Honestly, looking at it all as a whole, its kind of fucking absurd. Why not just throw our hands up and say "lol everything is an illusion I guess nothing is real". That being said, what is /sci/ convinced is in fact an illusion and that humans have it all wrong?
>>7713787
Those are just a few of the things off the top of my head, too. I've even seen claims that causality itself is an illusion.
>>7713787
Free will and morality are definitely illusions. The other statements are retarded and scientifically wrong.
>>7714183
>Free will is a myth. Religion is a joke.
Get out Monsoon.
>>7714183
Why would they please explain
>>7713787
Even if everything is an illusion, even if there is no free will, these things exist as real physical objects. You will still be held accountable for your actions, so make the most of it.
>>7714217
why would what?
the statements be retarded and wrong or that free will and morality are illusions. there's two different categories so you have to specify which group(s) you're referring
goddamn retard
All is mind. As a submind of the mind, one can only understand a subtruth of the truth. All those things are illusions insofar as they are only fractions of the truth.
>>7713787
I'm pretty sure I'm the only real human posting on /sci/.
All other posts are made by Google's "deep "Brain" AI.
This has got to be a b8 thread anon!
A lot these questions are answerable: learn more philosophy!
>>7714247
>learn more philosophy!
Very bad advice. OP should learn more science. Philosophy will get him nowhere. Science has all the answers.
>>7714253
No it doesn't. Philsophy doesn't have the answers either. There are no answers to certain questions because the answers are far beyond humanly comprehension.
That being said, OP should learn more science because it makes a good tool.
>>7714183
>lol u don have free will cuz ur brain just responds physically to stuff
Stupid meme for stupid fedorians.
My brain is "me," therfore "I" am "governed" by my reactions to the world around me, and decide action according to my internal state and its reaction to external stimuli.
That sounds a hell of alot like free will, anon.
>>7715809
>am "governed" by my reactions to the world around me
You are REacting and not freely acting. Your brain deterministically reacts to outer stimuli. You have no control, neither over the outer stimuli nor over your brain's reaction. No free will, doofus.
>>7715809
You know that warm feeling you get when you're trying to pin down where your consciousness is, trying to understand why or how you as a thinking being can exist? That's an illusion
>>7715826
You know that warm feeling you get when cuddling with your gf, being sure she loves you? That's also an illusion.
I think this is why nobody should take Philosophy seriously.
>>7714267
agree
>>7715839
agree
>>7715819
But my brain is 'me.' Its the seat of everything we'd traditionally call the 'self'
So what you're sayinga mounts to,
>U DONT HAVE FREE WILL CAUSE YOU CANT DO SOMETHING U WOULDNT DO
Which is patently retarded even if I dont write it in a strawman-ey mocking tone.
>>7713787
Everything in our reality is just a network of information and each individual experiences an infinite composite of universal truths and falsehoods encoded in their perception as the information expands and links in both order and disorder between any dimensions.
>>7716053
Your brain reacts deterministically. There is no magic in your brain altering reality. Free will is a physical and logical impossibility.
>>7716073
>u don have free will cuz u cant do something u wouldnt do
>free will=supernatural immaterial spirit guiding the physical body
>>7716079
>computers have free will
Seriously?
>>7716096
A sufficiently advanced computer could, yeah. Thats the whole idea of scifi sentient AI.
>>7713787
>>Honestly, looking at it all as a whole, its kind of fucking absurd. Why not just throw our hands up and say "lol everything is an illusion I guess nothing is real". That being said, what is /sci/ convinced is in fact an illusion and that humans have it all wrong?
the field that deals with what constitutes knowledge is called epistemology
>>7716120
So what's the difference between a computer who has free will and a computer who doesn't?
>>7716515
Same as the difference between a human and a tapeworm, familia.
The objective reality exists, our perception of it is subjective, Free will doesn't exist.
Get over it.
>>7716538
Humans and tapeworms are both animals. We are made out of the same components. There is no magical "free will" making us different from other species. Grow up, /x/tard.
>>7716575
*I'm not the guy you replied*
No, but we do have "higher" cognitive functions which does make us quite different.
Illusion may refer solely to the imagination. Sounds are just sounds, nothing more. Language, therefore, is illusory in the fact that it cannot describe in 100% detail what is actually being conveyed. Mathematics are a less illusory form of language; in fact it's language that can be objectified. 1 is always interpreted as a single value, as to where the word,'cat,' or 'dog,' may be interpreted in a variety of colors.
Free will's not illusory. I can plan and think, can't I? Yes, I can.
The senses can't be trusted 100%. There are Hz imperceivable to the animal mind. The entire world's illusory, really.
Though Buddhist monks've penetrated though that illusion to a a better degree than most others; granted, some Christians will blow your mind.
Universe is a special place.
Peace.
>>7716073
BULLSHIT. I'm imagining a pink and a green praying mantis in love salsa dancing. DETERMINISTIC?
>>7716659
Who's determining the thought???
>>7716659
>DETERMINISTIC?
Yes.
>>7713787
logic
>>7715819
Shamanic journeying. Nigga I just slid down a tulip and am inside of a tulip staring at this bee that's oddly chill.
Try reading some phenomenology, OP
>>7716582
According to that guy "free will" has nothing to do though with cognitive functions. Anything that reacts deterministically has "free will" in his retarded view.
>>7716679
Don't do that. It's a waste of time.
>>7715819
You react to stimuli, but the reaction is not predetermined. If that were the case people would respond to the same stimuli in the same way, but there are no universal behaviors, so some non-deterministic factor must be in play in decision making
.>>7713787
An illusion is not "nothing that appears to be something" but rather "something that appears to be or have qualities of something else." Typically illusions are the product of our brain's inability to accurately process the data it receives. So the statement "reality/the universe/everything is an illusion" really just means "the nature of reality/the universe/everything is not as it appears," at which point we might as well say "what we perceive is an epiphenomenon of reality." But because there is an apparent consistency to this perceived reality, there doesn't see to be any purpose in distinguishing the perception with the underlying "true" reality unless there were a specific reason to interact with said underlying reality.
Well obviously something is real, we just don't know what that something is yet.
>>7716575
>>7718323
lol.
Sure, friend, theres no free will if you define 'free will' as 'magical nonphysical spirit energy intervening in causality' to begin with.
Otherwise, a robust general intelligence that is also aware of and able to act on its awareness of itself and its own thinking has free will, yeah.
>>7714183
Is the universe random or is it pre-defined? That would answer whether or not we have free will.
>>7718985
It boils down to What are you?
>>7713787
>its kind of fucking absurd. Why not just throw our hands up and say "lol everything is an illusion I guess nothing is real".
Because that would be embracing solipsism, ie, a complete rejection of any and all identifiable faith.
I honestly don't even understand your dilemma here. What are you even trying to ask?
>>7719002
WHO AM I?
>>7719402
spook
>>7718676
You can't replicate exact results to test your shit
Cekm8
>>7715809
>stupid meme
it's not wrong though
it's probably a stupid way to go through life because it literally gives life no meaning but we really are just a bunch of complex chemical reactions
>>7713798
Causality can't be known though, not by direct observation.
>/sci/ tries philosophy
You all sound retarded. What is it about science-lovers that makes them prone to be dismissive toward subjects they're entirely ignorant about?
>>7719537
The definition problem goes for both sides. For my bit, libertarian free will seems to imply an interaction that is neither deterministic nor random, nor a mix of the two. Prove me wrong.
>>7715819
>freely acting
>using meme words
>2015
>>7713787
Because most things just exist inside our minds.
It's not absurd. That's how we humans really work in relationship to the world. Better get used to it.
>>7719605
>Because most things just exist inside our minds.
Right. They're concepts, which exist via the state of some part of a system. In this case, the brain.
>>7716073
Determinism ≠Lack of free will.
It's simply not related, moron. Just because you can know the outcome of something, doesn't mean that people don't have free will.
You don't even have to have much intelligence to determine the future. Ask someone if they will rather have a gift or if they want to get stabbed. You can already tell what they will answer.
>>7719612
Your standpoint implies that consciousness somehow modulates or drives the laws of physics. It runs directly contrary to the idea that we're machines that are only part of an objective substrate which exists in exactly the same form with or without us to observe. It's a dualist view, in some capacity.
Which isn't something I'd really argue over. Who knows.
This however:
>Ask someone if they will rather have a gift or if they want to get stabbed. You can already tell what they will answer.
Doesn't mean anything in this context. We are machines. Part of our functionality is theory of mind and predicting outcomes via memory and stimuli taken in from the environment. Being able to predict what someone will desire in a certain contest has nothing to do with free will.
Really. If you actually had free will, what would that even be.
>>7719623
>Your standpoint implies that consciousness somehow
I have not said anything nor implied anything about consciousness. Another of your failed reasonings.
>>7719633
>I have not said anything nor implied anything about consciousness.
You might not realize it, but you have.
>>7719637
No, I haven't. That's your failed interpretation of what it has to be like.
Something happens, which is a "mechanical" process in the universe, fully deterministic. In this process an individual experiences a total control of his own thoughts and actions.
Again, as I said, determinism and free will are not related.
>>7719641
>Again, as I said, determinism and free will are not related.
And yet you just clearly stated why they are related.
The individual experiences the capacity for choice, yes, but this doesn't mean real choice is occurring. It means the machine in question has entered a state where it is aware there is something to decide, and it remains aware of it at various points while an ultimate conclusion or action is planned for and or processed. That is the process of choice. Observing deterministic processes converge to an outcome.
Again. You can experience choice, and you could call this an illusion. But that goes back to the statement you avoided.
>Really. If you actually had free will, what would that even be.
What is it to be freer than the free we know as free right now. What is the freest free we could be. I can't actually imagine it, honestly. Short of being some sort of being comparable to the major monotheistic religion's idea of a deity.
>>7719649
>real choice
Again with your meme words that don't actually mean anything.
Go to the shame corner and think about how retarded you are.
If you are trying to disprove a religious concept, congrats, you did it and you didn't even have to try.
>>7718985
Even if it is pre-defined, you still have free will from your frame of reference. You still make decisions and suffer the consequences.
Oddly, you wouldn't forgo your free will, until you were omniscient.
>>7719651
If you don't have the means for a real conversation, just admit it to yourself. So you can do better next time.
>>7719664
This is legit shit. You don't have anything of substance. Nothing to prove you right or me wrong. If you did you would have written it in that post. Go to your shame corner.
>>7719667
No, but all jesting aside. Your "real choice" is a nonsense concept. Think about what you're saying.
If a thought were to come from nothing, then it would random, which doesn't make it a "real choice" either. What you're proposing couldn't even exist in theory. That's why you're being fucking retarded.
>>7719565
Someone with free will is someone able to act however he wants, ie act upon his will.
But anti free willists (whatever, I just don't want to call them determinsts) will argue that this isn't free will because while he can do what he wills he cannot will what he wills.
But being able to will what one wills is a nonsensical and paradoxical concept that never even existed before people wanted to disprove free will.
Their definition of free will operates on a whole another level. Its everyday usage operates on the level of "did he do X out of his own will, or was he forced?" while their concept operates on the level of "did he do X because he wanted to want to do it, or were his actions inevitable stemming from his predetermined wills of which he had no control over?". But their level doesn't even exist because if he indeed wanted to want to do X, did he want to want to want to do X? You cannot add wants ad infinitum and hence their definition cannot exist under any circumstances and thus it is nonsensical bullcrap only retarded teens parrot.
The only option left for them for a definition of free will is "complete and absolute randomness".
But can freedom and will even exist in such circumstances? Doesn't it completely nullify their concepts?
A large part of the problem comes from the fact that their definition of free will does not coincide with how people actually use the term. To say that free will is an illusion and to then prove it by using their nonsensical definition of it is just manipulating semantics.
Basically their entire case can be summed up by some retard trying to prove plates are an illusion because as everyone knows plates are circular, but he claims that since mathematical circles do not exist, neither do plates.
>>7719667
>Nothing to prove you right or me wrong.
Wow. How surprising, right? Good new insight into an old problem.
>>7719680
>Your "real choice" is a nonsense concept.
Are you one of those people who's very bad at viewing a post as a whole? I've addressed this. If you realize that former sentences influence and shape the meaning of later one's, it's implicit what is meant by "real choice". I even explicitly reject it as a meaningful concept at the end of my post.
Get some damn reading comprehension, and do not make me walk you through a post again.
>If a thought were to come from nothing, then it would random,
I don't think thoughts come from nothing. Supposing thought was immaterial and truly came from absolutely nothing, you can only evaluate its outputs externally. You could watch the black box and figure there's something orderly inside, project patterns on what it puts out, and that's what it would become.
Something that comes from nothing either is obscured by a barrier we can't penetrate from our universe, or only appears to do so but is actually generated by some aspect of the universe's underlying machinery driving all things. This metaphorical machinery, again, might not be accessible.
For our purposes, and as far as we're concerned, (true) randomness doesn't really exist. You either have the information to explain or predict something, or you don't.
Well technically we really can't prove anything. I'm not even sure you guys exist. My brain could be in a jar in some wizards tower, and he could be projecting this reality onto me for all I know. I just know that I exist.
>>7713787
I was thinking something similar recently, but I used the word vapidity. The atomic model, the Sun, dark matter, etc. I'm convinced a lot of mainstream science is wrong of its focus on theories which fit this mold. But then, guess what? Time is a dimension! It's real!
>>7719692
Ok, I reread your bullshit. And I see that you think consciousness plays a part in it too, which just makes you all the more retarded. You don't belong on a science forum. Go back and play with your weed and philosophy.
I bet you think your machinery somehow generates "real choice" also, since it's obscured.
Why is no one discussing the most interesting assertion in the OP, that the self is an illusion? The subject is merely a construct that we use to simplify the bodily functions (brain chemistry, etc), experiences, and a multiplicity of thoughts and impulses.
>>7720196
The self may be an illusion, but experience can't be an illusion.
>>7720199
I never implied it was. I've studied my Husserl; I'm not some kind of moron.
>>7720203
Quite the ego for someone who don't believe in the self.
topkek
>>7720208
Communicating without a referant subject is impossible; it's how most (maybe all?) languages are structured. It's part of what reinforces the illusion of the self. You obviously don't have anything valuable to add to this conversation, but nice memeing, though.
>>7720214
Oh, you're gonna feel embarrassed when you realize you didn't understand what I said.
You are insecure about your intelligence and easily get triggered at the notion of someone not treating you as an intellectual. Hence ego.
>>7718676
>If that were the case people would respond to the same stimuli in the same way
There are structural differences between different people's brains. Yours for example is wired to make you act like a retard.
>>7718945
Consciousness / self-awareness does neither imply nor necessitate "free will". Educate yourself.
>>7718985
You have no control over randomness. Free will is impossible.
>>7720164
You have absolutely no reading comprehension, or you're a poor troll.
Good day.
>>7721380
I think it's pretty clear that I'm not a troll, and that I did in fact understand what you wrote. So this is just ad hominem.
You haven't made any rebuttals. Which is the strongest indication that I've won the argument.
>>7721779
>I think it's pretty clear that I'm not a troll, and that I did in fact understand what you wrote.
I don't.
>So this is just ad hominem.
Wow. Look back at your own posts if you want substance-devoid ad hominem.
>You haven't made any rebuttals.
You're provided nothing to refute. You've barely provided relevant responses.
>Which is the strongest indication that I've won the argument.
This attitude says it all.
Step it up, anon. Or this is the "true" good day. ;^)
>>7721832
>Tells me vaguely to "look back".
>Doesn't provide citation, link or anything.
>Doesn't provide any new info. Just continues to whine.
I guess you're not a worthy discussion partner. That's sad.
>>7713787
wave nature of quanta is an illusion.
>>7721941
There's something concrete underneath?
