Chemical reaction

> positivist
> implying knowing

If determinism eliminates free will, it only does so for the omniscient.

So long as you do not have past knowledge of the totality of the universe, and only have limited knowledge of the future, and are conscious, you have free will, make choices, and thus are responsible for your actions.

Only the gods and laplace demons lack free will.

Nobody but christfags and pseudoscientists say that.

There is no such thing as free will, we know that much.

If everything reduces down to chemical reactions (i.e. quantifiable, objective phenomena) then you should be able to prove with biology and chemisrty that everything reduces down to chemical reactions. You might be right but if you can't prove it it doesn't matter.

> responsible for your actions
You can only be responsible for your actions only if their consequences returns back at you. Which isn't guaranteed to happen.

It's already proven by science.

Even gods and L´s demons have free will, as long as their mind manifests itself in physical world. You can predict future only to the extent of your possible actions, therefore only nonexistent entities can have absolute knowledge of future, therefore if it has a mind it has free will.

Embrace psychohistory

Show me the paper where it says "everything is a chemical reaction in your brain."

It is especially applicable to chemicals, retards.

> You can predict future only to the extent of your possible actions
And this assumption is based on?..

That only gives you the illusion of free will. It's like saying that retarded people have more agency than a person with a normal number of chromosomes.

>You can predict future only to the extent of your possible actions,
I think you don't understand what "omniscient" means. Such a, yes, fictional creature would know everything it was going to do, the results of everything it was going to do, and thus, knows exactly what it's going to do. It thus has no decision making power.

Technically speaking, however, it has no mind either. It already knows every thought it will ever have, ever had, and could possibly have.

Omniscients kinda sucks.

Having any amount of ignorance grants you free will, having more or less doesn't grant you more or less, it's absolute, save when it comes to the number of decisions you have to make. When set against the sheer magnitude of the totality of the universe and time, both past and future, of what they do not and cannot know or account for, a man and a dog are on the same playing field, when it comes to freedom of will.

Then everything's an illusion and it doesn't much matter.

You're still responsible to yourself. Consequence does not necessarily pertain to punishment or guilt from external forces. Choosing to breath has consequences.

Consider it more of a postulate

I understand what omniscience means, I am just saying it is impossible to predict your actions.

I can calculate that I´m gonna take a piss in 2 min 26 seconds 123 miliseconds.. But yet I can say "Fuck this, I have my own will I am going to sit here twenty seconds longer. Then there must be another iteration to assume total knowledge of the world.

Chemistry is inherently stochastic.

> having ignorance grants you free will
It doesn't. Your choice is determinated by an inner structure of your brain and your perception. While, perception can be limited or even ignorant in many of ways, it doesn't stop being determinating factor.

You can't be responsible if there is no response. It is only a matter of time, when no response from a decisions couldn't reach you.

>I understand what omniscience means, I am just saying it is impossible to predict your actions.
Then you aren't omniscient.

If you are omniscient, you can predict your actions, that'd be a requirement of the property. From an omniscient's perspective, he already made the decision, and already experienced the consequences.

If you're semi-omniscient, aware of everything but your own actions and the consequences there of, then yes, you have free will, but total omniscients is forever barred from said.

> I have my own will I am going to sit here twenty seconds longer.
Than you would predict that instead of doing your original, but wrong prediction.

Even within the scope of your own mind, decisions have consequences. You'd have to both be completely lacking in imagination (and thus have no mind), and incapable of interacting with the universe, in which case, you're dead, and have no free will anyways.

Decisions have a consequences, but their causal presence within your mind is limited compared to their presence outside of it. You aren't free from a decisions, but you are free from the responsibility from most of their consequences.

Your brain is part of your body - part of you, your point of experience and perception. The decisions it makes are your own. It has free will due to the aforementioned ignorance and biological limitations, thus you have free will.

Yes, Mr. Tomato, you will make the same decision when faced with the same factors, environment, scenario, memories, and previous history, mechanically, every time. It doesn't change the fact that the decision is made as a matter of your own choice from your own perspective.

Do you legit have autism? Because you speak as if the notion that the human is a completely materialistic thing didn't exist before you read about brain chemistry in high school.

Maybe I should stop using the word "consequences" due to the connotation of guilt involved. Replace "consequences" with "reaction" where needed. Even hypothetical pondering creates a reaction within your own mind. Doesn't matter whether the act is kicking a tin can, or murdering someone, there's still a decision involved.

>man and a dog are on the same playing field, when it comes to freedom of will.

Yes, they don't posses it. A man and an asteroid are on ''the same playing field'' as well. Being ignorant doesn't stop causality from existing, it doesn't magically make you some quantum woo woo arbiter of responsibility.

>Then everything's an illusion and it doesn't much matter.

shaking my head, family.

The decisions aren't free exactly because they are determinated so there is no real freedom of chioice but they are still your decisions because choice is done by your in the end.

The difference between the man and the asteroid, is that it has a perspective. The man's choice, from an omniscient perspective, yes, is as predetermined as the asteroid's - but from the man's perspective, it is not.

Yes, ultimately, everything you do is inevitable, and you can even be aware of that fact, but still have to make a decision with every action and every thought, simply because your perspective is limited.

Posting a relevant classic

Of course user. But this isn't a debate over what one should *do* because of the illusion of free will.

I always hated that image. I mean it is correct in btfo'ing the ''muh chemicals'' people. But it does it so poorly and with blatant emotional blackmail. It's basically propaganda.

More or less, yes. The freedom of choice still exists from the perspective of the person making the choice. He can't predict his the permutations of his decisions, past or present, flawlessly, nor really comprehend every circumstance that led to them through the nigh infinite chain of events leading back to beginning of time. Even if he is aware of this, and believes in predeterminism, he's still shackled with free will due to these limitations.

I didn't make any statements about one should do, the statement only insists that you have free will as a result of the fact that you have a perspective and said perspective is limited.

randomness doesn't equal freedom

Good comment.

QM isn't truly random either, just effectively so (if weighted), but let's not go there again. Could wind up filling a whole thread correcting common misconceptions about QM thanks to the spread of new age bullshit on the net.

This isn't the sort of thought play that should require a science debate in the end - it's more about qualia, and you can empirical that shit.

>From an omniscient's perspective, he already made the decision, and already experienced the consequences.

That would be impossible to achieve with our current understanding of how time works. You can predict what the consequences are but not experience them.

Thats the point, you have to run a new iteration every time you make a decision. You can not say "X gonna happen", when you can stop X from happening.

Omniscience is impossible to achieve, period, so that's neither here nor there. But as a concept, yes, it does involving knowing everything that's going to happen, as well as everything that could possibly ever happen or happened.

>Thats the point, you have to run a new iteration every time you make a decision. You can not say "X gonna happen", when you can stop X from happening.
Then it knows X isn't going to happen, because it knows it's going to stop it.

> you can stop X from happening
Correct prediction would stop you from outwilling it.

>Correct prediction would stop you from outwilling it.
?

Mind you we're talking omniscience, not omnipotents. Being all knowing does not necessarily mean all powerful, or even capable of anything beyond knowing. Could just be a magic superbrain in a magically inaccessible box. Even then, it wouldn't be able to make decisions regarding its own thoughts, even internally, as it already knows all the ones it's going to have as well as their resolutions.

free will is just a human association for a phenomenon. Why does it matter?

they don't
when chemicals are under conditions that allow them to react they do in a predicable repeatable way

>can't predicting something
>so we have free will
Logic doesn't work like that. When you don't have any control of yourself you don't have free will.

Up until someone can completely figure out quantum mechanics free will should exist

True randomness doesn't real

boats do not exist... cant you see they're just made of metal and wood? i have a table made of wood, and its not a boat... take them apart, bit by bit, and find me the "boat" component that provides the quality of boat-ness.

>free will
free from fucking what

if your argument presupposes the existence of god maybe you should ask him instead of us

Free will doesn't exist but HARD PROBLEM dude, can't explain that away with muh neuro-chemistry.

yeA fuk logikz and shiet

What?

Ekzaktly my nigga logikz kan't eksplain anythin

It can't solve the hard problem.
Logic also doesn't dictate why we ought to listen to logic.
Logic doesn't explain why a = a, it merely proposes it without any logical reason preceding it.

>It can't solve the hard problem.
Tru my nigga logikz iz uzelzzzZ nuffin is logikal rly
>Logic also doesn't dictate why we ought to listen to logic.
Dats my nigga

It actually isn't, the picture has no cohesive argument.
It seems to mimic the argument against global anti-realism, which says the proposition that nothing in this world objectively exists but only comes into existence once there is registration.

The problem here is that in order to come to this conclusion you'd have to understand how our mind works, so you have a semi-coherent understanding of the mind and how it ''creates'' the world that we perceive.

Now this is self-contradictory because the tools and the results you make use of here would now too only exist only in a sphere of subjective perception, meaning they only exist because I register them.
So if you're saying "durr hurr everything is only an illusion because the illusion I looked at earlier told me so!" you have no argument.

Either way, the "everything is chemicals" line of thinking remains intact and the image is stupid.
So are you for falling for it.

Dude just like humans
We wuz chemical reactions

Read a fucking middle school biology textbook. Everything you sense and experience is due to chemical reactions.

>implying quantum biology isn't a rapidly growing field

Why do high school dropouts on Veeky Forums think they have a personal hotline with the most esteemed members of any given scientific field?

It's like a bunch of autistic grad students who think they hold the secrets to all reality in their hands.

>implying quantum biology isn't a rapidly growing field
It is still smaller field than fucking gender studies. Not to mention virtually all biologists do not have a clue about QM, so my point stands.

But feel free to explain how does QM has something to do free will.

Not the same guy but you're basically wrong when it comes to the philosophy of free will.
The lack of free will determined by determinism cannot be falsified, but it seems philosophically valid if you accept the premises that world-events are pre-determined and that our will is constructed by our brain which also obeys determinism.

The first premise gets into trouble with the dawn of QM, however this only applies to the quantum level of physics.
On the macro scale, everything obeys hard-determinism as we know it.

IE it's not really that relevant to the question of free will.
In fact, if we were to assume that somehow macro physics also aren't enslaved by our traditional understanding of determinism, that then leaves randomness leading our lives, which also isn't a proper basis for an argument that defends human free will.

Because the real shaper of reality isn't chemical reactions but the physical constraints on chemical reactions that creates the absences the reactions move through.
We build the pot with clay but the emptiness inside holds water.
This is a response to everything being a chemical reaction not your argument against free will.
Free will is our ability to choose the actions we wish to take(within the constraints placed upon us), it's just what we choose has already been determined by forces beyond our control.
That doesn't mean we are not capable of choosing freely, it just means that the choices we make and the options we have available have been determined by outside forces. Just like God intended when he created the heavens and the earth all those thousands of years ago.

What does any of this even mean?
Do you Christturds not realize that you violate every understanding of the natural world when you try to impose your metaphysics on it?

I put the Jesus shit in as a joke
The rest has to do with nature.

The answer is in the question, bub.

>chemical reactions and muh feels
I have a degree in chemistry and the shit some of you uneducated shits write is extremely insulting.

...

I am a lab technician in a test laboratory in the construction industy.

sounds pleb, what degree do you have?

>he's just a lab tech

BSc in chemistry. Actually, current profession is more about physics, but my employer was looking for someone with a qualification in science and I work there for three years now.
I have to admit that I was lucky this job.

>he is just a lab tech
My starting may have been only 30k a year, but I have work conditions the average employee can dream of.

I don't get this "everything is just a chemical reaction lol" bullshit. If anything the chemical reaction could just be a material reflection of what is happening in your mind. Using something that is fundamentally entrenched in the study of materials to prove that only materialism is real is rubbish and circular

>He thinks chemistry laboratory work is easy or cheap

>He thinks chemistry laboratory work is easy or cheap
You are still on the bottom of the foodchain.

>If anything the chemical reaction could just be a material reflection of what is happening in your mind. Using something that is fundamentally entrenched in the study of materials to prove that only materialism is real is rubbish and circular
If you could perfectly explain something with one theory, support it with empirical evidence and use the findings to improve quality of life. Why would you turn to the kinds of theories that can never be proven or disproven and will remain utterly worthless for anything else than intelectual entertainment?

Biosemiotics doe
What about what isn't there?

>Why would you turn to the kinds of theories that can never be proven or disproven and will remain utterly worthless for anything else than intellectual entertainment

>2017
>pretending not to razzle dazzle

Wait so, so when somebody invents something its just an inevitability of processes thermodynamics and chemistry? Like how do electro-chemical reactions so efficiently create thoughts and ideas?

More like processes guided by laws of physics since chemistry and thermodynamics is only its approximation, but basically you are correct.

>theoretical science is useless
>everything can be explained with a materialistic explaination.
Materialism can't explain things that do not occupy material reality but shape everything in reality.
Like how information becomes meaning.

Thoughts and ideas about what?

>Why would you turn to the kinds of theories that can never be proven or disproven and will remain utterly worthless for anything else than intelectual entertainment?
Where do you think we are senpai?

>perfectly explain something with one theory
>Chemical reactions can be perfectly explained and mapped out
Wew fucking lad, do you even reaction mechanics bro? It is extremely theoretical and not really empirical

not him but a few thoughts to add
>It is still smaller field than fucking gender studies
Obviously since gender studies attracts such huge numbers of womyn

> Not to mention virtually all biologists do not have a clue about QM, so my point stands.
Yeah but virtually all biologists also do not have a clue about the source of consciousness and "biology" is itself such a vast field of study that it requires specialization.

>But feel free to explain how does QM has something to do free will.
cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/5/11/670
some prominent thinkers have made the case for the effect of quantum mechanics on biology so it seems plausible that it might even influencing the biology which makes us conscious. Niels Bohr, Pascual Jordan, and Max Delbruck argued that the quantum idea of complementarity was fundamental to the life sciences. In 1963 Per-Olov Löwdin published proton tunneling as another mechanism for DNA mutation.

Not that I'm convinced, but I'm not ruling it out, either

are you pretending to be dumb? I don't get it what's your endgame?

bump

>Causality doesn't equal freedom
>Randomness doesn't equal freedom
It's almost like the free will-determinism dichotomy is a stupid fucking word game.

>Chemical reaction
>Consciousness

Choose one.
Fucking fedoras

No.
It's biosemiosis.
media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/5936

the way I see it, there is a material pre-determanism to the world

but I don't agree with the steps many people make after that

they say "all actions are pre-determined, so their is no moral culpability"
and I think that is a very closeted view that comes mainly from official naratives, millitary and church

seethat exact conclusion I drew

if at that point you say it's an "illusion" of free will, I think the reality is that you are closer to the truth
even if we are traveling blindly down a pre-fixed track, most of our values still translate

the notable exeption is thiestik thinkers, who need "choice" to have sin, guilt, responsibility, and eternal judgement
pre-determanism upsets mormons particularly

But then metal and wood don't exist, can't you see they're just matter? I have a universe made of matter, and it's not a boat...

>"boat" component

Obviously not. If you take it apart it ceases to be a boat. Language isn't subjective. If it were, when I ask you to build me a boat, and you punch me in the face, I'd have to accept that's how you understood what I said.

Like with laws, we both understand what a law is and we're likely to understand some of the same specific laws, such as it being illegal to murder. Now, if you murder someone, are never caught, and never hand yourself in nor subject yourself to self inflicted punishment, then effectively the law doesn't exist.

While we both agree that this is a boat, and it does boaty things... it's a boat.