As far as modern science is concerned, the mechanisms governing the brain are large enough that they behave deterministically. Humans naturally lack free will on their own
However, since the discovery of quantum mechanics and the inherent randomness of the subatomic scale, we humans have been able to access what we believe to be truly random processes. If this is indeed the case, does that mean any decisions humans make which are influenced by such small-scale phenomenon are an expression of free will?
For example, if I decided I wanted a coffee it would not be free will, but if I had an electron in a superposition of spin states and decided whether or not I would have a coffee based on what spin state I detected, would that be an expression of free will?
Pic unrelated
Julian Martinez
>only according to modern science >not using a cross-section of science and philosophy because they work well with each other op fell for the STEM meme
Samuel Diaz
I guess I'll wipe my tears off on my wad of hundred dollar bills. Don't worry, I get a thousand of those a year
Liam Gray
>2916 >not being the main project coordinator and philosophical guidance of a group of scientists, getting paid 186k per year to essentially bullshit
Tyler Rodriguez
Quantum physics means shitall for free will since neurons (responsible for our decisions, etc) are millions of orders of magnitude beyond quantum levels, meaning they barely have any uncertainty that, say electrons or protons would have. Biological processes are random to some degree but the chances of that randomness affecting our thoughts or actions is extremely small, meaning for practical predictions we could just forget about quantum randomness (say, if we developed a super computer that recreates a brain's structure.)
Wyatt Bell
S A V A G E
Caleb Williams
>science
stopped reading there
Kayden Collins
He's asking whether it would be free will if he used spin detection as a coinflip.
It would be a decision to follow the outcome of a coinflip. Whether or not that coin is macroscopic or infinitesimal, it is still what it is. Furthermore, you clearly suck at physics and/or metaphysics if you think quantum mechanics is cosmically non-deterministic. The spin was always going to be what it turned out to be. You simply learned that fact at the moment the wave collapsed. Why would our potential ability or inability to predict a spin state have any effect on reality?
Zachary Gonzalez
Probably already been said, but no OP. Randomness does not give free will. If my some electrons do some random shit and suddenly I decide to have tea instead of coffee, it doesn't mean I chose it free. It simply means I was determined in this case by a random phenomenon rather than a causal one. The fact that I am determined still remains intact (btw, not arguing we are determined, just saying your logic doesn't hold up).
Luke Wood
>Did human gain free will swing & miss
Liam Rivera
Also there's this thing. Natural selection i think is called, which entails that random cognitive processes are almost always inefficent and tend to conduce to death...
Aaron Hughes
What you describe is not free will. It's fatalism instead of determinism.
Gabriel Martinez
this. Your actions are either determined (most likely since our brains are macro scale) or random. Free will is an illusion.
tipping fedora
Christian Roberts
someone forgot to account for hidden variables
Adrian Brown
Of all the anime you had to post you had to post this pseudointellectual garbage courtesy of Mari Okada once again trying to pretend she's another writer.
Also your post is bad and you should feel bad.
Daniel Martin
>free will
What does this even mean? Does it require an identity (like a metaphysical soul or thinking substance) to function?
Jonathan Perez
>However, since the discovery of quantum mechanics and the inherent randomness of the subatomic scale >still believing this meme Good goy
Christopher Williams
>Did human gain free will in the last century? This implies that we're constructing reality. What, did the phenomena that is described by quantum mechanics didn't exist before the last century?
Idiot.
Also, free will has little to do with subatomic physics. Rather, it's more to do with how we think. You can settle the question of free will simply by observing your thought processes. If you're keen enough, you'll notice that your thinking is inherently network-like and associative. It goes from one thought t to another thought t2, where the contents of t and t2 are in some sense related. Now, this process obviously is deterministic. A good exercise is to see if you can come up with a spontaneous thought t that had no predecessor thoughts, t-1, t-2, etc. What you do is is the following: at arbitrary times of the day check if your current thought was proceeded by some prior thought, with the condition that the thoughts are in some sense related. If they are, then your "spontaneous" thought was determined after all. After some dozen of times of doing this, you'll be convinced that no spontaneous thought is possible and that it's all determined and that subatomic physics has nothing to do with it.
Xavier Young
>This implies that we're constructing reality. What, did the phenomena that is described by quantum mechanics didn't exist before the last century?
We didn't have spin detectors before 1900, dumbfuck.
Cameron Sanders
>The Jews are using their science to get people against the retarded and obscure Christian metaphysics that go well with my bigoted worldview
The Goy know! Shut. It. Down.
Aaron James
That's not what I meant, you cum-gobbling retard.
Spin detectors have nothing to do with it. "the phenomena that is described by quantum mechanics" wasn't referring to spin detectors.
Kayden Cooper
OP's point is that, before the advent of spin detectors, "the phenomena that is described by quantum mechanics" had no way of affecting human decision-making and behavior. Without specialized equipment, the micro-randomness averages out on the macro-level.