I'm having trouble reconciling what I know about physics and the concept of free will

>free will
You will never be able to discover or foresee this part of your life, so your worry is meaningless. Stop projecting and do some HW.

More than half the world problems

S
O

its generally accepted that certain capable scenarios are determined to not
be an
option.

for some people.

G R E A T
Thats definitely freewill
described by you.

>1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."
>Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
>vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

Hume argued that it would be precisely in a world which isn't deterministic where we would lack free-will

>By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains.

>Thus it appears, not only that the conjunction between motives and voluntary actions is as regular and uniform as that between the cause and effect in any part of nature; but also that this regular conjunction has been universally acknowledged among mankind, and has never been the subject of dispute, either in philosophy or common life

Dennett is a respectable source, but take his views on the mind with a grain of salt.

Sam Harris is a moron, its funny that this should come right after a comment about Dennett, because he wrote a fantastic review of Harris' inane ramblings

>As I tell my undergraduate students, whenever they encounter in their required reading a claim or argument that seems just plain stupid, they should probably double check to make sure they are not misreading the “preposterous” passage in question. It is possible that they have uncovered a howling error that has somehow gone unnoticed by the profession for generations, but not very likely.

>Such “perfect” freedom is, of course, an incoherent idea, and if Harris is arguing against it, he is not finding a “deep” problem with compatibilism but a shallow problem with his incompatibilist vision of free will; he has taken on a straw man, and the straw man is beating him.

>It means that you act on your beliefs, on your preferences, that you don't randomly lash out at random people for no reason.

It doesn't mean that at all. The atoms in the mind of delusional hypocrite or violent drunk are following the same laws of physics as those in a sane rational human. The atoms in a brains behave logically and predictably in terms of physics, but that doesn't mean the brain behaves logically and predictably in terms of psychology. You're conflating unrelated things.

Well, I happen to be not-insane, and I value that, and it's entirely consistent with also being a deteministic system.

You are right that some deterministic systems, such as insane people, are insane.

I was merely noting that there's nothing to fear from recognizing that oneself might be a deterministic system.

Use whatever wacky example you want, my point is this.

When you are putting on your pink tutu at home, that tutu is composed of a set of atoms that obey the laws of physics. Asserting that you/your brain has outside control over this set of atoms is to imply that you/your brain is separate from the tutu: looking at it on the micro scale both the tutu and your brain are part of a cloud of electrons protons and neutrons, which may yes form shapes and tutus and brains, but this cloud of particles follows physics to the letter, and no sub group of particles within the larger cloud can have any "external" influence on another part of the cloud. So at t = 0 (at home) the particles of carbon and hydrogen etc that we perceive as a tutu have x position, x velocity and so on, so their path can be calculated exactly, or at least to some degree. The part of the cloud that we perceive as a person or brain can't change the path of these particles, as your own influence is part of the system, and follows the same rules. Ultimately just because we like to draw lines and organize things to make it easy to communicate, does not mean we are any different from a pile of rocks, its the same electrons and quarks just organized in a different way. This is probably getting extremely redundant so I'll stop, I just wanted to put my thoughts down on this.

And as far as circle-jerking goes I understand this is one of those popsci topics or whatever, but if we are having a serious, rigorous discussion I don't see why it is a problem.

Would you mind elaborating on the Hume argument I don't quite get it. As far as what I'm saying, the universe isn't deterministic because every quantum interaction is probabilistic as far as we know, but we still do not have free will even with this.

It never conjured feelings of fear for me, probably just because it is hard to internalize the fact that I have as much control over my decisions as a leaf does.

As Dennett would argue, I think that's looking at it the wrong way. The language you use makes sense if you think that you are some homunculus, or soul, something in addition to your brain.

Compatibilism is about learning that you are just your brain. You do have control over your decisions. Obviously your brain controls your decisions. Nothing else does.

You just need to slightly tweak the meaning of "decision" and "choice" in this framework.

For example, I go to a restaurant. I'm offering fish or pasta. I don't like fish, but I like pasta. Therefore, I order pasta. This makes perfect sense in a deterministic framework, and it also makes perfect sense to say that this was a choice based on my preferences, on my past experiences, on my memories, - on who I am, which is my brain.

Forgot the link.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

Determinism isn't as straightforward as you think

youtu.be/EJsD-3jtXz0?t=30m

First we need to establish that Hume thought of causation as nothing more than constant conjunction, which is to say, law-like regularities between events. To say event A caused event B just means that A events have a disposition to precede B events. We have no rational basis for attributing causation

Hume thinks we can get a handle on this question by considering two clearly different propositions:

(1) I've found that headache relief has always followed my taking aspirin;
and

(2) Taking aspirin similar to the ones I've taken in the past will relieve my present headache.

There is no question that “the one proposition may be justly inferred from the other”, and that “it is always inferred”. But Hume challenges us to produce the “chain of reasoning” that takes us from propositions like (1) to propositions like (2)

(1) summarizes my past experience, while (2) predicts what will happen in the immediate future. I need some further proposition or propositions that will establish an appropriate link or connection between past and future, and take me from (1) to (2) using either demonstrative reasoning, concerning relations of ideas, or probable reasoning, concerning matters of fact.

Hume thinks it is evident that demonstrative reasoning can't bridge the gap between (1) and (2). However unlikely it may be, we can always intelligibly conceive of a change in the course of nature. Even though aspirin relieved my previous headaches, there's no contradiction in supposing that it won't relieve the one I'm having now, so the supposition of a change in the course of nature can't be proven false by any reasoning concerning relations of ideas.

That leaves probable reasoning. Hume argues that there is no probable reasoning that can provide a just inference from past to future. Any attempt to infer (2) from (1) by a probable inference will be viciously circular—it will involve supposing what we are trying to prove.
1/2

Yep. That's why everyone starts with something like the uniformity principle as a presupposition.

I agree with your statements about previous experiences and so on molding our brain into favoring one thing over another.

However I do think we are on somewhat different contexts.

>You do have control over your decisions. Obviously your brain controls your decisions. Nothing else does.

The perspective I am suggesting is that you, your brain, your environment, are all part of the same cloud of elementary particles, all with deterministic world lines. So when you say one's brain controls their decisions, I would suggest looking at it like a domino-esque series of interactions and events that lead the atoms that make up the neurons in your brain to fire electrical pulses which leads to a choice, a choice which could be predicted by any point in that chain of events. As I write this I realize our two ideas are compatible, just different levels of determinism.

>The language you use makes sense if you think that you are some homunculus, or soul, something in addition to your brain.

I think this is mostly just a semantic thing, brain/person/observer whatever you want to call it. As far as the homunculus argument goes, I think its quite the opposite, that nothing, especially a soul/homunculus, differentiates a brain from it's surroundings. But yeah sure a brain is the whole of a person and there is no "interior observer". Hopefully I understood your position there.

yepyep. Sorry. Thanks.

Hume doesn't disagree He wasn't against us attributing relations of cause and effect, he was just trying to get a clearer grasp on the nature of such relations.
2/3
Hume spells out the circularity this way. Any reasoning that takes us from (1) to (2) must employ some connecting principle that connects the past with the future. Since one thing that keeps us from moving directly from past to future is the possibility that the course of nature might change, it seems plausible to think that the connecting principle we need will assure us that nature is uniform—that the course of nature won't change—something like the uniformity principle:

[UP] The future will be like the past.
Adopting [UP] will indeed allow us to go from (1) to (2). But before we can use it to establish that our causal inferences are determined by reason, we need to determine our basis for adopting it. [UP] is clearly not intuitive, nor is it demonstrable, as Hume has already pointed out, so only probable arguments could establish it. But to attempt to establish [UP] this way would be to try to establish probable arguments using probable arguments, which will eventually include [UP] itself.

Hume's effort to articulate the conditions of moral responsibility, and the way they relate to the free will problem, should be understood primarily in terms of his views about the logic of our concepts of “liberty” and “necessity”. Free and responsible action, it is said, must be caused by the agent. There is, therefore, no incompatibility between free will and determinism. On the contrary, free and responsible action (logically) requires causal necessity. So interpreted, Hume's arguments involve observations about the logical relations that hold between the key concepts involved in this dispute.

This is actually fascinating along with the other stuff you have posted thanks for all this.

One thing I am thinking about is how intuitive or demonstrable this uniformity principle is.

From what I have gotten from you it is logically dubious because to say things will always be like this requires one to base that off the past condition of things always being like this, invoking the principal itself. So for the aspirin : 1. It always has stopped pain so it should continue to
2. It will continue to because nature will stay the same
3. Nature will stay the same because nature has always stayed the same
So it's like a loop.

Alright so logically it might be strange but in my opinion this may just be an artifact of the logic, for all intents and purposes nature will continue to stay the same, and all of science, math, and some degree logic is rooted in this: that 1 +1 will always be 2. So when speaking of science it makes sense to assume the UP, because drawing conclusions based off observation already rests upon the UP (equations like inverse square gravitation are the assumption that gravity will continue to work like it has thus far)

This stuff is really interesting and I will definitely look into it more though.

It's basic epistemology. Look up the terms "foundationalism" and "coherentism".
plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/

the fuck is up with all the philosophy spergs on Veeky Forums lately. fuck off back to Veeky Forums

Sorry, everyone this is now an IQ thread have fun.

3/3

Here is what Hume wanted to establish

1.Actions that are subject to moral evaluation are not distinguished from those that are not by an absence of cause but rather by a different type of cause. Responsible or morally free actions are caused by our own willings, whereas unfree actions are brought about by causes external to the agent.
2.A liberty which means “a negation of necessity and causes” has no existence and would make morality impossible.
3.Necessity, properly understood, is the constant conjunction of objects and the inference of the mind from one object to the other

Quantum interaction being probabilistic needn't concern us, the descriptions relevant to freedom of the will, namely, those involving intentional actions and character traits, is of an altogether different order than the descriptions employed in particle physics and are deterministic in the required sense (if you don't believe me, point your attention to the extraordinary fact that your intention to raise your arm always leads to the production of acetylcholine in those without any ailments)

the concept of free will is inherently contradictory. (Go ahead, try defining it)

I like to think of free will as a feeling, or a subjective experience of the world, like pain, or seeing the color blue.
These aren't objectively real, but they are real subjectively.

Just like you can't stop seeing the color blue, so you can't stop thinking you have free will.

An action is free if and only if it is uncoerced and aligned with the acting agents reasons for action (beliefs, desires, etc)

That was easy

What is it, the free will? When you driven by chaotic and irrational stimulus? When you affected by traditons, steretypes and political propaganda? But in that way you are more like puppet doll that has driven by nature or maybe by manipulators.

As Marx said, freedom is the recognition of necessity.

uncoerced by, but simultaneously aligned with?
sounds contradictory to me.

1+1 = 2 is different because it can be established deductively

Just stipulate the axioms for a field and define a successor function, nowhere in your proof did you really on UP

"uncoerced" (meaning: not acted upon externally in such a way as to severely inhibit your options for action. And no, the particles which constitute your brain cannot possibly be a coercive force because they are not external to you, they are you.) was not in the same clause as "aligned with"

so you differentiate between "external coercion" and "internal coercion", where the second part you don't see as coercion at all.

If my will has to be aligned with existing beliefs/desires etc., how is it free in any way?

Seems like beliefs/desires etc. completely DETERMINE what my "will" should be at any given point in time.

Christianity says there is free will
I fucking hate Christianity
Therefore science proves there isn't free will and you're just too illogical/irrational/uneducated/cognitively impaired to realize it.

Beliefs and desires constitute your will. It seems to me like your saying people aren't free because identity relations are reflexive, which is obviously nonsense.

so now you're telling me one can freely choose what one desires?

No. Your idea of free will is absurd. It would have to be something external to the agent's beliefs, motivations, character, and desires and therefore external to the agent his or herself. What I'm saying you make choices, period.

>Your idea of free will is absurd
Im using your definitions.

You say one's "will" is entirely made up of desires / beliefs etc. (all of which are inherently unfree), yet magically the combination of all these unfree constituents gives rise to something that you call "free".

> What I'm saying you make choices
So does a computer program. Presented with input X it will make choices and give output Y.

Just because you make choices doesn't mean there is any freedom anywhere.

You say desires/beliefs etc. are inherently unfree, yet the combination of these constitute our "will", which you contend is "free".

Sounds contradictory to me.

you can choose to lift your hand right now, or you can choose not to. therefore, free will exists

but either you do it, or you dont, so it's 50/50 chance and therefore random

suck on that, Christians

it's random for an outside observer yes

consciousness is in perfect synch with our deterministic brain and the only way to realize that there is no free will is to break this synch. this can be done only if we find out how the brains higher functions work and then we try to glitch them

your problem is with the way you're using words and has nothing to do with

1. free will
2. physics

you don't know what you're talking about. you're just scared. calm down, eat something, jerk off, then move on with your life. do something useful.

>Im using your definitions.
"Im misinterpretating and equivocation upon your definitions"
>all of which are inherently unfree

This is where I really want you to appreciate how dumb you are. I'm the one who is defining freedom here, not you. I defined freedom as a property of agents. You're making a category mistake, individual beliefs aren't agents. Here is what I ask of you: actually respond to something I said

The computer doesn't lack freedom, it lacks a will. Computers, or at least the ones we have now, just manipulate syntax according to some rules (Actually that's not even true because in order to specify which rules it is supposed to be following you have to beg the question. Any physical computing machine imperfectly realizes those abstract diagrams, since physical machines may either break down or malfunction. Indeed, that they do so is something we know only if we assume that the physical computing machine computes the function that we take it to compute. If it does not compute that function, then what we take to be a breakdown might, in fact, be part of its normal conditions of operation.That is, it might be computing a different function and not undergoing a breakdown of any sort at all. Unless we idealize its behavior, it might compute any function at all. But how we idealize its behavior depends upon what function we take it to compute. In the absence of idealizing its behavior, we don’t know what function it computes. But we can only idealize its behavior if we already know what function it computes), they don't have beliefs and desires. All you're saying with your stupid little example is that stuff is determined, which has already been established.

consciousness is just an observer. it's not you who move your hand, for example, you just realize that your brain decide to move your hand.
we also do hundreds of automatic things we can't even realize. like blinking, breathing, stretching, position your legs while walking.

Wrong. You shouldn't come away from those studies with that conclusion

youtube.com/watch?v=M3F_hAHJzNQ

...

Proof that free will does not exist

I don't think you understand the implications of your own argument. First of all, no one is arguing against freedom being a property of the agent. The point of contention appears to be on what coercion is a property of. For example, if I force you with a gun to act according to my preferences, you would agree that is coerced. If I raise you from birth to act only according to my preferences, i.e. I cause your will to be constrained to only one option, under your definition (uncoerced "meaning: not acted upon externally in such a way as to severely inhibit your options for action") that would also appear to be coerced. Yet if you accept that, you must realize that this is analogous to how everyone's will is formed. Every will is the result of external factors which set everything else in motion and constrain (if we assume a deterministic system) the will to only one option.

>Neuroscientists
>Consciousness
Why scientists talk about philosophical category.
I hope he not using quantum mechanis as an argument

So you actually believe that a guy named "Myself" live inside your brain and actually control your body?

He's has a PHD in both philosophy and neuroscience
No, the mind is part of the brain

Look, if you're still going to troll or act retarded, that's fine.
- Swear
- Ad hominem; Call people names
- Don't provide counter-arguments
- Reject realism and the scientific consensus
That's ok.
Just don't loop.
Looping is cancer.

Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies. You're ignorant.
You imply you have no knowledge of the other kinds, therefore they don't exist.
That is wrong irrational.
:D

"Reject realism and the scientific consensus"
Are you dyslexic? I'm saying the mind is a biological phenomenon.

"Personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance are fallacies"

Informal fallacies aren't real fallacies. I never provided an argument anyway, so I don't know what you're on about.

I take it you don't have high reading comprehension?
I can post a test to check your knowledge of scientific principles and you can share the link of your results, timestamped of course.
:D

You have offered zero counter-point, zero counter evidence.
Therefore I see no reason to continue with you if only I have something to intellectually contribute.

Your denialism is fallacious.

it's obviously a meme you git. Some faggot answered like this in a thread and now people are using it as a meme retort.

>posting pictures of belgian priests

Oops my bad. The ":D" made me suspicious but I decided it was post-ironic

only evangelical retards and catholics believe in freewill

predetermination is where it's at

>atoms
you don't even need to go that deep. hormones and neuromediators fully contol your body. your existence is the simple chemistry.

I'm so glad that all of you realize free will can't naturally happen and thus proving the power of god is responsible for our creation.