Free will

1. Human thought and decision is a product of the human consciousness.
2. Human consciousness exists exclusively in the brain.
3. The brain is a physical entity.
4. Physical entities always obey the laws of physics.
5. Therefore, human thought and decision is entirely determined by the laws of physics.
6. Thus, free will does not exist.

>Physical entities always obey the laws of physics.

But at quantum level, at least as far as we know physics is probabilistic rather than deterministic. So in perfect experiment of free will, you can run the same experiment many times and your result will be a gaussian statistical distribution, rather than a predetermined solution.

The fact that something obeys physical laws does not mean it must be deterministic.
It is fully possible for these laws to describe what will happened in probabilities of multiple outcomes rather than one determined outcome.

>law of physics
The so called laws are only a construct of our mind that is tweaked enough to help us in our life, we have no deep knowledge on how the universe works and we never will, it's not the goal of science to do so.

When saying laws of physics I dont mean what we interpret the universe as, I mean the inherent consistencies of the universe that exists regardless of humans.

>consciousness
There you go using that term again, as though it has any kind of meaning.

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

Define "aware".

Awareness is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events.

but doesn't it seem pretty fucking likely thats entirely due to high dependence on initial state? Like it or not, any experiment will be done at different points in time, or space. All sorts of shit is completely changing all the time at that scale so theres no fucking control, of course you get a guassian distribution. It just means its complex, not "probabilistic". What does that even mean? Just magically things are different every time? magically randomness is just coming out of nowhere and yet somehow also not rapidly increasing entropy? no ffs its fucking complex dynamics so its all the same entropy and its probably technically pseudorandom. Of course, since we're such huge scale in comparison, in order to measure it all precisely enough to track and prove as pseudorandom probably won't happen for a good while.

>doesn't it seem pretty fucking likely thats entirely due to high dependence on initial state?
The term for that is "hidden variables". Local hidden variables have already been ruled out through experiments, but there could still be non-local hidden variables.

And your point is?

That free will does not exsist, it says so at the end.

Yeah, I got that.
Why does it matter?

I'm already tired of this. There is no free will. Stop the presses. Let's talk about something interesting for a change. There is no controversy here.

K then. Bye.

Have a nice day.

Why does anything matter?
It is just interesting to think about.

It's interesting for people who haven't already thought about it to death. There are more important and consequential questions. Such as how to put food on our families.

What is the most important question in the world today? Is it finding a theory of everything? Yes.

The most important question is "how to time travel".

But why is feeding your farmily important?
If the universe is just a system of non-sentient parts how can any subsystems within that system have any inherent purpose?
There is no reason to feed your family as there i s no reason to exsisting, as there is no purpose to do anyting.

You're getting ahead of yourself.

We'd be able to make a theory of everything if only we had the ability to time travel. It's the technology that would solve all problems that are conceivably solvable.

>1. Human thought and decision is a product of the human consciousness.
Most of what passes for "human thought and decision" is a mess of emotional instinctual response with very little if any real thought in it.

>2. Human consciousness exists exclusively in the brain.
Well now, of course it doesn't. Feel free to disagree in silence to yourself, I don't want to hear from you.

>3. The brain is a physical entity. / >4. Physical entities always obey the laws of physics.
But you don't know how the brain responds to the physics of the quantum world. It's possible that 'external' quantum changes influence the physical brain to generate consciousness. In much the same way as quantum effects have been proposed for the efficiency of photosynthesis.

>5. Therefore, human thought and decision is entirely determined by the laws of physics.
Laws we don't yet fully understand.

>6. Thus, free will does not exist.
Thus, nope.

...

>But you don't know how the brain responds to the physics of the quantum world. It's possible that 'external' quantum changes influence the physical brain to generate consciousness.
But what caused these quantum event would still not be us, it would be as you say “external”, just as our eyes get hit by light that trigger response in our brain.

Define free will first.

prove your first, second and fourth premises.
define "laws of physics".

>believes consciousness is created by the brain
>defines body as "i"
>believes things that aren't inside the body are external
what a spiritlet

Good point. As humans we seem to be stuck between the dictates of biologically-programmed instinctual responses and what mystics call 'spirit' or 'the higher self' etc. Buddhism in particular makes the point that there is no 'I', and in losing our attachment to our own identity we come to recognise the unity of all.

Perhaps the only actual 'free' will we have is the choice between the two; where do we put our attention when making a decision or preparing an action.

Of course, because that's the goal of life.

If will is BS, why do we keep discussing it? Couldn't we be 'determined' to talk about more interesting topics? Guess not, the asshole god is! Better go cross a busy road without looking and with earplugs, gotta see what predetermined fate has in store for me.

You say that human thought is a product of conciousness. Why not conciousness being a product of thought? Premise 1 has some bad faults. Premise 2 says conciousness is exclusively in the brain. How do you know this? Not as weak as premise 1 but can be attacked. In premise 4 you say physical entities always obey the laws of physics, but then some asshole will ask about event horizons in black holes, which modern science confirms, and that doesnt even seem so obvious. Lastly, all Compatibilists will disagree with your jump from premise 5 to 6, and say that just because thought obeys the laws of physics doesnt mean free will doesnt exist, which is why Compatibilism is in vogue. Pretty shit argument desu senpai

>meaning
There you go using that term again, as though it has any kind of definition

>definition
There you go using that term again, like it had any utterance

I just eat my family.

>5. Therefore, human thought and decision is entirely determined by the laws of physics.
>6. Thus, free will does not exist.

Orphined conclusion.

What if the laws of physics give rise to free will? (or the state we interpret as free will.)

As far as i can tell this free will buisness is governed by entropy. Thus you cant suddnly free will yourself to fly like superman, but you can free will yourself to miss the next ball you try to kick into the net. And thus you feel that you have accomplished something that was not determined by simple physical properties.

>2. Human consciousness exists exclusively in the brain.
There is no reason to think this, because the absence of evidence(not seeing consciousness elsewhere) is not the evidence of absence. In fact, there is evidence that consciousness exists where we can't see it because other humans claim to see it in places we do not.