Is determinism more plausable than free will?

sure
im going to call you a faggot now
faggot

I knew you would do that

prove it

Not the guy you responding to.

I wanna hear you explain it again. Like you did in the other threads. How does that show free will.

Determinism and free will are both overly broadly applied metaphysically constructed terms and the eternal debate has more to do with bad terminology than reality.

Ive never been in threads like this before

that's a blatant lie and cop out. you post a certain way about a very unique belief that is utterly foundationless

but w/e plead the 5th for tard's

Let's define Universe as everything. Being the Universe everything, there is nothing else but the Universe to determine what our reality will be. If free will is defined as the ability to self-configure without outside input, then the Universe has it. Which implies everything inside the Universe has this ability, not only elements like particles, but people as well. Right or wrong so far?

This destroys the notion that a human mind exists independently of the particles that make its own brain. While this creates a material association to the human mind, this logically also creates a mental association to matter. Physical free will must arise from this equivalence between mind and matter and the ability of the Universe to self-configure.

Now, what we call free will however is more related to intelligence, and we have an instinct to associate both eg: a bee stinging you has less free will than a pitbull biting you, which has less free will than a low IQ person committing a crime, which has less free will than you. Now the question is a model of the brain as a computer: if free will is the power to self-configure, then the brain must be a universal Turing machine(UTM), which has degrees of universality. A non-universal Turing machine has a set output for each input, whilst a universal Turing machine operates with new input-output programming that comes in its input. A simple way to think of this is comparing a computer that is absolutely unprogrammable, like a simple calculator, to a modern smartphone. And since intelligence must be the ability to learn towards a goal through the tautological structure of 2 UTMs which create a close circle of programmable input and output, then free will is very well proven.

Is this a nod to that other thread? lmao

Anyway I don't understand the free will determinism dichotomy. I don't know of any definition of free will that's necessarily non-deterministic, and I can't imagine any type of non-determinism to give rise to free will.
Compatibilism is where it's at IMO, but a lot of people seem to disagree with a definition of free will along the lines of "doing what is subjectively best for the organism within the constraints it is subjected to".

But riddle me this, if an organism (let's say a human) with a certain internal state, in a certain environment, would choose out of its own free will to perform action "X", why would it not do "X" again, out of its own free will, if subjected to the same environment, with the same internal state? Of course this is deterministic, but it's also a perfectly valid definition of free will as far as I can see. Random != free.

I'd say based on what I understand about reality and humanity, a human in a given situation would not respond in exactly the same way every time, even given the same conditions. Every step from initial conditions introduces compounding complexity and unpredictable factors in the environment (including the human itself).

This is why I can't buy into the determinism - free will dichotomy. Causal determinism exists, but it does not imply perfect predictability and its ability to say anything functional about ourselves is limited at best.

Fallacious so far.

The entirety of your argument rests on the idea of the universe free willing itself into existence, and somehow shaping itself, like it is some sort of deity.

Second,
> the ability to self-configure without outside input
Nothing holds this property.

to be fair, the idea of a mind-matter association is a pretty strong argument, and completely lost on most materialists, which is unfortunately most of Veeky Forums.

>machine that predicts thoughts
>pretends that it predicts actions too
I'll humor you.
Say I meet a psychic at a carnival that predicts the future. They say that they can see what I'm going to do before I do it. I'm like "pfttt! yeah right!" I swipe my hand in front of their face and mid-swing the psychic's hand grabs my wrist. I'm stunned. So I sit down to hear what they have to say... in my hopes to foil them that is. So for their first demonstration, they spread out a deck of cards. Face up of course; so there's no trickery involved. They say that before I pick a card, they will tell me which card I will pick.

From the perspective of the psychic now:
This guy will pick the 7 of clubs. However, If I tell him that, he'll instead pick the jack of diamonds. I could secretly write down " jack of diamonds" then tell him that he'll choose the 7 of clubs. However instead; after writing down 10 of hearts and he notices that I wrote something in a secretive manor. I'll tell him he'll choose the 2 of spades, then he'll pick the 10 of hearts. And he won't believe me because he'll think I or someone hidden, secretly wrote down whichever card he chose after he chose it. And that me writing something down was a ruse because he couldn't see what I wrote down until after he chose a card.

If you overlap shapes you get different shapes emerging from a formed structure.

This is 2d determinism

It is not self configuring, it is a product of the properties of each shape, and the combination of them.

youre delusional and a moron

sure

I don't want to lose my DARPA funding.

>Now, what we call free will however is more related to intelligence
>moving the goal post this hard

>Considering our thoughts are controlled by neurochemistry

proof?

random isnt free will because randomness is will-less... dont you understand?

predictability isnt determinism. plus in what you say, its not the exact same situation is it

theres plenty of proof - look at brain injuries or how drugs affect our brain.

>Quantum fag here
no, the universe is NOT deterministic

>predictability isnt determinism.
Literally what I just said.
>plus in what you say, its not the exact same situation is it
Yes it is.
I wrote like three lines and you responded without reading any of them. Are you retarded?

This is a philosophical question user not a scientific one

Read on compatibilism, anyways

> not understanding what ive said.

no, i mean that predictability has nothing to do with determinism. just because somethings not predictable shouldnt effect your views on determinism.

and by the laws of physics, everything reacts in the same way to the exact same situations. humans will not only react the same way if the situation is different. people can categorize the situation as different even when it is different. the compounding complexity will only lead to different situations if the system really is in a different state as taken from its history of states and any external influences.

dont humour me with your bullshit fag.

how does compatibilism help?

isnt what you just said equivalent to -

someone calls you up saying they're stuck in a room trapped with a bear. your advice is ; "have you ever considered that its a cat and i'm a faggot?"

>how does compatibilism help?
Explaining how free will can meaningfully exist in a deterministic universe.
>someone calls you up saying they're stuck in a room trapped with a bear. your advice is ; "have you ever considered that its a cat and i'm a faggot?"
What.

>Considering our thoughts are controlled by neurochemistry
Braindead
Our thoughts are represented by neuro-physio-chemical dynamics but are not controlled by them. If anything our thoughts control our nuerochemistry.
The thing about life is it exibits downward causality and thoughts are realized by complex processes acting at multiple scales of organization.
We are pretty much determined to have free will.

>dont humour me with your bullshit fag.
Right back at you.
Fuck off with this nonsense.

but it doesnt get rid of the problem of being determined. even if you redefine free will, the other existential problem is there...

the fact that you can manipulate neurobiology to affect thought actually logically proves that neurobiology is necessary for it and causally related to thought and not just representing it...

also, prove your claim...

The problem of being determined is that you don't have free will. How does proving that you do have it despite determination not solve the problem?

It's not redefining, it's analysing the concept of free will and proving that the meaningful parts of it still exist in a deterministic universe.

Of course thoughts behave differently when the signs that represent them are acting over different gradients. The only thing that this proves is you are a pleb that doesn't into biosemiotics.
>neurobiology is necessary for it and causally related to thought
I never claimed otherwise

>proves that neurobiology is necessary for it and causally related to thought
I never claimed otherwise, I claimed that thoughts exhibit downward causality. Meaning what is going on with the thoughts causes the system they are realized in to behave differently, not simple upwards causality as in simple physical systems where lower scales effect what is going on at higher scales.
I also claimed that these thoughts exhibiting downward causality are realized at multiple scales, neurobiology, perception, previous thoughts, and many more.
Here just read this and other materials on downward causation
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262299/

Problem is, on subatomic scales, quantum mechanics suggest that there is an inherit randomness.
If by chance, our mental state is extremely sensitive to starting conditions, our mental state would also have an inherit randomness. Even if it isn't, the rest of the world would still be random, and so would our interactions be random.

Simply put, I can't say anything on "free will", but quantum mechanics suggests that determinism is false.

>Every step from initial conditions introduces compounding complexity and unpredictable factors in the environment (including the human itself).
So then it's not exactly the same. What you say here can be true without violating determinism.

Nigga I said myself that randomness isn't free will, not sure what your point is.

>field as young as quantum physics
>suggesting anything

it's far more likely we don't understand the cause of said random events

It wasn't intended as a violation of determinism. Only a violation of predictability, which is not an inherent physical axiom. While determinism is not violated, it can be seen as descriptive rather than proscriptive. It has little relevant bearing on "free will".

Understanding the cause of an event does not imply that it is no longer random. You can understand the principle of uncertainty as deeply as you like - uncertainty will still be an inherent principle of the universe.

>does not imply it's random
I agree
>inherit principle of the universe
I disagree

what's one example of randomness in nature?

>does not imply it's random
... Is not quite the opposite of what I said, but it's close. Read better.
>I disagree [with the uncertainty principle as an inherent principle of the universe]
You would have a hard time following any physics established since general relativity, then.

its not proving anything, its a philosophical whimsing.

it is redefining it.... it has got nothing to do with free will in hard determinism and just changes it.

FUCK OFF, WE'RE DONE WITH YOUR BULLSHIT FAGGOT.

Mad oldguardaboo

wow that was some good bump bait.

I wish the universe was deterministic, that way I could blame my failures on destiny.

But the truth is that every dt (or planck time), your actions affect the future.

Just like electrons are everywhere eon their orbits until "observed".
"Observed" here means we go trough a slice of the 4th dimension (a dt) and the electron's location gets "fixed" in our timeline.

Electrons are 4th dimensional objects.

Read on:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cognition

why do I keep fucking um my tripcode?

Compatibilism is nice because the definition of free will that it gives actually makes sense, instead of the magical hokus pokus that doesn't even make sense when you think it through that incompatibilists usually consider. Well, they don't really, because noone ever bothers to give a consistent definition of "free will".

>But the truth is that every dt (or planck time), your actions affect the future.
This statement is perfectly compatible with determinism.

False.

>Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.

You actions affect nothing if the universe is deterministic, since they where predetermined.

you don't uderstand

(You) are part of the universe, the actions you take are simply another part of the chain of causality. For the result of your action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event, namely you taking that action.

a man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills
free will doesn't make any sense unless you believe in a soul that is independent from physical reality

Superdeterminism fixes all of the retarded concious observer and spooky action bullshit involved in qm

but super determinism is itself retarded

You don't get it.

What caused me to post this reply?
It was an electrical process in my brain.

I understand that according to determinism, this action could have not been prevented, because that electrical process was the effect of all things that caused it, namely your replies, and so son and so fort until we get to the big-bang.

But, like the fixed location of an electron, there are many "quantum possibilities", which are not deterministic.

We live in a dt of a 4th dimensional "line", but a a field in the 4th dimension contains all possible possibilities that can happen given your current location on the 4d "line" (ie not physically impossible possibilities).

Everything that is happening in our 3D universe affects which direction on the 4D field we are taking.

There is a time line where I didn't post this reply.
Or there "was" (still is on other 4d line, at this same time).

so on and so forth

"conscious observer" is not what people think it means.

It can, again, be explained by the extra dimensions of superstring theory.

"observed" mans that in our dt of a 4D (time) line, only one of the possible possibilities occurred i.e. it's now fixed, but not until we are \actually\ on that dt, but before we make 4D dt increment, both (actually many more than 2) possibilities are "true".

I can't find a plausible reason for the existence of free will. There is no observable situation where an action is completed without a cause. Of course, I don't like this conclusion. I can't really do much to find another one, however.

Your decision to call a faggot was prompted by the environment of this thread. It wasn't truly arbitrary.

>Let's define Universe as everything.
Let's not.

Nearly every time I raise to someone the possibility of free will not existing, they become hostile.

>isn't free will impossible
>i have no choice but to say this
>but free will is impossible
ahahahaha

guys, there will never be a way to answer this question. even if god almighty himself came down and said that the universe was deterministic, how the fuck could he know whether or not his universe is deterministic? further, if his isn't deterministic, then ours isn't. just like how algorithms are inherently "deterministic"/pseudo-random in spite of the fact that our universe might not be

there's no way to ever fucking answer this question, it's just gibberish. it's entirely nonsensical and no answer will ever truly suffice

I think it's about finding your locus of control and becoming less effected and dependent by others, this free will and determinism.

Of course we are all determined but you can't say or build a computer to determine anything, unless maybe far in the future we do.

Atoms can't be reduced to simple equations no matter how simple they look. Chemistry is shit and there's always a chance for that crazy electron to do something random.

"Laws of chemistry and physics" sounds like we are telling little atom people how to behave. But they are actually just patterns. Nobody's going to find the laws that govern you. They might find patterns but whatever die or find a way out to adapt.

Robots and computers are much simpler than us. Does a computer have free will in that what it decides to do in a game seems like it has personality? We tend to think by the technology off the day. It used to be fluids and steam and mechanical machines and now it's computers. But the brain and your mind can do some amazing interesting things that you probably didn't even know. And we mustn't think like computers especially if we're STEM or CS programmers.

Also time-travellers affect the present all the time, giving a non-deterministic (based on the past, or predictable from the past) course of events

Fucking piece of shit pseudo-science crap.

When born, did you get to choose to be a boy or a girl? Did you choose your height? Your eye color? Your hair color? Did you get to choose who your parents would be? Did you choose how wealthy you'd be? Did you choose how great your social skills would be? Did you choose to be born in this particular age instead of, say, 1000 years into the future? Did you choose the country you would be born? Did you choose how your childhood - which is the single most defining part of your life that determines how 99% of your yet-to-happen life will be like - would be?

No?

Neither did anyone else.

Free will obviously doesn't exist.

I didn't even choose to be born, and neither did you. And while your life might be stable enough for you to feel as if you are in power of choices, this is not the same for most people. It really just pisses me off when people who have it well start spouting crap like "MUH IMMATERIAL CONSCIOUSNESS" as an argument for free will when immateriality is as scientific as God or pink invisible unicorns, without any actual arguments much less proofs (unless you consider ad hominem and other fallacies that often come with it as an actual argument). Free will is just on the same level as any other new age or generally religious bullshit. Just stop. You're fooling nobody but yourself by saying we make decisions. At the very best, you're giving hopeless people the hope that their lives are worth anything but shit (or the sense of guilt for blaming them for being what they are).

Just stop.

t. brainlet

Obviously there are thing you cant choose.

That doesn't mean you can't make decisions that affect the current timeline.

The uncertainty principle partially proves this.