Do we have free will?
Sure, we're obviously strongly influenced by our surroundings - OF COURSE. But we still have the capacity to decide between different courses of action.
And how can you prove that those courses of action are determined? You can't! Especially with quantum theory, we are not certain that the universe is entirely deterministic AT ALL.
I think we do have free will. Because nobody can prove that everything is determined. Prove me wrong if you can. Protip: you can't.
Other urls found in this thread:
lehigh.edu
twitter.com
I don't care, why do you?
Everything seems to be determined, or at least, that's the popular theory with the big heads
Imma live my life tho
>AT ALL
bs
the wave function is perfectly deterministic
This "debate" is retarded. It's not possible in the first place to establish a useful definition for free will in the context of iterative systems that become increasingly predictable depending on scale.
I don't believe in free will. You can't prove to me that you do posess free will. One only does feel free in his own referential, freedom is a subjective paradigm that differs from one person to another.
>Do we have free will?
No. But it is very useful to act like we do.
God does not play dice
Here's a working definition:
The ability of humans to make genuine decisions between certain courses of action. Rather than every decision being merely a determined outcome from a cosmic calculus.
Prove that we don't?
>No
Prove it then?
So does that mean the process of decision-making is meaningless?
1. Prove there is a God
2. Prove he doesn't play dice
>Quantum Theory
I think you mean theoretical biology(specifically biosemiotics) cybernetics, hierarchy theory, downwards causation and whatnot.
Life is determined to self-determine
No, it just means that given enough information you may be able to extrapolate the outcome
IF you had seemingly infinite computing power
>life is determined to self-determine
So then we do have free will? We're not just determined? We do make genuine choices?
But if everything is determined then surely our decision making process is just meaningless.
>o then we do have free will? We're not just determined? We do make genuine choices?
"Free will" isn't a good term "agency" or "will" is better because although we do make our own decisions they are very constrained by the boundaries that allow us to make decisions
Nigga, overthinking life is for losers
Just live
Could you plebs please read even the most basic of articles on this stuff before posting shit like this?
1. The human is a physical system just like everything else, for example a rock.
2. The universe is either deterministic or probabalistic.
The actions of humans are therefore either determined or random. Either way we don't "freely" will them.
Humans have no more control over the physical reaction that take place in the system we a constructed from than a rock
>A rock sees a predator coming and doesn't move,
>it dies'ed
>Human sees rock flying towards their head brain,
>Moves
>Human not death
See living things can interpret meaning and then behave logically to continue living.
This is why living systems can run around with all their energy and not explode towards thermodynamic equilibrium
>describing input/output conversions of biological systems on a macro level
These computations that the brain performed to decide on an action is still either probablistic or deterministic given that the brain is a physical system just like the rock.
You are tricking yourself by thinking of humans as being fundamentaly different from anything else.
I can see where this misconception comes from given that humans seem to be complex beyond comprehension vs rocks that seem so simple, even thought on a fundamental level they are both just particles being acted upon by the laws of physics.
What part of this is incompatible with
????
wow fast and bad reader, the incompatible part is the part where you dont recognize that higher levels of complexity and cause lower levels of complexity to do something
Ax>Bx
Bx>Cx
Cx>Ay
Ay>By
therefor Bx>By
where A is level 1 B is level 2 and C is level 3
>‘physicalists’, or ‘materialists’. In this scheme, the biological, including the physiological,
is labelled as physical, as if that label was unproblematic. Yet, one does not need to know
much biology to recognize that this scheme has gone seriously wrong. Just a little
reflection on the differences between a living body and a dead corpse calls into question
this lumping together of everything non-mental as ‘physical’. We all know that right
from the time of death (whatever are the criteria for determining that time, and whether or not death is instantaneous or occurs over a shortish period) the corpse begins to
disintegrate. It literally disappears, unless the natural process of disintegration is
artificially suspended – by freezing, embalming, or placing in formalin.
Obviously, there is something to being a living organism that is more than the assemblage of atoms and molecules. (In which sense there is ‘something more’ is yet to be determined – recognizing this is not the same as committing ourselves to Bergson’s
élan vital.)
biosemiotics comes in here and thats a different topic
>The development of the physical and biological sciences since the time of
Descartes has replaced his dichotomy with a multi-layered model of the world as
stratified into different levels, in a micro-to-macro hierarchy. Consequently, the bipartite
Cartesian model has long been outdated, and in the new model of Nature, entities,
characterized by their distinctive properties and processes, emerge (in some sense) out of
the entities, properties, and processes of the levels below it
Jesus christ, continental pop phil is the worst
well made point my brainlet friend
You are saying that the fact that dead bodies decompose after death is a testament to the notion of there being something more to living organisms that the assemblage of atoms?
Bodies decompose after death because its no longer maintained by all our evolved bodily functions. I mean, what the fuck are you even saying?
And yes you can model systems as a network of other systems, still no contradiction with
Consider A the junk that life, B is made up of. C is the reproduction of B
So Ax makes up an organism Bx And Bx reproduces, Cx which in turn causes the Ay to make a new organism By
So here life determined itself. being made up of lower level things that can be reduced to elementary particles or whatever.
what actually caused By is Bx despite both Bx and By being composed of stuff at level A
So what makes B different from A is its ability to cause itself to do something.
...
I am having trouble working out how:
>So here life determined it self
logically follows from the first part.
Also you are saying that A and B are seperate things when really they are the same.
There is no difference between an organism and the different level abstracions of it cosidered as a whole.
>mereological nihilism
oh im sorry i didnt know you were challenged
so you are saying that i am nothing more than elementary particles?
what about information and complexity?
if you took the same things i am made up of and piled them on top of eachother without any mereotopological organization you would just have a pile of junk, not a thing and certainly not me
yes, this is the logical conclusion
found the brainlet
gj, only took you 6 hours
not him but i knew 6 hours ago. i am a kind person