/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15728339
>believe in economics, psychology, criminology
Your IQ: <120

>attempts to say "this is what human beings automatically do in this particular situation".
Your IQ: <90

Yes you can.
>b-bu-
Google "stochastic process."

>>15728339
>move my fingers the same way whenever i want
>a bunch of neoastrology that never replicates
#1 please

>>15728339

>>15728341
>>15728342
>>15728358

>you cant predict human behavior! heisenberg uncertainty principle. emergent properties.
>"quick someone lock that incel up. he has the criminal profile".

>>15728362
I have no idea what your psychiatric babble is about. I'm just pointing out two things here:
1. The aforementioned fields border on pseudoscience
2. Even so, their practitioners make no claims of the form: "this is what human beings automatically do in this particular situation"

>>15728339
Yes, social """sciences""" are bullshit. Nothing new.

>>15728339
I mean, humans do tend to automatically breath when in a situation where they're exposed to air. There are things our bodies do which can be affected by external forces, such as not working anymore when a few hundred grams of lead penetrate the skull.

However, I don't see how this means that there's never free will. Just because there are parts of being human that we don't control, shouldn't mean that there's nothing we do, right?

>>15728362
>you cant predict human behavior!
who on earth believes this
you can never predict it with 100% certainty but you can make pretty great guesses, especially on the macro level

>>15728339
Retarded false dichotomy positions from a retard. Retard.

>>15728339
Ways free will could exist scientifically:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>>15729169
I'll repeat myself, even if we stick to materialism and assume human has no soul and all cognitive processes are a result of chemical, electrical and maybe quantum reactions in the brain we are still left with the unexplainable phenomena of qualia and consciousness. I believe that if this weird virtual machine running on our brains is capable of creating and maintaining qualia and consciousness, it wouldn't be crazy to assume that free will might be a similar type of phenomenon emerging in the brain. Sabine is wrong.

>>15728339
Can someone tell me how is the notion of free will compatible with the notion of every effect having a cause

>>15729211
>you can make pretty great guesses
Guessing is not predicting.

>especially on the macro level
Abstract collectives are not people.

>>15729573
You're the cause retard

>>15729609
What the cause of "me"?

>>15728339
"Free will" means every that every individual is a god with power to shape the laws of the universe itself.

No, even if the universe itself is non-deterministic, you are nothing more but a predictable biological machine reacting to stimulus received from the environment.

>>15729616
Sex

>"Free will" means every that every individual is a god with power to shape the laws of the universe itself.

>>15728339
Free will is real within reasonable limits. Most limits are not the result of a deterministic universe, rather, human constructs and society limit our experience.

>>15729623
>"Free will" means I can fly.

>You have "Free will"?
>Then why can't you fly?

Since it's pretty well established that mental processes correspond to physical states of the brain the existence of "free will" would mean that a mysterious (you) outside of the laws of physics can i fluence the material world but only in your brain

It's determined with effort, else it's pre-determined systematically via one's past creative effort.

You're trapped in this blokes box whether you like it or not but it's got enough space to evade determination, but not by yourself forever.

>Since it's pretty well established that mental processes correspond to physical states of the brain the existence of "free will" would mean that a mysterious (you) outside of the laws of physics can i fluence the material world but only in your brain

>Since it's pretty well established that mental processes correspond to physical states of the brain the existence of "free will" would mean that a mysterious (you) outside of the laws of physics can i fluence the material world but only in your brain

>>15729672
not only influence it, get this, it could even "experience" it, how about that huh?

>>15729678
Will takes determination, pre-determining things bolsters will. There is no will without being determined. Free Will is nothing to do with it not being determined. What do you think of free will as? You're just some spirit who expels aimlessly in every direction? No there are grounds to it.

>We are meat automatons animated by neurotransmitters
>Yes, I am trans, why do you ask?

>>15729249
>Cognitive processes are a result of chemical reactions
>consciousness is still an unexplainable process
So it is possible to believe in psychology and also free will? It's just that consciousness specifically is supernatural and will never be well enough understood to predict? I don't see the problem.

>>15729169
>l, shouldn't mean that there's nothing we do, right?
>today I took a different path back home for no aparent reason, that's good enough in my book
I think we're at the mercy of the environments randomness, at best. you have no idea if some quantum foam bullshit fucked with some of your neuron pathway and it didn't get that particular signal that would trigger you missing a single fucking electron charge or something. as a consequence you chose a different path. looking back "it felt" the right thing to do. you think that is free will. it is not.

>>15729599
retard

>I think we're at the mercy of the environments randomness, at best. you have no idea if some quantum foam bullshit fucked with some of your neuron pathway and it didn't get that particular signal that would trigger you missing a single fucking electron charge or something. as a consequence you chose a different path. looking back "it felt" the right thing to do. you think that is free will. it is not.
A golem will say just about anything to try to undermine a human's sense of agency.

>>15730154
Your emotional display is not an argument.

>>15728358
>move my fingers the same way whenever i want
yes, y tho? why would you think you can test if you have free will by "consciously" choosing to move your fingers, and thus your observation of them moving = free will? how? whatever the fuck made you test that in the first place? do you randomly and spontaneously move your fingers, observe that and conclude "yep, I still have free will"?

>>15730159
I mean how did OP NOT determine you to move your fingers? do you think you would have moved those fingers at the exact time you did today, if OP wouldn't have posted this?
are you denying that you moved you fingers because OP posted instead of jacking off or eat a fucking sammich?

>>15730159
it replicates. none of those other things do. I choose the one that works best

>>15730165
doesn't matter. only an imbecile would think social studies are more predictive than free will

>>15730167
>it replicates.
werks every time don't it? fucking kek

>>15730170
you just hypnocucked yourself into moving your fingers whenever you come across any free will vs determinism argument. it depends so much on your ability to freely move your fingers each and every time you come across this argument that not doing it somehow validates determinism in your mind. you have to move them so you can still prove to yourself you have free will.

>>15730193 me
you could oneup me, and stop doing it. but you won't, because that would mean I determined you to do it differently. so you're stuck with having to move them each and every time, or else you are determined.
what do you do anon? you are in a fucking paradox. what is your choice?

>>15730193
>>15730197
if free will stops predicting when your fingers move, you've got a bigger problem than a paradox. now imagine if economics predicted how your fingers move lol. you'd have some sort of completely debiliating parkinson's for one boom cycle, then they'd just break and fall off.

>>15730214
if you have randomness affecting you then you still can't predict someone's choices.
we are just analog computers dude, we have weights for stuff, that's it. + randomness affecting the whole thing, at different levels. that's what I think atm.
https://youtu.be/GVsUOuSjvcg?t=245

>>15728339
You can't believe in "uncertainty principle" and also believe in the theory of relativity.

>>15729599
>Guessing is not predicting.
making informed guesses and predicting are the exact same thing
>Abstract collectives are not people.
Never said they were, "human behavior" does not exclusively mean individual behavior

>>15730236
>making informed guesses and predicting are the exact same thing
No.

>Never said they were
Then why bring it up? It has no bearing on "free will". No one said a statistical aggregate has "free will".

>>15730222 me
at 1:32 look at lorenz attractor, a simple aproximation for what humans are, at any time they wobble a bit due to extra random noise into the system, but overall you get the idea of who they are and what they generally do. that extra uncontrollable noise is what fucks with predictions. depending on how much noise is there, you'll never really going to get more than certain % aproximation for what they do. you can get it maybe quite high, but you won't get it to 100% due to random noise that you can't control for. might even be at quantum foam level thing noise. and there's some stuff indicating that:
https://youtu.be/e8V4x64cYro?t=462
https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00113
and why not https://youtu.be/AaZ_RSt0KP8

>>15730241
>No.
what is the difference?

>>15730222
>>15730272
you can't predict timing that way. that's why free will is always a better model. I can know that stocks will go up and down because people are people but that has no value without timing.

>>15730275
A prediction is informed primarily by considerations of cause and effect. If you flip a biased coin and guess correctly that it will land on the side it has a bias for, you have not "predicted" shit.

>>15730301
>the weighting of this coin will cause the head to land more often, I predict it will land on heads

>>15730284
you can randomly choose a different route to work each day, based on all conditions, but in the grand scheme of things you'll always most likely end up at work, each and every time (monday to friday). ye you might take a different route but it's going to be one of a few possible ones. depends on the level of what you are predicting. noise messes with certain things more and others less. I think there may be a theoretical maximum you can ever predict, I don't think you can ever reach 100% in our universe. but you can get good enough predictions at different levels, not all levels.

>>15730321
>will cause the head to land more often
Doesn't mean it will cause it to land the way you guess on any particular flip.

>>15730325
only way to beat the odds is timing. if I know there's a huge bet that I'll be at work, I'll take the other side and drive to the beach. free will's the only model I know of that lets you do that.

>>15730341
but isn't that reacting to the newly aquired information that there is a bet you'll be at work? I'd say what determines you going to the beach or not is you being a jackass and trying to ruin the bet for the people that are sure you are going to make it at work, as you always do.
you personality which was shaped by your experiences is what determines you to be a jackass. you may feel like a generous god at times, and not be a jackass, and you see that as you having free will instead of making that choice on a full stomach or something, which you don't usually do at that time.
just because you are not aware of why you are doing certain things it does not mean free will.

>>15730327
Goes to show that you can never truly predict a coin flip, even a biased one
In fact you can never truly predict anything

>>15730358
>Goes to show that you can never truly predict a coin flip
Obviously.

>In fact you can never truly predict anything
Obviously false.

>>15730356
you can't be a jackass without free will. all you can do is be. (I disagree that betting on a market about me is being a jackass. but it's the same no matter what you call it)

>>15730364
you can be a jackass without free will, shaped a jackass by your experiences and your local conditions through each of them. they uniquely result in you. slightly different ANYTHING from your past can result in a different you. slightly different or highly different. depends on which particle influences what chain of events, one of them might trigger a powerful event that reshapes you. or maybe a meh event which doesn't move you one bit. predicting these is impossible.

>>15730370
then I'd say you're not being a jackass, you're just being. but yeah, predicting other people's free will is impossible. which is why models that try to do that have no value. the only model that adds value is that you know you have free will but it doesn't matter whether anyone else does.

>>15730415
I legit have a problem with understanding what you mean by free will. it's not something I can make sense of. I know what you mean in the sense that I too believed I had it, but with the understanding that I now have I can't really make sense out of it, the more I think about it the more schizo the concept seems to me.
how do you personally define it/understand it?

>>15730362
Name one thing you can predict

>>15730434
it models timing better than anything else

>>15730434
>>15730445
*timing of your body
doesn't model anyone else's timing

>>15728339

>>15730445
I'm not debating that a virtual thing can work to a certain degree in the absence of a more complete model.
I'm legit curious how would you try to explain it.

>>15728339
free will is obviously not real. there are sadly just people who are predetermined to believe in it, similar to how there are people who believe that aliens are mind controlling us, or a variety of other schizophrenic beliefs.

>>15730476
explain what?
>[virtual thing] [certain degree] [absence of a more compete]
why put a hedge on your own beta? we both know there's not a better model.

>>15730476
>>15730503
cf these is impossible >>15730370

>>15730484
I think determinism + minimum obligatory amount of fuzziness is what offers a good platform for the "free will" sensation thing. that random fuziness may randomly alter some bias values, offering a sort of randomness pool for some of your decisions.
remember that you are never the same, structurally speaking, across any length of time. you are constantly in a dynamic process especially at micro level. the larger structures of "you" are changing slower but smaller stuff is in constant change.

>>15730538
please lose 200 pounds you fat fuck

>>15730538
the only thing i care about is whether we, at any point, could have done differently than we did.

>>15730567
why we? you can't model that. ask if you could have done better.

>>15730573
if there really is a minimum amount of randomness which affects our decisions and behavior at least from certain points of view, you can never think you personally could have done better but you can think "the randomness" of nature could have worked out better for you in certain situations, yes. also could have worked for worse, which they didn't in other situations. tho have no idea to what extent or other stuff.

>>15730591
it's all randomness except free will. you can ignore the model and it won't matter. or you can fight it or adopt it. what's the argument for why fighting the only useful model is better than adopting it?

>>15730573
>why we?
because that's what free will is about. we and our behaviours.

>>15730604
>. or you can fight it or adopt it. what's the argument for why fighting the only useful model is better than adopting it?
you use it if you have nothing else better than it. sure, why not. you don't necessarily fight it, as you continually test it, or test other models against it. or try and see if there's better models.
probing for other stuff does not imply denying the current model. at least not while probing, maybe if you have a better model then yes, you can present it and others can start testing it etc.

>>15730721
we and our behaviors aren't modeled by free will. mine is. yours should be. tell me why it shouldn't?

>>15730742
but we agree there's nothing better
>predicting these is impossible.

>>15730743
what the fuck are you talking about? the question of whether we could have done differently applies to everyone, and there is obviously a fact of the matter.

if you really want to believe that different people are bound by different laws of physics you can do that, but you won't be taken seriously

>>15730753
can you make a random person suck you off independent of timing? physics doesn't matter, only what works and what doesn't.

>>15730775
*dependent

>>15730775
>physics doesn't matter
this isn't the board for you then. /x/ may be more your speed.

>>15730786
tell me all about how physics makes your friend randomly suck you off.
>>>/x/

>>15730132
I should say unexplained rather than unexplainable. Alleged supernatural quality in qualia and consciousness doesn't really matter. We know that consciousness and qualia exist so free will as an additional phenomenon doesn't seem impossible in comparison. It doesn't matter if soul exists or not, brain seem to run it's own virtual reality with laws independent from these of regular matter.