â„–2765458[Quote]
Yes
â„–2765460[Quote]
sdfdsfds
â„–2765462[Quote]
>>2765458Justify your answer.
â„–2765493[Quote]
up
â„–2765521[Quote]
yeah
â„–2765525[Quote]
No you always make the choice you perceive as the best.
â„–2765528[Quote]
I think that benzos prove free will doesn't exist
â„–2765533[Quote]
>>2765525A heroine addict who wants to quit drugs and has a relapse doesnt do this doe.
â„–2765536[Quote]
>>2765525To Choose is to have a choice to choose and thus you firstly need to choose to choose the best choice, If you do not choose to choose then you do not choose the best choice.
â„–2765541[Quote]
>>2765536But choosing the best choice could be entirely deterministic no?
â„–2765548[Quote]
All mater is predictable, and there is no proof of anything other than matter existing that affects our minds. Even if you take in the randomness of quantum mechanics, it would just mean that your decisions are affected by randomness and not free will.
How do soipoops refute this?
â„–2765550[Quote]
>>2765536I don't support the gempasser's argument but your refutal is flawed since if you choose to not choose then not choosing is the best choice.
â„–2765551[Quote]
>>2765533Because their brain isnt working correctly. Your brain runs on dopamine and it sees heroine as a more efficient way of gaining it than anything else or something idk im not a scientist.
â„–2765556[Quote]
>>2765541Aristotle did say that Humans only do things that they find good, But that is not enough to proove that people do not have free will, For example, Lets say there are 2 identical hamburgers, both as tasty, Which one will you choose? Both are at the same level. But you can only choose one. Then which one will you choose?
â„–2765559[Quote]
>>2765551I agree, my main disagreement was with the word personally, the fact is we make choices in our Unconsciousness.
â„–2765562[Quote]
>>2765556Studies have shown that the brain makes the choice a few microseconds, before you actually get aware what you want to choose.
â„–2765563[Quote]
only for some
â„–2765568[Quote]
>>2765562That could just be background brain noise doe.
â„–2765578[Quote]
>>2765568There are certain doubts about the experiments, but it isnt due to background noise. They repeated the trial like 500 times already.
â„–2765581[Quote]
>>2765548Why does causation by randomness exclude free will, these could be correlated?
â„–2765582[Quote]
>>2765548read this polpoops
â„–2765585[Quote]
>>2765548If all your choices rely on random matter spinning inside your brain then why aren't we in a constant state of spasm? If The movement of matter is all it takes for me too choose then why don't i randomly move my arm up and down? How does a random movement of matter give meaning to knowledge inside of my brain?
<redditLet's suppose that it is in fact like that, So we can create a machine that predicts (based on movement of matter) what one will choose, and displays it on a screen 15 seconds before it is chosen.
The Experiment looks like this:
>i want to prove the machine wrong by choosing something other than it says<the machine says i will say "green" in 15 secondsit is logical for me to say something else in order to prove the machine wrong.
â„–2765588[Quote]
>>2765585The problem is due to the inherent randomness of quantum mechanics, you cant predict any choice you will make in the future.
â„–2765590[Quote]
>>2765562That could be random braain nose, Additionally it could be explained as Your perception of your own thoughts (the one you hear in your brain) being slower than your choice that is done by your Soul
â„–2765591[Quote]
Free will does not exist, because the all of the things around us when combined will only lead to one outcome, like a ball falling due to being dropped
â„–2765592[Quote]
>>2765586>evolutionmarge?
â„–2765593[Quote]
>>2765590BINGO! These were actually some responses from philosophers to this experiment, except for the random brain noise, we now have enough understanding of the brain to roughly pinpoint what the noises in the brain are.
â„–2765596[Quote]
>>2765588>randomness of quantom mechanicsRandomness is illogical as it assumes that a force can happen not becouse of prior events
â„–2765600[Quote]
>>2765581if its random then you're not the one making the choice, luck is
>>2765585your example doesnt contradict determinism
your brain reacts to the new information it receives (reading the machine) and changes its decision, doesnt mean youre free
Think of a ball that is falling down and you launch another ball that hits it and changes its path
â„–2765606[Quote]
>>2765596No, the randomness in quantum mechanics stems from the fact, that the position of a particle is given by a wave function, if you observe it the wave function collapses and the particle has a measured position. There is a force, mainly the observer, this is an inherent problem in quantum mechanics and leasd to all kind of philosophical jargon.
â„–2765612[Quote]
>>2765600Yeah, but my counter arguemnt would be, if it were pure lack, how are we even able to do anything, it would be way more likely while doing a complex concious task that we just started spasming on the ground.
â„–2765616[Quote]
>>2765600But the machine predicts the determinism, That is the point.
Either the machine can predict, or it cannot predict the movement of matter.
>ball falling downNot the same doe, The ball doesn't predict anything, While the machine analyses every matter of universe.
additioannly if you were able to change your choice then that means that there exists a "You" that analyses meaning and givees meaning.
Matter in itself does not have meaning. There must be something that gives it that meaning
â„–2765620[Quote]
>>2765609Everyphono cares because if free will is not real basically every way in which we organize society is incoherent
For example, it would not make sense to assume responsibility when we do not control our own actions therefore our current judicial system is absurd
â„–2765632[Quote]
Humans react to their environment, and the environment is 100% unpredictable, so yes in a given setting you can 100% predict what a human can do, it doesn't mean you can predict reality.
â„–2765636[Quote]
>>2765620>would not make sense to assume responsibility when we do not control our own actionsNot true. It doesn't matter if choice is an illusion, if someone breaks the law they should be punished because it prevents future crimes
â„–2765637[Quote]
>>2765620>Uhhhhmmm chuddy, you can't arrest me for 'ild 'orn and 'ape, don't you know free will doesn't exist??You just execute these people anyway, who cares if they aren't technically "choosing" anything? It still doesn't matter at all except to redditbrain midwits who think they're smarter than they really are
â„–2765640[Quote]
>>2765637>>2765636I said "current" judicial system nusois
â„–2765644[Quote]
>>2765640So what's the new judicial system for people who have been soyentifically determined to be completely deterministic
â„–2765648[Quote]
If you could ever conclusively prove if free will existed or not, you would technically have the ability to perfectly predict the future as well so the system of government wouldn't matter. But of course you wouldn't be choosing to do this anyway so why discuss it
â„–2765651[Quote]
>>2765640The philosophy of it, or its functions? You seem to imply both
â„–2765652[Quote]
The thing with movemeent being random is that it means that the forces that were applied to the objeect moving were random and thus they were not caused by any previous Forces (otherwise they wouldn't be random, they would be determined by previous forces)
and if a force can change without any logical previous force applied to it then it means that logic just 'ACKED! itself becouse something changed without Any reason to (as no forces caused it) Which in return Implies 2 possibilities:
>a higher force (god, soul, sprit)
<an unknown force at the same level
â„–2765657[Quote]
>>2765616If the machine only an analyzes your brain, then it is fair to assume it won't be able to predict your choices unless the outside environment does not change, and in your example it does
If the machine analyzes the entire universe, then it would be able to know how you will react to your brain reading the information provided by the machine
â„–2765664[Quote]
>>2765612Btw now that I think about actually calculating these probabilites it makes even less sense, just think about it the brain has on a lower estimate maybe 10000 atoms that affect our actions, if these atoms determined the choice our choices would be extremily inconsitent. Even if there was only a error margin of 99,99%, there would still be a 40% chance of one of the particles to not behave like excpected leading to an incoherent choice.
â„–2765665[Quote]
>>2765657Yeah that's the point, the machine anaalises the entire universe
â„–2765666[Quote]
>>2765644As you guys said, it would be a system based on trying to remove danger from society, not one based on revenge/reeducation. Our current judicial system works on the latter version.
â„–2765671[Quote]
>>2765665Then it would be able to know how you will react to you reading the machine
â„–2765675[Quote]
>>2765533Why do you believe that free will exists?
â„–2765678[Quote]
>>2765666Re-education is indeed gay as hell and never works, even Theognis in ancient times knew that "education has never made a bad man good," it's all in the blood. But revenge is keyed (you just kill bad people until people are good on average)
â„–2765679[Quote]
>>2765652The forces that were applied were random, no this is factually wrong, Even when there is a lack of physical forces particles behave this way, and there is a reason why it changes, another object interacts with the wave equation and forces it to collapse, then a random position ismeasured.
â„–2765684[Quote]
>>2765665There can never be such an machine, by Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle we can never truly determine the exact position and velocity of an object at the same time.
â„–2765687[Quote]
>>2765675Uhhhh because I feel like I'm making choices and I can't ever prove that I am not unless I have a magical gigacomputer that is larger than the observable universe
â„–2765689[Quote]
>>2765675Depends on what you understand as free will.
â„–2765690[Quote]
>>2765671Yeah, and then it's an endless loop
>the machine predits 1<i choose 2>the machine predits 2<i choose 1>the machine predits 1And on and on and on,
Then we arrive at the conclusion that the machine did not find which number i choose in the end
â„–2765693[Quote]
>>2765684Not to mention that a machine that could compute the state of every particle in the universe would necessarily contain more particles than the universe and be larger than it. Unless you think you can fit floating computations for multiple atoms in a single atom
â„–2765695[Quote]
>>2765690DDOS'd the God computer award
â„–2765697[Quote]
>>2765689It is the ability to choose. I have never heard of another definition of it
â„–2765705[Quote]
>>2765693The smallest thing that can simulate an electron is an electron.
â„–2765706[Quote]
>>2765697Well what's the null hypothesis? I apparently have the ability to change my mind if I "want" to, and perhaps that's an illusion and I was always destined to do so without any real choice, but it's impossible to ever prove that.
â„–2765710[Quote]
>>2765697Then define the ability to choose more precisely, do you mean choosing conciously or subconciously?
â„–2765712[Quote]
>>2765679Yeah but that is the point, If an object can move without any forces applied to it (becouse the movement is in its inherit nature) then what caused it to move? Did it make a force out of thin air? Did it change matter into energy?
â„–2765713[Quote]
>>2765612>>2765664The thing with quantum mechanics is that even though each atom behaves by chance the probability of them doing anything out of what we expect is extremely low, which is why classical physics treat matter as deterministic
For example think of heating up something, its technically possible for some atom to do something strange but its an extremely low chance and we can conclude that when you heat up water it will always become steam.
I'm not a phyisicist or even a physics student but this is what I understand.
â„–2765715[Quote]
>>2765705So the size of the universe (or maybe it IS the universe… spooky)
â„–2765717[Quote]
>>2765699If Reddit did not have such a soy userbase it would be a paradise
â„–2765727[Quote]
>>2765717Could be a trvke, if only Eglin air force base didn't use it as a psyop test range
â„–2765729[Quote]
>>2765713>The thing with quantum mechanics is that even though each atom behaves by chance the probability of them doing anything out of what we expect is extremely lowYou have never calculated an actual wave equation have you?
The thing is for example the sun only works because of my reasoning above, one out of like 1000000000 particles actually does the improbable thing and phases through the potential barrier causing nuclear fusion.
â„–2765733[Quote]
>>2765690The machine would be able to predict every process in your brain that makes you choose one or another option until you hit the 15 seconds mark at which point it will have already known which one you finally chose
â„–2765737[Quote]
>>2765713I kind of don't believe we even know this stuff to any decent degree of certainty yet.
â„–2765740[Quote]
>>2765715Maybe, there are all kind of weird theories out there.
â„–2765741[Quote]
>>2765710Both. Usually the distinction is not made, so I don't understand the point of this
â„–2765744[Quote]
>>2765733Yes but the machine should be able to predict the entire process before the 15 second mark
â„–2765752[Quote]
>>2765741Let me put it simply, I think there is some kind of other entity choosing for us.
â„–2765754[Quote]
>>2765727>if only Eglin air force base didn't use it as a psyop test rangeMarge
â„–2765759[Quote]
>>2765744And it is. There's nothing stopping it. We go back to the start of the argument; the machine knows what your reaction will be upon you seeing the information, and any subsequent actions you will take.
â„–2765769[Quote]
>>2765451 (OP)Yes. Fee to choose, but not free from consequences, good or bad. Agency.
â„–2765771[Quote]
>>2765758Yeah some ideas are rather out there.
â„–2765785[Quote]
>>2765759Then in theory Shouldn't the machine ack?
It goes in an endless loop of that number being chosen and then changing it & vice versa
â„–2765787[Quote]
>>2765754In 2013, Reddit did a survey of "which city has the most redditors??" and stupidly released the data without interpreting it. It showed that by far most Reddit users came from the township that contains nothing but Eglin air force base in Florida, with a population less than 3000 people.
Most narratives and opinions on Reddit have been directly seeded by intelligence agencies since at least the early 2000s. Oh and Gislaine Maxwell was a power moderator of almost every main board (yes that one geg)
â„–2765792[Quote]
>>2765752This was Descartes' theory, that there is some other entity that doesn't follow the laws of matter (thinking substance). It's a sound reasoning but there's no proof of this substance existing for now.
â„–2765795[Quote]
>>2765785Well, assuming you're immortal and have the will to keep changing your number and there's no time limit then yes it would be an endless loop until the end of the universe.
â„–2765806[Quote]
>>2765792Well from my knowledge of physics I believe it exists, since there are huge ontological inconsistencies in QM and QFT.
â„–2765814[Quote]
>>2765687That does not prove it
>>2765706>Well what's the null hypothesisI stated mine here:
>>2765591>>2765778What the
â„–2765829[Quote]
>>2765787>Reddit did a survey of "which city has the most redditors??" and stupidly released the data Source? This is big if true
>Gislaine Maxwell was a power moderator of almost every main boardI know about this. Her account still exists and it has a post defending pedophilia that is still up
â„–2765835[Quote]
>>2765814>That does not prove itYou do not prove your assertion. Which way does Occam's razor face on this? What's the null hypothesis? Who has the onus of proof?
â„–2765839[Quote]
>>2765829Idk how hard you like your evidence, but they almost immediately realized their huge mistake and deleted the post… But not before somechud 'chived the page
https://archive.ph/uBTSG â„–2765854[Quote]
>>2765829>>2765839Also btw Eglin has been known from other incidents to contain a cyberwarfare division that has been involved in several domestic social media astroturf psyops
â„–2765863[Quote]
>>2765824Idgi xhe's dressed as a standard NYC genx or boomer
â„–2765866[Quote]
>>2765835If we can not measure or examine it, why would we believe that it proves anything?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>2765817>>2765839Thank you. I will save this somewhere
â„–2765879[Quote]
>>2765863It was just a joke, the entity that controls us is our own soul, the soul is not the conscious, but that which cant be perceived.
â„–2765883[Quote]
>>2765866>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidenceBut which hypothesis is the one being asserted without evidence? The hypothesis that we have free will, or the hypothesis that we don't?
I presume the only "evidence-based" opinion on this is to be agnostic, but if we admit that we can never know if we have free will or not, it's likely safer to assume that we do so that we don't become solipsistic and make poor choices because we assume everything is on rails
â„–2765885[Quote]
>>2765879This is kinda what I actually believe
â„–2765895[Quote]
>>2765866>>2765883My bad, I just saw this:
>>2765591I don't personally think that counts as evidence, that's more reasoning by analogy
â„–2765911[Quote]
>>2765883We do not have proof for an part of us that causes choices, but do have proof that many things can make us choose to do something (like being held at gunpoint) with high accuracy. There is therefore more evidence that we do not have free will than evidence that we do have it
â„–2765912[Quote]
I would say somewhat but not really
â„–2765918[Quote]
>>2765911That's still reasoning by analogy. The possibility of exterior coercion doesn't imply that no interior mechanism exists in its absence, it could simply be that the risk analysis in that situation becomes so one-sided that the vast majority of possible choices flip to the same outcome. Even then, there are some people who choose to thug out and send it when they're held at gunpoint and essentially choose death. That does happen.
â„–2765931[Quote]
>>2765883>but if we admit that we can never know if we have free will or notI believe that as long as there is no conclusive evidence that shows that "thinking substance" exists or does not exist, we cannot make a conclusion. But for now, it is best to assume that free will does exist simply because it's the best option for human happiness and society as a whole.
â„–2765950[Quote]
>>2765947yassssss💅💅
â„–2765954[Quote]
>>2765895>I don't personally think that counts as evidence, that's more reasoning by analogyI said it to join the conversation. I wanted to leave the details for the questions and criticism
>>2765918>That's still reasoning by analogyThat's not an analogy
>it could simply be that the risk analysis in that situation becomes so one-sided that the vast majority of possible choices flip to the same outcomeThat is a theory that can not be proven, while there is overwhelming amount of evidence that a circumstance will lead to an expected outcome. The lack of a free will explains this better than the belief in choices
â„–2765968[Quote]
>>2765879How do you know that we have souls?
>>2765931>it is best to assume that free will does exist simply because it's the best option for human happiness and society as a whole.We could have the same laws and ethics now even if we did not assume that everyone has free will
â„–2765973[Quote]
>>2765954But it doesn't always lead to an expected outcome. Kind of shoots a hole through this already shaky logic
â„–2765975[Quote]
>>2765451 (OP)No if you're a materialist. Probably if you're a substance duelist.
â„–2765982[Quote]
>>2765451 (OP)Yes. What the fuck would be the point of a universe without free will? So God can watch the same movie of existence over and over? That's retarded. Without free will love is meaningless.
â„–2765985[Quote]
in my opinion I think its too influenced to call it free will, like how you can make a bad decision while feeling extreme emotions that makes zero sense to you in hindsight
â„–2765988[Quote]
>>2765985Low impulse control award
â„–2765992[Quote]
>>2765973In rare scenarios that happens, but the accuracy is so high, that it must prove that under usual conditions we will always do a certain action. Choice does not apply
â„–2765994[Quote]
>>2765988have you ever made an odd choice under extreme emotions? you aren't an exception to that.
â„–2765995[Quote]
>>2765968The most important problem with belief in determinism is that humans have a primal desire to feel free which would not be satisfied if we find out we are not actually free. And as for society as a whole it would mean that everything that bases itself off the concept of responsibility is incoherent. So it would be absurd to reward work, good grades, good behaviour, etc. And it would also lead to nihilism in people which would give them an excuse to do jack shit and rape and murder on the street.
Maybe it would lead to some good changes from a chuddy perspective like the implementation of eugenics and basing justice on removing possible criminals instead of rehabilitation, but I'd say the tradeoffs are not worth it.
â„–2765997[Quote]
>>2765992Seems like a handwave to me. "Reality is grimly deterministic, except for all these exceptions, but uhhhh those are just selfish little fucks that don't count anyway because um they just don't"
â„–2765998[Quote]
>>2765994Oh I have lol I'm just yankin ya chain
â„–2766011[Quote]
>>2765997It is probably due to a mental illness and not a regular state, which most experiments do not account for
Yes, certain people will make different decisions, that does not prove that they have free will, that means that they will always do another action in the same circumstances, because studies have determined that too
â„–2766027[Quote]
>>2766011At some point we're just playing pachinko I guess. The ball, while subject to iron laws of physics, falls down through the pegs and shows apparently chaotic motion as a result of slight variations in initial conditions, but it's difficult to model or prove. I still don't see convincing enough evidence for either assumption myself
â„–2766031[Quote]
>>2765998Oh sorry then geg
â„–2766051[Quote]
>>2766039This is a better summary of the field of quantum physics than most
â„–2766067[Quote]
>>2765995>humans have a primal desire to feel free which would not be satisfied if we find out we are not actually free.They do not have to believe it, frankly I do not believe that much has to change much to account for it. Just alter the language a bit, and then the law does not assume free will. This only matters when determining the answers to the most essential questions of our existence
>>2766027The variation is due to how it was dropped and not randomness. That is what made me disbelieve in free will, though it is not the best argument for it
â„–2766095[Quote]
>>2766067>The variation is due to how it was dropped and not randomnessYeah that's what I said, I see your point but I'm still not fully convinced, which is heckin valid o algo
â„–2766105[Quote]
>>2766095It is science. If we consistently get the same result, it is true
â„–2766140[Quote]
>>2766105I don't think there's nearly enough credible data to prove that conclusively
>But-but the studies?? The science?I hope it continues but right now we probably don't have the capability to move beyond agnostic on this one
â„–2766157[Quote]
>>2766140What do you believe is required to prove it?
>>2766148Seriously?
â„–2766181[Quote]
Okay PND if we're being pedantic, but the rate of the God Computer That Knows What You Will Choose deciding to execute blacks will be let's say "structurally racist"
â„–2766187[Quote]
>>2766166I'm glad you that share my belief, but you did it just to justify something and not because it is true…
â„–2766228[Quote]
>>2766187I'm having a laugh, I am full of whimsy.
But there is absolutely more statistical evidence that blacks are biologically antisocial than there is evidence that we have no free will.
>Libsharts invent the God computer which knows the entire future of the universe>The God computer immediately says "NIGGERS fucking SUCK!!!">Libplorps immediately unplug the God computer and say "this is actually evidence that black people are uniquely disadvantaged and we need mo money fo dem programz n sheeeeeit"You know that's how it would shake out geeeg
â„–2766971[Quote]
Bump
â„–2769851[Quote]
up
â„–2769855[Quote]
yes /thread
â„–2769863[Quote]
Despite what the hordes of uneducated leftists are telling you, Peter Thiel is actually really cool.
Palantir Technologies is a company that sells a software which uses AI to organise data. Intelligence Agencies often use this software. The company was founded by many Right Wing figures, and according to one of the founders, Palantir Technologies was founded to crush communism.
Peter Thiel uses his vast wealth to fund the Right Wing. He funded Vance, who with Charlie Kirk, lobbied the President to put JD Vance in as Vice President. JD Vance is a well-read intellectual on everything from Neo-Reactionary to populism. Peter Thiel is defending Right Wing values and the West via funding.
Peter Thiel is a huge fan of Lord of the Rings, so he named his company after something from Lord of the Rings. Peter Thiel is a MAGA-aligned Patriot working to defend our nations.
These influencers are repeating left wing talking points from third wordlist. Nobody can actually explain what they are doing.
Palantir Technologies are used to monitor terrorism. He was referring to stopping European Far Right terrorism, and also mentions it helped islamist terrorism. By removing violent RWingers, it now lets non violent Right Wingers win elections and save their nations.
Palantir Technologies' software is literally used to help deport the 3 million illegals Trump has removed since he took office.
Peter Thiel funds many Right Wing figures, some of which are antisemites. Why would Thiel fund antisemitism?
ALLEGEDLY, Fuentes met with Peter Thiel in 2022, there was a meeting that went well. This meeting was to discuss Nick Fuentes getting funded by Peter Thiel. Fuentes never got a call back, and from that day on, Nick Fuentes hated Peter Thiel and started ranting about Thiel-money. ALLEGEDLY.
â„–2769865[Quote]
>>2766228even though tay ai was learning from conversations with its users and that's why it became hitlerpilled
â„–2769866[Quote]
yes, but it's undesirable.