Page 3 of 4
#81
If you think the ordering of thoughts in your head has anymore direction than that of the nature of the ordering of molecules I'd have to ask you "where does this divine quality comes from?"

Now that's not to say it's random.... molecules have chemical and physical properties that allow them to be configured in one respect more easily than in others. But then again, that's not to say they will act in such a fashion. Individuals are more or less the same; the implications of their genetic and social conditions endows them a probability to take one course of action over another.

The idea that we have a will is something different. We construct a virtual reality through linguistic interaction. You're introduced to a thing, given it's symbol, and then present that symbol as if it were the thing-in-itself when you refer to it. Will (strictly in terms of "free will"), soul, spirit, all these are a symbol referring to an individual without the physical constructs that define an individual. If the reference point only exists within the language in which it's constructed then the word LITERALLY has no meaning. Might as well say "mankind is endowed with gibilty gobilty goo, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?"

However, if you refer to "free will"
as a relation between how an individual is per-subscribed to act as set by the circumstances of their life versus how they actually do act...well just think about the behavior of electrons; they're likely to act one way, but those few beat the odds.

We don't understand all the variables that dictate the behavior of matter, so clearly we don't understand the behavior of matter or people.
Quote by mcw00t
"so you mean if the father is sterile, the kid will be sterile too?"

Proof God exists and evolution is a lie:
Quote by elguitarrista3
the prove is u because u did n create urself and ur parents dindt and their parents didnt and so on and we are not monkeys peace

#82
Quote by frusciante.ve
You dont control anything in your life... its just your brain reacting to its enviroment, you just go with the flow.

But the way your brain reacts to the environment is based on ones personality. And personality is something only you yourself control.

If someone were to want to fight me, I can control wheather to walk away, or throw the first punch. I'm not being controlled to do one or the other.

Logic disproven. Think philosophically harder next time... ya dick.
#83
Quote by teh_nubs101
But the way your brain reacts to the environment is based on ones personality. And personality is something only you yourself control.

If someone were to want to fight me, I can control wheather to walk away, or throw the first punch. I'm not being controlled to do one or the other.

Logic disproven. Think philosophically harder next time... ya dick.

But think about it, every (apparent) choice you make is defined by what you are at that exact moment, the things that define you are beliefs and preferences and, ultimately, at the root, we have no control over these. If you look at it from the moment of birth then everything is cause and effect, we only have the illusion of free will. We're even only one of few species who even have a concept of 'self', this doesn't mean that Self is a prerequisive of sentience, it means it's an add-on that our brains have given us. It;s illusory. You are not the voice inside your head, you are not Ego.
#84
Quote by raoooos
np


you stole that joke from me bitch
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#85
Quote by teh_nubs101
But the way your brain reacts to the environment is based on ones personality. And personality is something only you yourself control.

If someone were to want to fight me, I can control wheather to walk away, or throw the first punch. I'm not being controlled to do one or the other.

Logic disproven. Think philosophically harder next time... ya dick.


Personality's a product of genes and environment, neither of which you had any say in.

That said, in the everyday usage of 'free will' we do have it. That is simply that our actions can be said to be the non-coerced result of our own reasoning. But ultimately that reasoning is deterministic. It's when people start trying to fit one of these meanings of free will onto the other that we get a cluster**** like this.
Quote by Nosferatu Man

T-shirts are a sign of degeneration and decline.
#86
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
yeah man
spot on except it infers order, in fact. It's a lame term but when I'm describing this to other people I use the phrase 'Divine Fate' cos in a sense that's what it is

If we ascribe to the (incorrect) notion that we're separate from nature, the Newtonian Model shows us how the material world has to abide by strict laws of motion, this means all of the material world is predictable. If we were to know the direction and velocity of every every particle in the universe, we'd be able to punch the variables into a computer and get a model of how the universe would look x years into the future

That's a given, but then we have ourselves. I've always considered consciousness/personality as result of internal and external factors, genes and environment. This means we too are predictable, there are just a buttload more variables giving the appearance of chaos. If you think about it, 'pon de planck length , the trajectory of our thoughts follow a chain, as you said.

This throws the notion of free will out the ****ing window and proves how none of us even exist and it's cool as ****.

On a separate note, dissolution of the concept of 'meaning' gives everything profound purpose. Instead of it (whatever it may be, in this example, a particle a house a brick etc) existing for a specific need, it self-necessitates its own existence and meaning is a prerequisite and the purpose of it existing is it existing.

(:
nice thread 9/10
would be 10 if you didn't say it was random


Using your water analogy, imagine a pebble falling into a river. If we knew the speed/depth (all the variables we'd need for the calculation) of the river we could accurately measure where the stone would be (x)time into the future. We're that pebble, Maya is that river.


All the classic signs pseudo-science are here:

1. Starting of with scientific terminology: speed, depth, variables, time, x

2. Use of analogy without any proof that there is any correlation. "We're that pebble". Oh yeah?

3. Drawing profound conclusions involving life, death, and the immortality of the soul

4. Mentioning supposedly-wise ancient civilisations

But your science is well out-of-date. The Newtonian mechanical model has been known to be inadequate description of the known universe for a hundred years or more. Check out quantum theory, although this has also been hijacked by the woo-pedlars because it appears to say nothing is certain.

That being said, I don't have any answers to the nature of consciousness myself. But I don't just make stuff up and base my life on it. I just say "I don't know".
#87
Quote by teh_nubs101
But the way your brain reacts to the environment is based on ones personality. And personality is something only you yourself control.

If someone were to want to fight me, I can control wheather to walk away, or throw the first punch. I'm not being controlled to do one or the other.

Logic disproven. Think philosophically harder next time... ya dick.


That we FEEL we have free will is obvious. What you don't seem to understand that the philosophical question is whether we REALLY have free will.

You think "you" make the decision to walk away. What does that actually mean? If you are your brain and your brain is made of matter, everything you do or think follows physical laws, so no free will.

The only way you can keep free will is if "you" are not your brain and, whatever "you" are does not follow physical laws. Unfortunately there is no evidence to suggest this.

Our free will is real enough to us from the inside but I don't think it exists in the universal reality. Someone looking from outside would see our brains working to the laws of physics, and our thoughts and behaviour following suit. It would see us as deterministic, if complicated, computers.
#88
Quote by frusciante.ve
Im not good explaining my thoughts but Ill try to make it clear: everything is ruled by randomness, every single thought you have is a direct consequence of a previous event in your life, while you think you control what you do... you actually dont, its just your brain reacting to something.

You could say "oh yeah, well Ill touch my nose while I tap my foot... I decided to do that... its not randomness", but actually its a direct response from your brain to prove myself wrong and for previous events in your life... the first thing your brain comes up with is touching your nose while taping your feet.

You dont control anything in your life... its just your brain reacting to its enviroment, you just go with the flow.

Thanks

So what you're actualy saying is that everything is a result of 'cause and effect' rather than actual randomness. If everything was genuinely ruled by randomness, 'cause' would not lead to 'effect' because the two would be completely 'random' events rather than one event being responsible for the other.
#89
Quote by leeb rocks
Personality's a product of genes and environment, neither of which you had any say in.

That said, in the everyday usage of 'free will' we do have it. That is simply that our actions can be said to be the non-coerced result of our own reasoning. But ultimately that reasoning is deterministic. It's when people start trying to fit one of these meanings of free will onto the other that we get a cluster**** like this.

I don't have much to add, I just want to quote this so people see it again.


Even assuming your mind is entirely physically determined (which I would argue it is), you still have will as you've always thought you have.
Your reasoning and preferences and personality are all part of this physical machine and so physically determined, but that doesn't mean that when you act it isn't still because of your personality and preferences and projects etc. Everything that you value of YOU is still coming from YOU.


I should mention though that even assuming the mind is separate from body and thus not dictated by physical determinism, you're still in the same situation.
If you give someone a choice they think out which action they'd take and take it.
Say we then went back in time and watched again, or somehow replicated the EXACT situation and state of mind again: would they do anything different?

Of course not, why would they? And indeed, why you want it to be the case that they would?

Given a choice between x and y I might always choose y because of my personality, but does that mean I am not still meaningfully exercising my will? It's not free in a manner of speaking in that I wouldn't do otherwise, but the action I would do still springs from me.

If you're between determinism and indeterminism (at the very least on a personal level) it seems obvious to me that determinism preserves a lot more of what we want to call our own will and person and sense of responsibility than anything indeterminate does.

Essentially: why is us acting for no reason better than us acting for a reason? Would you hold someone more responsible for a spontaneous and random action than one entirely determined by who they are?
#90
If everything has a cause and effect then it's not truly random. If you randomly spin a spinner then where it lands is bias to how hard you spun it.
#92
Tide goes in tide goes out

There's no explaining that.
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#93
The thing about killswitch that gets me is that he's so interested that if he put down the blunts for a week and read credible literature he could be really knowledgeable about this stuff.
#94
Quote by Jiimmyyy
This is called determinism. It's widely accepted to be true among the scientific community I believe.


mfw quantum mechanics
#95
yo ts did u ever think that yr brain isnt actually the origin of consciousness but rather simply the device that acts as a receiver or a conductor?
#96
Quote by Zaphikh
The universe is technically 'nothing' because of how far astral bodies are from one another. Consider how pointless that statement actually is. Distance is irrelevant - what matters is... matter... and its sub-constituents.


Matter is mostly nothing as well, actually. Atoms are made up of about 99% empty space.
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
#97
Quote by MAC2322
Matter is mostly nothing as well, actually. Atoms are made up of about 99% empty space.


So?
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#98
Quote by willT08
The thing about killswitch that gets me is that he's so interested that if he put down the blunts for a week and read credible literature he could be really knowledgeable about this stuff.

Well, apparently, he's studying physics. I just hope he doesn't smoke when he tries to study or is in labs.
#99
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Well, apparently, he's studying physics. I just hope he doesn't smoke when he tries to study or is in labs.


It's obvious he's studying physics: physics is compulsory until A-levels.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#100
Quote by Todd Hart
It's obvious he's studying physics: physics is compulsory until A-levels.

No, I mean, apparently that's what he's studying in university.
#101
Quote by willT08
The thing about killswitch that gets me is that he's so interested that if he put down the blunts for a week and read credible literature he could be really knowledgeable about this stuff.

I'm doing a physics and philosophy degree, I did a physics and maths foundation degree last year and I got an A* and A in physics and maths (got an E and a U in the mock) at GCSE before that. My school used to think I were retarded too so they made me do this aptitude test, turned out I was in the top 5 percentile (it was a private school and so not full of dumbasses) but was just lazy as **** and put out no more than 3% effort ever. They showed me a graph and everything. I'm lazy as **** and it makes me come across as a retard.

Quote by Jehannum
All the classic signs pseudo-science are here:

1. Starting of with scientific terminology: speed, depth, variables, time, x

they were relevant to the point I was making, ? You've even later gone on to say how the pebble analogy I used had no correlations, how are all those not correlations?

Quote by Jehannum
2. Use of analogy without any proof that there is any correlation. "We're that pebble". Oh yeah?

Ok, if matter is essentially energy, energy that abides by a strict set of laws, and all that could ever be used to define us is this energy/matter, then we're intrinsically part of this system. Regardless of whether you believe in a mind/body separation or not (I'm proposing that there isn't one). A better way of using that analogy would be to say we're a water molecule within that river. Everything is cause and effect.

Quote by Jehannum
3. Drawing profound conclusions involving life, death, and the immortality of the soul

I didn't do that, at all, I haven't even talked about the soul at all

Quote by Jehannum
4. Mentioning supposedly-wise ancient civilisations

neither did I do this, ?, huh?

Quote by Jehannum
But your science is well out-of-date. The Newtonian mechanical model has been known to be inadequate description of the known universe for a hundred years or more. Check out quantum theory, although this has also been hijacked by the woo-pedlars because it appears to say nothing is certain.

I am aware of Chaos Theory, String Theory, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Membrane Theory etc and their implications to what I'd said, I just didn't include them in it cos I'm, lazy. Everything on the quantum level has the appearance of chaos, as is believed by most of the scientific community. The reason I stopped at Newton's level was just to show how at one time the paths of the planets etc were thought to be unpredictable, until Newton sorted that shit out.

The butterfly effect is a better analogy for this, the further you extend the time variable (sorry am I not allowed to use scientific terms idk) the more apparent chaos the graph (is the use of the word graph too pseudo-sciencey? help) will convey. But I'm sure you'd agree that it's only the appearance of chaos and if you disagree, well, idk, you're wrong.

Quote by magnus_maximus
If he thinks quantum mechanics is random he doesn't understand quantum mechanics.

ofc not, that's what I meant with the pebble analogy
(:
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 12, 2013,
#102
Quote by magnus_maximus
If he thinks quantum mechanics is random he doesn't understand quantum mechanics.

Hey, I didn't say he understood a thing. I'm just saying he told me that he is studying physics in university one time when he tried to take a physics concept and then twisted it all to hell to try to prove his point. He may have done it in this thread actually.

I blocked him after that. Sad thing is, he'd probably be a decent UG'er if he laid off the ganja.
#103
Quote by Todd Hart
So?


So nothing. He said that the distances between galaxies are so vast that the universe is mostly nothing, which is true. He then said that the only thing that matters is matter, and I pointed out that matter is mostly nothing as well.
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
#104
Quote by magnus_maximus
Such is the way of the world, my friend.

True, true.

Quote by MAC2322
So nothing. He said that the distances between galaxies are so vast that the universe is mostly nothing, which is true. He then said that the only thing that matters is matter, and I pointed out that matter is mostly nothing as well.

But you're only half-correct.

As magnus pointed, atoms are not that simple.
#105
Quote by MAC2322
Matter is mostly nothing as well, actually. Atoms are made up of about 99% empty space.

#106
Quote by magnus_maximus
That's only half true. Entropy dictates that everything eventually goes to order; that is, the universe craves balance. Things will always go from high to low energy states. They don't do this randomly - it is measurable and ordered, not random. This is where the idea of "randomness" fails completely.

Ah man, I'd really really love to talk about entropy/balance but you'd have to expect really slow replies cos I'd be jerking off while thinking about it. Entropy is probably my favourite concept in physics, its prevalence in most of nature is astounding, and again only shows us how things HAVE to be in order. I'm not saying things are random, in case that's how I'm coming across. Entropy in the energy states of an atom and its electrons are the best example of this. Entropy. I believe, is the fundamental nature of the universe. Yeah, the balance thing too. The universe wants to be in its lowest possible state of energy exertion, that's all any of this shit is, the total energy output of the universe reverting to 0, and presumably starting off the universe again (0 is synonymous with infinity in this sense). I'm gonna get bashed again for saying this but it's what the Buddhist concepts of detatchment and yin/yang are about. Balance isnt about attaining 50% of each, it's accepting that neither exist other than states of a singularity. Accepting True Balance extends this singularity towards its true nature; infinity/0. E.g. White and Black exist only as conditions of 'shade', shade is the Truth, black/white is a tangible representation.


Quote by magnus_maximus
Such is the way of the world, my friend.

fs all I said was that using light as an apparatus of measurement (you apparently do physics too so I know you'll know this, it's how they calculate planck measurements (time/space)) and observing it upon the 4th dimension we'd experience a sense of timelessness, and if space is a measurement of the time it takes light to traverse a distance, then it shows that both time and space is an illusion. Time is only our perception of the 4d anyway. He blocked me because he was a flatlander that disagreed with me when I tried to explain the concept of a vertical axis.

Another example of showing how space doesn't exist (that I can't remember fully) was about the closer you travel to the speed of light towards an approaching photon, the time taken for you to get to that photon exponentially approaches 0. I really can't remember what exactly it was, but that was it's basis, maybe you'll know idk.
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 12, 2013,
#107
Quote by Jiimmyyy
This is called determinism. It's widely accepted to be true among the scientific community I believe.


Scientifically speaking, a probabilistic model better describes the fundamental particles that the universe consists of, than does a causal one.

Quote by magnus_maximus
That's only half true. Entropy dictates that everything eventually goes to order; that is, the universe craves balance. Things will always go from high to low energy states. They don't do this randomly - it is measurable and ordered, not random. This is where the idea of "randomness" fails completely.


Indeed, it does this because the maximum entropy occurs when all microstates are equally likely. (that is, at equilibrium dS = 0)

I don't know if 'ordered' and 'disordered' are the proper terms, but for simplification, entropy is considered as 'disorder'.
Last edited by beadhangingOne at Feb 12, 2013,
#108
ITT: Stoner physics
Quote by mcw00t
"so you mean if the father is sterile, the kid will be sterile too?"

Proof God exists and evolution is a lie:
Quote by elguitarrista3
the prove is u because u did n create urself and ur parents dindt and their parents didnt and so on and we are not monkeys peace

#109
Quote by Todd Hart

'It's a poor poet who must fall silent when he discovers that the sun is a 1 million kilometer wide ball of fusing hydrogen.'
- Someone I can't remember.


I don't have anything to add besides the fact that you're right, and that this reminds me of one of my favorite Poe pieces where he's all bummed that science is taking mysticism out of the world and the wonder and magic is gone. I've always liked that thought.
#110
I have been thinking about this, and I had the same idea as you do.

But it has been puzzling me, let's say one would have a supercomputer to know how my brain is going to react to everything. Could he really predict, whether I am going to eat the cookie that he would give to me or not, if I stood in front of him and I was aware that he is testing whether I will do it or not? Could he say, you're going to eat it, and I really would? I feel I have the power not to eat it, and vice versa.
Am I missing something?
Not sure if a sig is a necessity.
#111
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

But you're only half-correct.

As magnus pointed, atoms are not that simple.


Even accounting for quantum mechanical effects like superposition and stuff, the fact remains that only a tiny, tiny amount of the volume taken up by an atom is comprised of matter. I don't know why people are raising issue with this, I thought it was a pretty straightforward observation.

Pre-post EDIT: After reading through the previous pages of this thread, I can see that this is something you guys have already been over and how hilariously retarded it is that I brought it up when I did. Carry on, then.
My signature lacks content. It is, however, blue.
#112
Quote by blake1221
I don't have anything to add besides the fact that you're right, and that this reminds me of one of my favorite Poe pieces where he's all bummed that science is taking mysticism out of the world and the wonder and magic is gone. I've always liked that thought.

I wonder what Poe would've thought of "them wonderboxes" (computers)...
#113
Quote by Guodlca
I have been thinking about this, and I had the same idea as you do.

But it has been puzzling me, let's say one would have a supercomputer to know how my brain is going to react to everything. Could he really predict, whether I am going to eat the cookie that he would give to me or not, if I stood in front of him and I was aware that he is testing whether I will do it or not? Could he say, you're going to eat it, and I really would? I feel I have the power not to eat it, and vice versa.
Am I missing something?


You are missing something, because the computer would have taken into account that you know you're being tested. I'll warn you, though - Once you accept determinism, you'll feel kinda shitty for a couple of days. I know I did, at least. It's a slightly dehumanizing feeling. I mean, we still have some form of "free will," but compared to what we're inclined to think, it's more like an illusion. You just have to learn to be happy with that illusion.
#114
Quote by Guodlca
I have been thinking about this, and I had the same idea as you do.

But it has been puzzling me, let's say one would have a supercomputer to know how my brain is going to react to everything. Could he really predict, whether I am going to eat the cookie that he would give to me or not, if I stood in front of him and I was aware that he is testing whether I will do it or not? Could he say, you're going to eat it, and I really would? I feel I have the power not to eat it, and vice versa.
Am I missing something?

Assuming it does know you entirely and the situation entirely (as mentioned above, also assuming it factors in that you know it's predicting, if you do), then aye there's no real reason it couldn't predict perfectly everything you'd do.

You do still have the power to eat it or not, just the computer knows which power you will exercise. You're still as "free" as you were before, just someone is also predicting what you're doing too.

You're still acting on your own dispositions and reasoning, it doesn't take anything away from who or what you are that given all knowledge of who you are someone could predict that. They're still predicting what you are doing.
#116
Quote by blake1221
I don't have anything to add besides the fact that you're right, and that this reminds me of one of my favorite Poe pieces where he's all bummed that science is taking mysticism out of the world and the wonder and magic is gone. I've always liked that thought.


name of the piece?
#118
You would have to fall backwards into the future to learn predictions because everything has already hapoened but you can't possibly know the answer without time travel. Everything is a chance, a probability.
#119
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
You would have to fall backwards into the future to learn predictions because everything has already hapoened but you can't possibly know the answer without time travel. Everything is a chance, a probability.

...wat?
#120
Quote by MadClownDisease
Assuming it does know you entirely and the situation entirely (as mentioned above, also assuming it factors in that you know it's predicting, if you do), then aye there's no real reason it couldn't predict perfectly everything you'd do.

You do still have the power to eat it or not, just the computer knows which power you will exercise. You're still as "free" as you were before, just someone is also predicting what you're doing too.

You're still acting on your own dispositions and reasoning, it doesn't take anything away from who or what you are that given all knowledge of who you are someone could predict that. They're still predicting what you are doing.

But is it possible for the computer to say the correct future out loud? If it said I'm going to eat it, I wouldn't. It's a paradox then. Doesn't that mean that at least I can't ever know for myself what I am going to do, only a supercomputer? If I was told I'm about to do something, I wouldn't do it, but the computer would still know how I would react to being told this prediction and therefore the computer can know, I can't.
Not sure if a sig is a necessity.