Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here?

Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/index.php)

- I'm Right, Fuck You (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=73)

- - Free Will (http://www.nubblies.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18484)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mistoffelees (Post 426199)

If every thought and choice you make is from a chain of cause and effect events and people have no power to influence their thoughts...

Okay; so let's assume that people do have power to influence their thoughts? If it doesn't boil down to pure materialism, what do you propose is this "extra", ethereal force outside of the physical sphere the influences thoughts?

And let's not go for the obvious troll here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mistoffelees (Post 426199)

If we know the state of a rolling ball (position, direction, velocity, mass, and coefficient of friction) we can precisely predict where it will be at any given time from now. We can do this with a billion balls in a really big lab if we have enough time or do it with a computer.

Yeah but there are an unlimited number of variables you didn't mention. Are you proposing that at some point we'll be able to account for this infinite number of variables and be able to predict ALL behavior with some acceptable level of scientific accuracy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 426213)

For the record, I'm not buying this. I'm more of the opinion that people are their thoughts. It's a chicken/egg situation. You can't influence something that occurs simultaneously with your influence. I'm not saying that very well, but it is now after midnight and I'm a little surprised I'm even interested in this conversation.

I'll weigh in tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache (Post 426218)

Compatibilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do Jews like Will?

Because it's Free.

How the fuck should I know?

In this context no one is arguing that conscious experience doesn't exist, and we can't explain it or detect it outside of our own heads.

I can only guess that if there exists a "soul" in each of us that can force or influence thoughts it is related to the same force that caused the big band or sparked the first organic life. Under very specific special conditions when matter gets aligned in a certain way, there might be something that is created that can introduce a "new cause" created outside and introduced inside of the existing chain of causality of the universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache (Post 426217)

In my original post I said that this experiment is in a controlled environment, in a lab you can minimize the number of variables. I also don't believe there ever exists an infinite number of variables in any environment.

dat string theory

http://htwins.net/scale2/

if we can locate one particle or on star we can locate all of them.

side note - why is they hydrogen atom so much smaller than the ones on the water molecule?

Are you serious or trolling?

That was a pretty cool site. What a good way to waste an hour.

I think it's important to realize that you can, to varying degrees, "train" your unconscious and instinctual influences to the point that it can do more or less what you want.

Obviously this then raises "well, what made you do that training?" but basically this could continue to the basic idea that conscious thought is a biological development and therefore tainted and removed from pure free will.

I think that largely people have the ability to develop their brain so as to overcome or in the reverse, waste, most of the smaller "pre-programing", but not so much as to overcome huge cultural differences or biological issues.

I obviously don't have the answer or go around saying "NO FUCK YOU THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO FREE WILL LOL", but I think that it's extremely interesting to think about as a philosophy.

Every piece of evidence says "No,"

But my soul says "Yes."

I've found myself catching myself lately -- been talking to a girl who has a habit of saying "That's so lucky!!!" and I find myself pausing to think how much luck had to do with it, when I had previously convinced myself that it was my own hard work that put me in X position. That's been kind of a mindfuck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ FC (Post 426618)

Every piece of evidence says "No,"

But my soul says "Yes."

What about your body?

"FEEEEEEEEEEEEED MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde (Post 426619)

I've found myself catching lately.

Not surprised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mistoffelees (Post 426151)

We can observe the state of a neuron, and there is no reason to doubt that in the future we can take a complete snapshot of the state of the brain, if we can't already.

Since when have we been able to precisely observe the state of electrons? doesn't Heisenberg say that you can't take a snapshot?

Here's the transcript from the video above

Quote:

Wright: And you can say that we are future alterers at least in the sense that if we had not evolved with capacities we have for harm avoidance the future would have been otherwise.

Daniel Dennett: And you have to be very careful when you talk about future alterers. Because what are you going to change the future from what to what?

Wright: But you can talk about what it would have been had I not evolved my whatever it was I used to avoid harm. But of course the reply you get from people is: yes, but you are still saying that given the fact that I have evolved these things given the condition in which I wake up this morning, in the way my brain is inclined to use these things the future is inevitable... you certainly hear this as a reply.

Daniel Dennett: You certainly do but I am going to say: but what on earth do you mean by "the future is inevitable"?

Wright: If you knew that an omniscient being could predict what's going to happen today and there is no possibility that I will behave in a way that is going to falsify that prediction. That's what people mean.

Daniel Dennett: First of all that would be true, if I understand you right, in an undeterministic universe too.

Wright: No. In that universe the omniscient being would do the calculation and go I think this is gonna happen, but caprice enters the picture magically...

Daniel Dennett: No the omniscient being is going to know the future.

Wright: Well no, omniscient about the present I mean and the laws that govern the present.

Daniel Dennett: So you mean a laplacian genius?

Wright: Yes a laplacian calculator but, lo and behold, t + 1 after the prediction is made, caprice enters the picture from we know not where, that's the traditional conception of free will.

Daniel Dennett: That's A traditional conception of free will and what I'm arguing is that is gratuitous... The motivation people have imagined for it is simply mistaken. Allowing for quantum indeterminacy or shall we call it laplacian determinacy does not give you any more powers any more freedom any more avoidable any more evitability than you have in a deterministic world. It's just an illusion to think that it does.

0:24:48.000

Wright: You say in the book, and this is maybe one example, that free will lacks - your conception of the kind of free will that is viable - lacks some of the tradition properties associated with free will. have we already covered all the trad properties or are there other things that people are going to have to let go of?

Daniel Dennett: Other people may make that choice. What I claim is that all the varieties of free will that are wanting we can have in a deterministic world. I can define varieties of free will that are incompatible with determinism but they're pointless. They don't give you anything that matters. They aren't needed for moral responsibility. They aren't needed to give your life meaning. They are completely gratuitous, sort of bizarre metaphysical conceits they don't pull their weight, you don't need them, who cares.

Wright: I have to admit I have never been able to full conceive of free will even though it feels like I have it but if you try and draw a graph of it you will run into trouble. I can imagine determinism, I can imagine a determined system, I can kinda imagine a random one although that's actually harder than it seems but freewill is a slightly fuzzy concept.

0:26:09.000
But on the issue of quantum physics though, I wanted to raise a second dimension of quantum physics that might enter the picture. As I understand what you are saying about quantum physics and free will is .... first we should say that according to quantum physics there is such a thing as truly indeterminate. At the quantum level, very microscopic level, things happen that you could not in principle predict even if you have all the information in the physical universe.

Daniel Dennett: That's right.

Wright: As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature herself does not know what she is going to do next" at the quantum level. some people have tried to use that to bring free will into the picture because it is antideterministic. I think I agree with you that lots of random fluctuations even in the brain, if you are truly random, don't amount to what people usually mean by free will.

Daniel Dennett: Good! So we don't need randomness, or at least, randomness can't give us free will.

Wright: If it's true randomness you would think not. On the other hand I would say one thing about quantum physics is you can't really know if random is the right word if you don't know what is causing the thing.

Daniel Dennett: Well no but that's what random means in quantum physics. No hidden variables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dent (Post 428979)

Since when have we been able to precisely observe the state of electrons? doesn't Heisenberg say that you can't take a snapshot?

Here's the transcript from the video above

A neuron is a cell in your brain. Well, maybe not in your brain.

electron /= neuron

So if we can't tell the position of an electron, you think we can tell the position of something more complex?