Ehh... free will?

[Edwardo Piet]

http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/fre...everything

Awesome article here too.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whether or not I am aware or not of those processes, I still have the free will to choose between one option or another.

Just like "you" choose to make blood cells.

[RozKek]

We have free will because, quantum mechanics, and, it's complex?   Did you even bother to read this?

First, the brain's neuronal processes behave according to classical mechanical principles.   Any role for quantum indeterminacy remains unproven.

That it's complex doesn't mean you can just wave your hands and free will emerges.  Complex isn't free; only complex.

Did you read any of my previous posts? There is free will. This is me freely waving my hands.

Did you break the chain of causality by doing so? Did you freely order your neurons to defy causality and move independently? Your demonstrations are very weak. I can also flap the shit out of my hands and do some unnatural stuff to "demonstrate" that free will exists but that would in short still be my neural net interacting with each other making "me" believe in free will and trying to demonstrate it exists doing all that.

You've yet to give a good explanation of how free will can possibly exist. And I'm talking about the will where the free part is you are ultimately deciding, where it is not either determined nor random. It's nonsensical isn't it? If it's determined then you cannot determine otherwise. If it's random then it's random. There's no determining in indeterminism. Well I've heard random is free but the only thing it's free from is determinism, it's still not a free choice. I've yet to find a good explanation of how a random choice is a free choice.

[RozKek]

Whether or not I am aware or not of those processes, I still have the free will to choose between one option or another.

And if those processes are taking place while I am weighing one option over another, clearly I still have the free will to choose.

A process is just that.  The process of deciding over one way or another.

The universe is either causal or random as far as we know. If you're going to propose another idea you're pulling stuff out of your ass. Unless it actually is a good idea, go ahead and tell.

In the superdeterministic i.e causal universe you're in a candy aisle. You can decide between chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. Literally whatever the fuck you do, the one you chose was the only one you could choose because there is a causal chain. Everything including your neural nets movement and everything else for that matter is caused by something else, therefore the only possible choice you could've made was to pick the strawberry you picked. Even if let's say in that instance a friend next to you was talking about how free will doesn't exist and two minutes before you told him you wanted to buy the chocolate because you love chocolate. So before you picked the strawberry you told him "Look, I have free will, I have the urge to pick chocolate but I'll go for the strawberry!" Even that was in the causal chain, in short it was in the chain for you to believe in free will, for you friend to tell you it doesn't exist and for you to try demonstrate that by going against your urge. In the end you had only one choice because of the causal chain.

In the indeterministic i.e random/probabalistic universe you're in the same scenario. Vanilla, strawberry and chocolate. You pick the vanilla this time and in your brain; think of it like a dice being rolled everytime you decide something. It's free from determinism, but it's also free from choice. There's no choice, no reason nor analytical thinking in a random "decision"
Or simply put in the end you had no choice because there's no determinism in indeterminism.

The only reason Maelstrom in the candy aisle thought he had multiple choices is because he simply didn't know which one he would choose. It was his neural net evaluating which one was the "best" but even his neural net was bound to causality.

And, imagine your brain. Now imagine the same brain without consciousness, but it's still the same. I'd bet on the same brain without consciousness would just be as complex taking it's time before decisions were made but it wouldn't be aware of the multiple choices. It would just be the neural net interacting to evaluate which candy flavor is the best. And that neural net consists of particle, it too would be bound by the causal chain or rather it would be a part of the causal chain. So every evaluation it made was also in the causal chain, it couldn't have gone any other way.

[bennyboy]

lol are text walls and bold fonts deterministic as well?

[RozKek]

lol are text walls and bold fonts deterministic as well?

I bolded to clarify/make the reader give extra attention to some parts.

If it's bothering I'll stop.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that it would be alot easier to discuss free will if it wasn't conflated with other things so regularly. 

-Can you provide some demonstration that you have a red ball?
Well, I have a broom. See?

-Yes, but we were discussing a red ball
Which you can't have without a broom, and by having a broom I have shown that I have a red ball.

-What the shit?

[Edwardo Piet]

lol are text walls and bold fonts deterministic as well?

Yes.

[Excited Penguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0jPryEaR3w

Skip to 1:18:28


I posted a comment on the youtube page, you can just click on the time there and get right to it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sam Harris Vs Daniel Dennett on Free Will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFa7vFkVy4g

Basically involves Sam Harris giving arguments and Daniel Dennett redefining free will like all silly compatabilists do.

Daniel Dennett does the same with consciousness. He redefines it in order to explain it.

His move is "Oh it exists it's just not what you think it is."

Why isn't he a damn pantheist? "Oh God exists, he's just not what you think he is. I call the universe "He" and "God" but really it isn't a male deity I just like to call it a male deity for funsies."

I think labelling something that makes sense with a bullshit term in order to fallaciously seem like you're making sense of the bullshit term should now be known as "To do a Dan Dennett."

I think Daniel Dennett is very astute on these subjects. Of course I am redefining "astute" to mean "fucking pathetic."