Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by empleat

  1. I was first hesitant to answer, because it seems we are in major disagreement and it is hard to talk about next thing, if we can't even argue about thing, which precedes it. But i was bored I was writing a lot, because there are so many experiences, which contradicts the free will. And so many arguments can be made against them, which have tons of counter arguments and lead to complicated analysis of everything. And it makes it more difficult to prove the point. Therefore i must think, about simplest way to put this... I still stand on my position. First i should mention, where my interpretation differs. At the point 2. by your definition: it is the relation between the free will and my preferences. And free will is ability to decide, whether or not to act upon them. If i can choose to act, or not to act on my preferences - i have the free will. Or it could be: i can do whatever i want, even if i don't have the free will. I just can't choose what i want! So i would start my argument with: but where this decision to act, or not to act came from?! There has to be a reason! You said when i create a post, it should relevant and truth. In all natural sciences, everything is either: 1. predetermined by initial state of the universe 2. random on the microscopic scale, and it is possible: it averages on the macroscopic scale and we can measure for example: motion and position with extreme precision almost on 100%, making everything seem pre-determined (this is called adequate determinism) I checked every prominent scientist and many sites, yet i never heard of any other option. So we could agree on, that this is true, right? Than there has to be reason to act. Without reason, there would be no reason to make an action, unless it would be a random action - again hardly the free will! Neurologists say: our behaviour is directed by the limbic system (part of the brain, which handles emotions) and our neocortex is trying to satisfy this part of the brain most of the time. Elon Musk says this as well! Supposed these studies are truth and there is empirical evidence it is. To the least, these are highly studied theories, as evolution was extensively studied and this is related to it. We don't choose our emotions, but we can decide: whether or not to act upon them. Although scientists say: even most logical thinkers decide, at the end, by an emotion!!! Brain has it is own system to determine an action. Think of emotion as subconscious system, with its own logic (which is outside your consciousness, since many philosophers argue: there has to be consciousness to have the free will, yet brain decides subconsciously it seems). Former is based on true facts/theories. I also understand it is not good to combine science with philosophy, so this was meant just to state: that my arguments are based on the truth. So would we agree on, that to act: there has to be a reason? If there was no reason to act, from both emotional side and logical. Absolutely no motivation. Would we agree on: that there would be no action, as long as it is not a random action and there is an agent, which has ability to make choices. Supposing he is not a simple lifeform, which doesn't need consciousness to act. So therefore: there has to be reason to act, so any action is made! So we are at the point 2. of ascii diagram - relation between my preferences and the free will. So since we can agree upon: there has to be reason to act. Where does this reason come from?! If it is not tied to causal chain of our preferences and these preferences changing other preferences??? Non-locality? Even with non-locality, same problem would be faced. And if it is, how we can be free since our new preferences, were determined by older ones, which i didn't choose! We can back trace our whole existence to the point, where you were particles at random places, devoid of any intelligence, or consciousness what so ever! Panpsychists could argue, every particle have some form of a consciousness. So we would have to trace back to the point, where there was either nothing. Or if everything existed forever, that wouldn't still explain where this reason to act came from. So since you said, arguments should be truth, i could be an asshole (not that i would want to be) and say: how can you prove, that free will is relationship between your preferences and whether, or not, you can act these our. Since whether, or not, you will act them out: there has to be a reason for it. How do you prove this reason was created by you freely? So we get to my deduction. For it, so there could be the free will, there has to be a reason to act. Otherwise, there is no will! Which has to be determined by me. I call this preference, as everything is a preference, or preference over something else. And i act the way i act, because the way i am. But i couldn't choose the way i am, before i was born!!! Because i didn't exist before! And even if i did, something had to be given to me first so i could choose anything, otherwise i would be an empty shell with no preferences and no ability to form any!!! Yet i didn't choose my genes and environment, which both have been proven, to change our personality! Hope this makes sense. Btw i agree partially with notion of compatibilism: as far as agent has an agency and he is causing these actions - even if they are pre-determined, he can decide at each time what to choose (as you can choose only one actions at the time). But what is important: that he could have done otherwise! So they are causally linked by each choice, but not pre-determined by something that's not you - like external forces. As you are determining them each time! This sounds reasonable. Yet there is still this problem... Also one philospher has similar position on preferences: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ekstrom/ This philosopher says:"our preferences are developed in causal, but not determined way. Our character is an aggregation of these freely developed preferences, which we have the power to alter at any time." - i would argue that: previous preferences changed my future preferences and at present i am result of a causal chain of these preferences in the past and they are pre-determined by my initial state (again which i didn't choose). E.g. saying something in public, which has huge impact, will deny me chance to go into politics! You could argue, you took these preferences freely and you got to that point, of your own free will. So these examples, can be always deeply argued about, many times even to uncertainty. I would argue, these previous preferences will determined new ones. And ability to alter them any time faces the same problem! Some examples: I could argue with unforeseen consequences: - If i had iq 200, i could perhaps foreseen this and choose otherwise to achieve my goal, i wouldn't otherwise achieve. And it is fact, you don't choose your intelligence. Probably someone with 100 iq couldn't be elon musk, that we can say like with 99% certainty! You could say, we have a limited free will: - Yet other people can manipulate us, or force us to do something against our will. Would you say, there is choice and ability to resist?! But so far, i didn't see anyone, who would have chosen his ability to resist a torture. No one chosen his resistance by himself, you could argue you can train to be more resilient, but even if you commit 24/7 to that, there will be always people more resilient than you! Or smarter and more successful! That's just a fact! And everyone will break to torture, some people can force their will upon us to the extent making people slaves! - I would also say: to act according to my preferences, i have to have knowledge about events, which constraint them and ability to avoid them! From less severe events: i want to be a Quantum Scientist and i want to discover something cool. If i have iq 70, this won't be probably executable. I can't think of any better argument now, which could not be doubted, even this is like super improbable. Than lets say iq 30, we would say it is near to impossible! Or to be Elon Musk with iq 30! - To more severe events. I chose to wait on next bus, because my friend is coming and it gets bombed. If i had knowledge, it will happen: i would have to see a person yet , who would chose to wait on a next bus. You could say some extreme fanatic, like monks set themselves on fire could chose this. But i would say for 99.99% of people this won't happen. As we are motivated by pain a lot and it hurts too much for any reasonable person to do it!!! - Or lets say something, which i can say with 100% certainty is not possible. I am on the island, no method of transportation. There is an event, i would like to go to, if i knew about it. But there is no way to know about it, so i won't be able to chose this. Lets say it is at undiscovered isolated tribe, no way of knowing of it. You know when people get old and regret things and decisions they made, if only they knew what they know now! How would you reconcile this with the free will? Tesla said we create branches, which is immensely complex and theoretical, with no relation to reality. I like to always compare these theories and facts to the experiences we have! While i don't like this creates problems, which are in majority of cases unprovable and irrefutable! I think too much and i like sci-fi. Science says: people who watch sci-fi - judge relationships between people more realistically and with less bias. I saw tens of thousand tv shows and even i am far from behavioral expert, i know a lot about specific things. And i think about theoretical scenarios all the time, what could happen. I read a lot of about psychology! I claim, that our experience doesn't equal the free will. It is the opposite, it is far from it and i can't even imagine how free will could exist! Which is scary! It doesn't make any logical sense what so ever!!! You have to think, about every possible permutation, that could happen, hopefully find some: that can't be refuted, or is theoretically sound on 99.99%+ I would like to see someone to reconcile free will, with every permutation of behavior that can happen, or happened! Because it should be correlated to our experience. Also new hit to dualism https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching 1. Well to prove point 1. we would need a dyson sphere to calculate and predict human behavior on 100%, without changing the result. And you know this is currently not even remotely possible... Or to prove mind is materialistic and obey same physical laws as everything else. That's when comes my point, because it doesn't make logical sense for free will to exist, i can't even imagine how. If you could imagine, how could free will exists, i would like to hear it! 2. Well you said something has to be true, but how do you know praxis couldn't bear a weight, if the free will was an illusion. As far as we know free will is illusion and it makes sense for people believing in it, for good mental health and survival, so we defend ourselves against crimes of others! Logically weight of the praxis would be possible in both scenarios. Even if you didn't believe in the free will and i don't on 99.99%, as that's closest estimate i can get and i don't like guessing either. But it is "unprovable on 100%". We should reserved about facts/theories. And science just began to understand the brain. But there would have to be some insane twist of epic proportions, because everything goes against free will in my opinion. I have many more reasons, perhaps i should create website, or something. I don't believe in free will strongly! Yet i blame people, because i know it damages me and cause me negative emotions, which makes me to blame people so they don't repeat and cause unwanted behavior to me. So i think it is irrelevant to whether, or not free will exists. These are two separate entities. And again i don't know how would you prove this, or disprove. Since you would have to know, whether or not free will exists. And than obviously since we weight our praxis, you would have no way to test other option. Or perphaps you could create deterministic ai (if free will was true), which will experience weight of a praxis PS: Hope this makes sense, i have an ADHD and i have problem to organize text, to not repeat myself and to remember what i said. I see instantly 10 possibilities how to answer one question and from it another 10, that i forget what i wanted to say. And i not good at expressing myself, as i don't speak anywhere. Even i watch a lot of tv shows and i am a lot of better in understanding text. And bad in grammar as i never cared about it, i just learned from tv shows and from translations. And must say ADHD feels like anything, except free will. Also at first, recently scientists have proved in a study: that adhd is caused by genes, again which i didn't choose. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191126121153.htm BTW i don't know if you know this site: it is tremendously useful and information there seems correct. I was searching whole web, read same things elsewhere, google flagged me as bot and they also want my mouse movement to spy on me As i read like thousands of sites /day. https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ Believe me i want free will to exists more than almost anything, yet i am very logical person as i have aphantasia - meaning no imagination. Also i don't know, if you care about argument. That if people have free will, they should know reasons: why they decided! People will sometimes mix up order of events, between rash decision and deliberate action. E.g. people after going after yellow sign at traffic light, or after stopping, have trouble to say why they did that. This always fascinated me, i asked my mom: why she stopped on yellow. But she couldn't answer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
  2. Aaah... That's disappointing, but still interesting. Thanks for clearing that up! Yeah i can't even read currently, i have chronic pain. I barely can read a sentence, not even kidding... To be fair, there is also written: "taking a step towards limitless precision of measurements of motion". But i don't about QM much and why exactly you can't predict particle's motion on the microscopic level. And already measuring gravitational waves is probably huge step towards reconciling QM with general relativity. So still huge discovery! Btw i thought entanglement is only possible between two particles - generated by some event. And than you can't connect any distant objects at your leisure.
  3. You can help scientist to find solution for design of vaccine and how the virus works and simulate shape of its molecules. Just make sure you have good cooling, it works either on gpu, or cpu, or both. If you have older computer, it may be problem, because it will render your pc useless. Because cpu and gpu will be maxed on 99% (number of cpu cores can be set). Geforce 3000 will be amazing for this. But i can watch tv, or play pc games and i don't have even latest Windows build, which has gpu scheduling and have only geforce 2070 super. It is faster on linux btw. Just go to device manager (windows) to find your components, than find max temp. for your cpu and gpu and set temp. warning in some program like hwinfo64. And than do a stress test to find, if you can cool it. Gpu shouldn't be a problem. https://foldingforum.org/ Second link is initiative of scientists, which develops vaccine with no intellectual property and any scientist can design molecule and submit its design. It could be you! They also accept donations and work in collaboration with folding home for molecule design simulation. And share all of their research with scientific community! And they have lab using xray to see shape of the virus in reality. https://covid.postera.ai/covid https://foldingathome.org/2020/05/28/the-covid-moonshot/ I don't understand, they need 2M $, yet they have only 47k $. While coronavirus is very serious and spread. I would expect, they would meet their donation goal very quickly. But they got barely 1k in couple days... Sad... I read in prominent online magazine about foldinghome and not sure, if someone written about this. Also foldinghome has barely 1M of gpus crunching, some were detected multiple times. Yet they have currently 4 exaflops, while already when they had only 440k gpus, they had already 2 exaflops, more than top 5 supercomputers together! Amazing! Yet 1M of gpus is nothing... I don't understand why they aren't making ads for this? Or why they don't contact streamers with high views, people who play pc games, have powerful computers... It feels like no one knows about it. And than it is problem, that it can render your pc useless, if you don't have powerful rig, at least you can set number of cpu cores. And overheating and some people destroyed their cpus, because they didn't realize it will max on 100%, while you set it to low. Scientists are unfortunately not good at communicating. And many people probably thinks, goverment is working on it and many insitutions and don't seem it necessary, or they have 0 technical understanding and thing it is difficult. While you just install program and that's it. Like still i can't wrap my head around it, why they have only 1M gpus and only 47k $, which is nothing... Even quantum mechanics makes more sense, than these numbers. It should be required by law And people are sad, they don't use face mask in public and group and don't take it seriously and read news on facebook and than destroy 5g communication towers. I don't even... It feels like 99% of people are just bots... This can't be real, i am question my reality right now Are we in simulation?
  4. If this is true, that's such a gigantic news!!! Absolutely staggering!!! Unreal! https://phys.org/news/2020-09-quantum-entanglement-distant-large.html Scientists were able to link 2 disparate quantum objects together in quantum entanglement. They say it is simple as taking information from one object and applying knowledge to other. It could be used to get rid of zero point fluctuations on mirrors in (LIGO), to get rid of a noise. They say this could erase uncertainty. By allowing them to create a sensor, which would allow measure both momentum and position of a quantum particle!!! Which was impossible until now! I can't even wrap my head around it. This is such a gigantic step in science, so interesting!!! Supposing what they say is true and they will be able to construct such a device. I will turn off a bit, if you excuse me and allow this. Reasons of this topic: 1. inform about this overwhelming news 2. ask about some important questions 3. it is related to subject i was interested greatly free will, i would like to know what this means Skip next 4 paragraphs to get to the point I was like Albert Camus would say striked all of the sudden: "At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face". I don't remember how it started, but i started having these deliberations about free will, that it is illusion. So i read during 1 year, 16 hours/day (almost every day), over 1M articles about it. Everything is either predetermined, or random in natural sciences. There is no other option! Also even it is currently, in an area of philosophy. That's only, because scientists don't study something: they can't test by an experiment. It is likely, it will be refuted when we get powerful Ai and more powerful computers... Still science already can say a lot. And also don't think our experience equals free will, or even resembles it remotely. Because i think way too much about everything, i spammed like 300k articles about psychology. There is like trillion e150 scenarios, which contradicts the free will. I could list like million things if i wanted and i would like to see someone to reconcile free will with them. I am just mentioning main aspects and i hope for discussion about this. Or we can be very likely in simulation, if argument 1. is true and 2. 3. is not, in simulation theory. Again likelyhood is just a ratio - "1:x". E.g. 1:1M, it doesn't say anything about whether, or not event will happen. If that was predetermined, even if there is chance 1:10e23. If event, which is represented by 1 here, will be predetermined. There was in reality chance 100%, this will happen and nothing else! I am just layman, i don't know anything, yet i know something... I don't care much about some formal education, i am great in logical and critical thinking. I have aphantasia - meaning no imagination. But i am great at solving problems and analytical thinking. So my knowledge is very selective and all over the place. I just care about facts. I won't wait like 50 years for whole planet to study this to give me an answer... Or study this whole life, there would be no point to this... I am just watching subject from time to time - today times. This could finally confirm determinism. Not that indeterminism would provide much hope for the free will. And help the free will, of which idea is just absurd in my opinion... I can't even imagine how that would be possible!!! Also dualism is probably not true: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching Yet there is panpsychism and some of its advocates say: that there is misunderstanding in science of 21 century. Which will often mention reductionism. Again just because it isn't currently solvable doesn't mean anything about: whether or not it is truth and we have emergence so... I think humanity would be better off with realizing free will is illusion. It wouldn't mean disintergration of laws and praxis in my opinion, depends how it would be handled. Because they are still important for survival... For example: nations are such an infantile disease of humanity, i never liked it, since when i was 11. Or democracy is just ridiculous, elon musk wants direct democracy on mars? Huh i was thinking the same! Or i was thinking about single entity controlling everything, which said Niel Bolstrom it is coming, could be ai e.g. Since civilization complexity is raising and it will be to difficult to control and everything is globalized. People care about status, or hoarding money. Yet they did nothing and aren't any better than anyone else... They just got better coinflipp... I read about everything that exists and i laugh about 1M of things, they are just dumb and absurd. I think realizing free will is illusion could be very good thing. It is not like you can't do whatever you want, you just can't chose what you desire. And it is more about control. I wouldn't go to the extent to make all people same. But some people don't have even water/food, health care and education and residence. While other people feels like have infinite money. And corporations lobby against studies, which proves sugar cause hearth disease and obesity and fossil fuel companies lobby against regulations and renewable energy and global warming, which is just fact. But politicians showed, they don't know anything. Usually people with most power, politics are about power, not politics... And they don't understand science! Yet scientists predict by 2030 all ice bergs will melt and by 2045 50% of animals will go extinct. Even tesla cars won't be spread in time. So it is hopeless unfortunately, humanity will be likely trapped on earth and go extinct sooner, or later... I am simply not interested in any other views, than materialistic in this thread. Because i have millions of reasons, why i think free will is nonsense! But it would require 1 year to explain. Lets say scientists will be able to measure momentum and position of an particle at the same time. Will they be able to predict any phenomena? I am not a physicist, i just was interested in free will. Because our computers still sucks. Supercomputer's predictions of drop of a water deviate, after a moment. Even quantum computers are like 2 to power of 64 more powerful. But not suitable for classic workloads. I have no idea what computers could be used for calculating this. Probably both together. Still it will take extraordinary computational power to predict even simple phenomena. It will probably take a long time, before human behavior can be predicted on 100% accuracy. And ofc. it will be difficult to entangle different particles, as they said. Also besides computational power problem, it can't be simple as predict some elementary particles how they behave and than deduce from it behavior of complex systems, like emergence. It will take probably a lot of research to figure how to calculate this. And it won't be probably priority. I could imagine, this will be first used on capturing gravitational waves and to reconcile QM with gravity. So this will be probably tested on simplest things from start, which have uncertainty currently. I think this is probably impossible to answer currently, even so i would like to ask some questions: - Does this prove, that everything is predetermined by initial state of the universe? - Will there be still some things, which have still uncertainty? - What does this mean for energy? - How long we can expect scientists will be able to predict: A. simple phenomena, B. more complex phenomena? PS: if something doesn't make sense, or written poorly sorry, i am not good at writing. And i am tired. Thanks for answers!
  5. Interesting. I thought everyone have their own clocks. I don't even know what to imagine behind that. Than how could be some object measured by other clocks, which have stopped?! Has it not its own clock? I watched Dark recently. And there was something about time stopping, which broken cause and effect. And allowed time travel to any time, with a time machine. Also there was disconcerting idea, we may relive same lives over and over. I already heard about that, there are many theories about that actually... So i was curious, if anyone could ever change that theoretically. Because information cannot be destroyed and time doesn't go anywhere: we exists in past,present and future - at the same time. I am afraid, that we may be reliving same lives over and over, or different ones, which is even worse... Literally anything could happen...
  6. Hello, i just want to ask a quick question: could cause and effect be broken, if time stopped? Question is, even if it did... could anything happen due to time stopped? And by that i don't mean classical event in time, by that i mean anything physical, or quantum. Perhaps some interaction of sorts, i don't know... Because for example: some theories say, that time is emergent. Thanks for answer.
  7. You say that. I read that carefully twice, but i still disagree, i mean no offense! But i am allowed to have my opinion. But your definition still doesn't explain how it is decided. Because everything has a reason, or is random, at least until it gets disproved maybe, but currently everything is either predetermined, or random. That's fact! Think about it! Lets say: you have a wish to rob a bank, but than you decide to not do it. (E.g. because at the end, we decide only by pleasure, or pain - say neurologists). Since we can decide whether or not to act upon our wishes, than how it was determined? It had to be somehow right? Maybe in reward/risk ratio, risk exceeded reward. But someone wouldn't care and someone would care in the same situation. Because both are different persons. But than again: how it was determined, that one person decided like that?! And second person is different ? E.g. one which had a wish and decided to not act upon it, so why he did that ? He had to have reason right ? Was risking a prison to much for him, was he afraid of pain? Than how did he chosen, that he was like that? I give more examples: - Kids find parent's gun and decide to play with it and shoot someone by accident. E.g. if parents were more responsible and used safe, kids wouldn't find it. Than they wouldn't get into that situation in the first place! - that was external factor, which completely changed course of action, if parents had no gun - there would be no gun to be found! - But what if parents had 200 iq prodigy and he would have cracked the safe and than kids would still played with the gun and shoot someone - but no one chosen his iq! - Or lets say i want to win contest in a school, but there are a lot of smart kids competing and i have just average iq and i don't win that. But if i had iq 200, i would probably won that right ? - Or lets say i want to buy ice cream, but ice cream shop closes at 4pm, lets say: i am doing test at school and after tests kids are allowed to quit. I have to finish the test, because i want to get good rating, but at the same time i want to make it for ice cream. But if i wouldn't have high iq, i wouldn't finish it in time and make it for the ice cream as well. - So what if i wanted to be rich, but i didn't get rich, because i didn't observed something. Maybe some people notice something in news, or see some opportunity by being lucky, or higher intelligence and see patterns! - So you see, sometimes we can't act upon our wishes, because intelligence for example. But we didn't choose our intelligence did we ? So that's perfect example for my argument! How would you counter that ? So you see are limited by external factors too, even if i want to rob a bank, i don't want to, because i would end up in prison probably. If people weren't put into prison and if we omit other factors for sake of the argument. Than nothing else would stop me. But i didn't choose, that people go to prison for crimes! - What if i born in africa and i liked astronomy, but i had to much on my plate and had to deal with many things, before i could start working on my goal and than i don't achieve it! So than you could argue, but not all people are equal. But you can choose according your own wishes and free will, in that range what is available to you. But than again, what about all scientific studies about gut bacterias, parasites, which change our behavior. And genes, some people born with asperger and have trouble making social contacts: even they want to! But if they didn't born with it, they would live completely different life. How do you argue against that huh ? Consider every scenario, every permutation, than can ever happen and tell me how is that free will in each one ? But i still think: no one have free will, because you can't be responsible for the way you are. But you act, because the way you are! I gave many examples above.
  8. Isn't that obvious, if bacteria in your gut motivates you to eat specific food, or you feel more attraction to a person with different immune system, or parasite can cause you kill yourself. How is that free will ? Yep, but that doesn't say anything about free will itself. You can choose even if everything was predetermined, but it wasn't your choice: from your own free will. So that's why external factors, because if someone, or something change your decision, it wasn't really you who decided freely! It should probably include yet, to be able to choose from your own free will and not because you chosen something, because it was predetermined. But you get what i mean. That's what i don't get, we don't chose definitions of problems: because they are simpler, or to eliminate some problems, unless we trying to solve some complex problems and we just try to go with axioms and than change our believes, if theory doesn't fit the facts. We chose them, because we deduce, or induce them! So you don't agree with that logic ? What about paradoxes ? World is full of them. If something cannot be currently solved, like a determinism ? Is that proof, that it is not true ? I don't think so. You said: if you can act according your own wishes and believes, you have free will. But than, you have to responsible for your own wishes and believes to be able to act freely. Because you are acting on your own wishes. And still doesn't solve problem: how did you choose your wishes in the first place ? Because to be able to choose: you have to have already some preferences! How do i choose between blue and red t-shirt, if i don't have any preference yet ? Some could argue - i can choose randomly. But even so, how do i decide to do that ? Even that is preference, if i don't have any preference yet: so i don't care what i choose, so i choose randomly. Or i can decide to not choose at all, but that is preference too and had to come from somewhere! But when that come from ? Because we can agree on, i wasn't there forever, i was born at some point in the time. And i didn't choose my environment, or genes. So how could i choose my own preferences, or any sort of mental capacity, which will allow me to form them ? But than my preferences were dependent on the way, i was from the time i was born and my life until this point. But i didn't choose initial point, if i was nothing, i couldn't choose and form any preferences what so ever. But than i was born and i wasn't responsible for the way i was made. So than how my own preferences would be free, if they were chosen for me ? And i act upon them. Hope that makes sense. Yeah but you said that yourself, you act upon your preferences, which you didn't choose. So you act upon something you didn't choose by your own free will. What has been given to you. I don't see how is this any free will worth having. Yes you can choose how to act, but you can't choose your own wishes and believes upon, which you are acting. This seems to be like determinism. So you say: i can have preferences, but decide to act, or not to act on them ? And than it would be free will ? That still doesn't explain, why i did that. Because everything has a reason, or is random. So to be able to act freely, i would have to decide from my own volition and have my reasons why i did that right ? But where that came from ? Maybe my preferences changed, by thinking about them, but what caused that in the first place ? And that's where it gets to that pesky ad infinitum. So unless we can solve that. How can we know, we have a free will ? And so it doesn't make sense, that we would have free will. I can't even imagine how, that would be possible. Because everything we know is either predetermined, or random. There is no third option. I read that even from physicists and tried to find third option million times and no one proved yet: there would be another one.
  9. You don't understand, that's what i was claiming. It doesn't make sense you could decide how you will be, yet before you was born, because you didn't exist. Therefore something has to be given to me first, so i can decide, or form believes etc.
  10. Whoops i can't edit anymore... I didn't mean like no external factors at all. Like things in the world: which motivates you, or prompt you to some action. I meant external factors like: for example - parasit, which has 80% of population and is known to reduce intelligence, whereas other parasit cause risky behaviour in men and suicide in women. Or what if someone manipulates you, who is much smarter than you are, could you really done otherwise ?
  11. What ? I don't why. It simply implies you could choose otherwise and that your choice isn't limited to one action. As for external influences: e.g. if someone manipulates you, or some external influence changes your decision, than it wasn't you who decided freely. Yeah that's what my definition implies, that there is more than one possibility. How so ? That is the thing: no one choses his wishes, or believes. Believes are dependent on the intelligence, iq and many other factors. E.g. i don't know yet person who chosen his iq. To be able to act by your believes and wishes, you would have to made yourself according them. But where they come from in the first place ? Before you was born, you couldn't choose the way you will be. Besides: real world experience contradicts this. Consider this scenario: kids lose their parents to airstrike and gonna live with his uncle, who is radical and teaches them hate against west, they are denied books and internet to make their own opinions and believes. Could they chose by their wishes to not become terrorists, that's unlikely right ? Than it is same ad infinitum problem, you would have to get behind that - how your wishes and believes arised and no one can do that currently. Is it ? But than, how would you explain your wishes and believes to be truly free, if they didn't exist before you was born, as that is something we can agree on. Btw even they existed before that, that still doesn't explain how they would be free... Because i didn't choose my environment and genes. There is scientific proof that, both affect personality: so our preferences were chosen for us, before we were born yet!!! Otherwise you would have to claim: environment and genes don't influence our personality at all. And all scientific studies about them are flat out wrong! Or that immaterialism is true etc. Again we get to that: i do what i do, because the way i am. But in order for me to be responsible for my actions, i would have to made me somehow the way i am. But how could i made myself the way i am, before i was born ? Because after i am born, i am already in some way. That doesn't seem logical. If i can't choose what self i am, how can i choose how to act ? What if i am piece of sh.t alcoholic and i beat my family. I can argument almost with anything in the world against that. There are studies about, why people become alcoholics etc. Even tesla said he seemed to himself like an automaton and he couldn't stop doing his experiments and research and couldn't even sleep.
  12. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z Listen 23:30. I had exactly same thought long time ago... I read like 1Mill. articles about free will and everything that exist and i wondered: i never encountered this anywhere, now i did... I was expressing it little bit differently, but i meant the same thing: How could i choose my preferences before i was born ? Answer is: i couldn't, because i was nothing, or rather particles at different places. Which don't have will, or a brain to be able to choose. So therefore i couldn't chose my preferences before i was born, something had to be given to me first - so i could chose my preferences. So than i don't have free will, because by definition free will is: "to be able to choose between one, or multiple things, without interference of external factors." But how would i choose in the first place how i will be ??? And even if i existed forever, or before this life, that wouldn't solve how i am in the way i am. If someone believed in souls for example etc. And than shouldn't i remember previous lives ? How come i don't even know why i am in the way i am ? No one can explain his behavior from 100%, not even genius with 250 iq , with 20 degrees in behavioral sciences and from psychology, philosophy, linguistics, neuroscience, biology, physics... E.g. while i was listening to this podcast, i was moving around with my headphone volume controller and i don't know why, or i was focusing with sight at one point and didn't even perceive vision much. This is more subtle. More important is why someone go rob a bank etc. but still... So how come, we don't even know why we do things and for what ? I can in retrospect analyze my actions and say i did it, probably because of this and that. But i don't really know. I didn't chose what entertains me and what i like, so i am doing that naturally. Like it is crazy, i can list almost anything. While some say, we may have partial free will. Even so there is another billion of arguments against it and contradictory facts and experiences from daily life scenarios. To be honest i don't understand how anyone in the right mind can believe in a free will, given human experience we have. I can think of almost any scenario, that is in direct contradiction to free will. And i don't think they can be reconciled, if ever. Besides there is scientific proof about environment and genes and how our parents dedicate attention to us, affects our personality traits. So if you wanted to claim free will exists, most of these studies would have to be false, but all of them can't be false right. Well maybe if there were some ridiculous twists, like every study ever concluded about genes was wrong, but that's ridiculous. And see i don't even know why i wrote all of this, i got carried away. I wanted at first just to tell about this argument and than these things are related to it and than again i get this idea and wanted to talk about this.
  13. If i think about it, i read on Quora: that after age 20, we lose 1 gram of brain mass per year. Given, maybe only hope to live forever: would be replacing some of neurons with artificial ones and slowly replace whole brain like this. Until your brain is slowly remade with artificial neurons. Because problem with transferring consciousness directly into a computer may be - that your brain dies and information is only copied. Than you would die and only your copy would live inside a computer! There is no proof information is immaterial and can be transferred like this. Going with former method, even so i think you would be just a copy of a copy. Here is why i think that: Because even in a living brain, neurons constantly die and being replaced. Memories are part of your personality, without them - you wouldn't be you. We lose some memories permanently, or at least they are lost to a consciousness. And even if we retain them, your neurons die and being replaced. So they are stored in different neurons.. you are just a copy of a copy. Even it doesn't feel that way, because we don't lose all cells at once. Or cells, that are part of immediate consciousness. There is no temporal death, like i would be dead for 30 seconds and voila now my brain is restored and i continue experiencing the world. But fact is we are probably copy of a copy, that cells that were processing a consciousness 10 years ago, some of them may be gone and you are just a copy of a copy. Psychologically: it sucks imagining working hard towards immortality, only for you to die and your copy continues to live on. Because we are motivated only by pain and pleasure - (negative and positive emotions) and with survival instinct, after all we are survivors. That's how we evolved/survived and even evolution has no goal, we are motivated to survive and feel negative emotions when thinking about death. So we want to live forever and because terror management theory, at least we need to deal somehow with death, to leave something behind etc. Even there is no logical reason and it doesn't matter, after you die: you won't care if you were homeless, or famous... So even we wouldn't die and replaced our brain gradually with an artificial neurons and than maybe transferred our minds into a computer. It wouldn't be really us, even for all intends and purposes we would be, lets say 100% human like, but in an artificial form. For sake of preserving consciousness: even we wouldn't experience death and had continuous experience, because delays of replacing parts of our brain would be so small to be conceivable and wouldn't affect everything at once. We would technically still die and be just copies. Question is does that really matter ? If we are already copies of ourselves... And we can't tell a difference. And unless we die and will be copied to a computer, do we really care ? Even some futurists etc. claim we may achieve immortality by a year 2045, some neurologists and scientists doubt that and say: it won't be maybe possible hundreds of years yet. Even technology is improving exponentially and if we make human like - intelligent ai and improve performance of computers drastically. Who knows really... because it is very complex. Not to mention, even if you were successfully transferred into a computer: your mind would have to be backed up in case of catastrophe. Or you would eventually die, so even after that you would become a copy of a copy! But still if you lived like 10 thousand of years, it would feel like forever. Thing is: imagine working whole life towards that goal and than not being able to achieve it... Today times are too boring, we can't even travel to other planets and galaxies and beyond, if we ever will... And small minority of them is habitable and rest are just wastelands, even we could terraform it eventually. And it feels we are alone, are there other species out there to meet ? People that are going to Mars not gonna have great lives, it will be amazing much much later... And free will is illusion, everything is predetermined, or random. Even there are other viewpoints and philosophies. Given human experience, i don't think there is a free will. It feels pointless to live without free will! Life is pretty depressing. Except maybe: if universe is cyclical and we are reliving same lives over and over, that would be immortality, even pretty depressing one. Or new universe is born and we live other lives - much better one! But that's not kinda of immortality, i am not talking of.
  14. I usually like to read pages on wiki about authors, because there are some biased people, which think because people with OCD, can overcome their problem. That implies, that mind is immaterial or something. I don't even...
  15. It is easy to find if an article was peer-reviewed, but who reviewed it ? That's important as well. It could have been scientist, which claims nobel prize winners eaten chocolate, therefore eating chocolate increases intelligence... I found an interesting publication and i would like to check who reviewed it. Not sure if there is a way to find out. If site for publications is of high quality, article itself is probably legit, but nothing is 100% perfect. I am honestly surprised, that you can't see who peer-reviewed it as well as names of authors, because it makes sense.
  16. Ye i saw that. Wealthy will probably be able afford it sooner and get the edge. But from concerns project 2045 they aim to be affordable like for 300 000$. Still this is not version which will have computation power like supercomputer, you will be only in robot, who get into that first will get huge advantage. If like some cabal of rich people got first into computer with supercomputer power, that would be bad. Or even if people get there, there is 20% chance humanity will go extinct at 2100, because of global warming and endangering species and destroying environment... Or if ai destroys humanity.. Maybe people survive on mars, while die in earth who knows. It is pretty tough to survive in universe, to even have life supporting habitat and than to not get wiped by anything, there are pretty scary things in universe, so matter from quarks, which could poison whole planets and turn them into same matter. Or some explosion on atomic, or subatomic level, which could destroy whole universe and physical laws as we know them, or black holes and who knows what. Humanity probably won't survive even that long, who know if we will be able to achieve ftl, or even get to posthuman stage. And i agree torture is pretty ugly, people in middle age used to be cruel and disgusting, obviously even today some, why would you wanted to risk it and die painfully, if universe is going to repeat itself forever maybe...
  17. I didn't ask about boredom tho, i am interested what point could exists for people to want immortality. Specifically rather, than obvious reasons to live longer, or survival because people fear death, or traveling to new planets etc...
  18. This is lounge right, you can talk about anything here, i am just interested what people see about immortality. That's it...
  19. Same even with immortality, is question: 1. if you get transferred into computer 2. or die and copy of your mind gets transferred Even even if so, what if someone kills you, or you die by accident, if you mind will be backed up and than copied to new body, it won't be you, but your copy. Even if you was lucky and lived like 10k years, eventually you will die anyways, even universe is probably going to end and it will be difficult to survive... Same there is no point, why would you do that ? So you can live another x years for what ? And it is so boring, everything is predetermined, or random, which is not any better... So you maybe explorer new planets, or travel through time, or to another dimension and learn some new things, because we are programmed to do stuff e.g. our survival, otherwise we get bored. Don't know how you see it, but this is so utterly boring.. Every possibility bores me to death, even ai starting to bore me already and it is rather new...
  20. Ye i actually read a lot of articles when people do that, i google free will news often and 90% is crap, there won't be major progress in such a short time. And even in other fields people actually do that. It was proven that it is better to know multiple fields like elon musk to, he takes principle from other field and apply it in to something else. But not everyone have 1000 wpm reading speed and iq 200 to have time to study everything. Especially for simulation argument physicists and computer scientists argued a lot, but why if in our universe it would be possible to simulate another universe they think it would tell us anything about whether we live in simulation or not. In our universe could be less amount of physical laws than in theirs and even i we couldn't simulate it doesn't mean they couldn't, even bill nye said it would be to difficult to discern and i agree, i think we could never know.
  21. Ye i just wanted confirmation, that this expression is crap.
  22. Even achievement is illusion, someone born with high intelligence and didn't do anything, just got better coinflipp, even you know you did nothing, how you can feel contentment, if you have success with something. If everything you do is pointless, humanity will extinct sooner or later. People actually search for meaning, because it is important for their survival to live meaningful lives. I read study, that scientist have greater sense of meaning and there are studies about meaning increasing happiness, which is evolutionary mechanism for survival. Maybe you help save some lives, but than you can die painfully yourself, which is dissuading from helping others, because it doesn't even guarantee you won't die painfully. Like Turing, he killed himself, because court ordered him chemical castration, after saving 13 million people, 99% of people is cancer, i don't know what more you can do and see what you get in return. Still one can do very little. And everything is predetermined, or random it will be how it will be, you can't really change anything, that would be stupid to try. Even if you decide to help you can probably do small good, but humanity will still go extinct sooner or later, so it is ultimately utterly pointless. If probably humanity will destroy itself, animal life is already dying, it is predicted that humanity will extinct at 2100 on 20%. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190508113351.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190506093610.htm Even if humanity could survive in computer, or mars, this is still pretty devastating and a lot of people will die. Because corporations and elitists control everything and their only concern is to make as much money as possible, they know they will die and after that there will be probably nothing , so they don't care about future.
  23. I read this article about free will and some neurologist was flaming there sabine hossenfelder for her ignorance and claims about other fields which outside her profession. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/05/can-physics-prove-there-is-no-free-will/ And than he himself talk nonsense, which is easy to prove wrong in my opinion. I think expression that probability is antithesis of randomness is flat out wrong. Because probability is chance that something happens against all other possibilities, like if you roll 1 on dice, there is chance 1/6 that it happens. But it doesn't say anything about why it happened, it could be predetermined by angle you throw it and gravitation etc. Or it could be cause randomly, by some variables. Events in quantum mechanics aren't without cause, but you can't tell exactly where particle will end up. Consider simple universe there could be only 2 scenarios, meteor hits earth and meteor doesn't hits earth. It would have been choosen randomly between these 2 and you can still predict probability something happen on 50%. It is funny how these people flame each other for something they said and they instantly blame it on that it is outside their profession.
  24. Hey, i am in chronic pain and i can't do anything which involves thinking, because my head hurts, or doing mechanically, because i have repetitive strain injury and i am bored as hell, literally that bored as you can be, absolutely bored... And i am suffering from existential boredom and i think life is pointless, so i don't find anything interesting and meaningful and i don't feel pleasure, or content from doing anything and i thing free will is illusion, so there is that, but still, if i could do anything i would, because it is still better, than do nothing, but i can't. So i wonder if there are some pills to not feel boredom, or some method. Where i could just stare whole day to the wall e.g. and not feel bored. I read only that some pills temporarily reduce boredom, that's no use. I heard people with alexithymia - condition, where people have trouble identify emotions in themselves, or feel them. I read they can't tell difference between boredom and hunger e.g. , wonder than how would boredom feel. I read they have some physical sensations, so if boredom would feel like hunger or something. Doubt anything exists like that currently, or i read on quora once, about some pills that completely disable emotion, can't find that site anymore, not sure what would it do exactly. Anyway i wouldn't try anything, if i wasn't sure what it exactly does. I would appreciate anything to disable boredom, if there is such a thing.
  25. You cannot change that universe is gonna extinct, you cannot change civilization will extinct much sooner. And that evolution is fact etc. Noone can...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.