Why do dimwits/midwits believe in free will while higher iq people tend to view the world deterministically?
Why do dimwits/midwits believe in free will while higher iq people tend to view the world deterministically?
Why do dimwits/midwits believe in free will while higher iq people tend to view the world deterministically?
> i'm not in control of my actions!
textbook schizophrenia, case closed
More like you are in control of your actions, but you are the product of past experience and your actions reflect that.
How that changes the fact that i could be independent?
esl detected
It invalidates the theory that you are independent.
According to what if i can still process information on my own?
You actions are determined by what information you happen to process. Do I really have to spoonfeed everything for you?
My actions are determined by my evolutionary path, that led me to think and act in such a complex way nobody will predict my output.
You are confusing unpredictability (and not even an inherent unpredictability, only other people's ignorance making you appear unpredictable to them) with indeterminancy.
If you can't predict the outcome of a complex system, why do you still assume it's determined?
Being unable to predict an outcome because of unknown variables or limited computational ability, is not the same as fundamental indeterminacy. You might not know the outcome of a coin flip, but assuming the coin's motion adheres to the laws of physics, it is possible in principle to predict the outcome.
Yes but you're making an assumption about a complex system you can't understand, this is not an empirical conclusion.
It's a good assumption because we know systems with more variables are harder to compute. We don't have any reason to believe systems with more variables are somehow fundamentally undeterministic.
Yes, you can only reach this conclusion through rationalism.
Your conclusion can only be reached through irrationalism
But in both cases not empirical.
Empiricism was btfo centuries ago, anon.
The thing is if every complex system is deterministic you could use a mathematical formula to describe its behavior, but if we can't predict it the only reason to say it's deterministic is through rationalism because it's the most simple explaination.
But still, we don't really know that.
Quick question: Can you tell us what free will is?
Free will is not the problem i'm talking about, even if the world is probabilistic it doesn't mean free will is a thing.
Kant crippled the study of morality, frick off
This. Kant and Hegel destroyed objectivity in the western world.
There wasnt ever any. It was subjective all along bro. Cartesian subject.
>There wasnt ever any.
To keep saying that
>well I'm still free because I'm choosing my actions!
Is to fundamentally misunderstand the topic in discussion, as simplified by
.
>a bearded man in the sky will set me on fire if I jerk off
textbook schizophrenia, case closed
c
that's a brainlet's dichotomy. free will or determinism do not exhaust all the possibilities, in particular the actual state of the world belongs to neither alternative. we have no free will but the world is aptly described as having random components, so it is not deterministic.
Partially disagree.
Indeed we do not have free will (although this is debatable and compatibilists seems to have interesting arguments), but the universe is not inherently random. Randomness is a human idea, the more physics expands, the more laws we discover. There are many variables that influence these laws but still it's being studied.
So it's safer to say the universe is deterministic and chaotic, instead of a lazy and nihilistic assumption of randomness.
I just did not want to bring the relative-state interpretation into this. but certain quantum processes are indeed random; we don't claim this on the basis that we haven't found the governing logic behind them but because we have proof that there's no room for hidden variables at all. Bell's inequality is a b***h and I just don't see what kind of discovery would negate the experimental results surrounding it. it would have to be like discovering that Pi is equal to 4 after all.
so yes, the entirety of the universe i.e. the universal wavefunction may be completely deterministic, but we have very good resaon to still see the world, that is, our branch, as containing true randomness. I've just grown tired of the tactics of pro-free will people who immediately demand that I defend a deterministic universe as if it was the obvious corollary of no free will. and this is the better outcome; usually they just jump directly to calling me names for "believing in a deterministic universe".
Higher IQ people are more likely to be informed about behavioral genetics while low IQ people believe in pop psychology bullshit.
christians tend to occupy the left side of the IQ bell curve, and free will is a key christian tenet.
>Christians have lower IQ than atheists, concludes study by atheists
If God and King Jesus doesnt exist, why do you let Him live in your head rent free?
moron
The adherent of a religion which discovered gravity is not what I consider moronic, and the Lord Jesus pities the person who thinks otherwise
Tell me more tbh I'm very interested in your ramblings
Atheist, meet Newton, the smartest man to have ever lived...and a christian
Don't read any other post in this thread except this one.
1. Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
2. Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
Well put. "Souls" or whatever else have never been observed; all consciousness is an expression of physics. It's simple science as proven by Marxist-Leninist scientific atheism.
>Marxist-Leninist scientific atheism
Starve to death.
seethe, christcuck
Nothing to seethe about and not even a christcuck, keep buying food for oil.
You missed a 4th implicit assumption:
4. Are the mind and brain one and the same?
This is assuming that a (literal) magic component can emerge out of nowhere, between the mind and the brain.
This is assuming a physical law, weaker than the weakest possible interaction, has an effect large enough to break current observable laws in, and only in, the brain.
You can call the mind "magic", but it is non-material and exists more surely than the laws of physics or the brain.
Conflating the emergent process of the brain with non-materialism isn't going to suddenly turn the mind into a non-deterministic process.
Can you hold a thought? Can you see an emotion? What is the mass of the smell of an orange?
Can you do any of that without a brain?
We don't know. Science has no answer to this question.
The answer is a clear no, dude.
The brain is only known empirically to do two things for sure: 1) contract muscle fibers via motor neurons, and 2) stimulate the release of pituitary hormones via neuroendocrine cells. Everything else is hand-wavey speculation and woo.
Also a 5th implicit assumption:
5. Are our laws of physics complete and do they give us full understanding of all phenomena in the universe?
The answer to that question is definitively no. Otherwise physicists can just go home.
lmao, this is assuming we have a complete understanding of physics, which isn't true in the slightest
oh no..
is that why GCP dot syncs with big events? because it is all in the script?
Dimwits believe in free will, but not midwits.
Weak anthropocentric argument. That implies empiricism and the study on ontics is useless. Then show us a better method.
Shove that nihilism into your ass.
The best way to prove yourself a midwit is to claim a behavioral trait tracks IQ on a dumbell curve. Something which has never been empirically observed for any known trait.
Why didn't you post the real life chart.
>Random coinflips in your brain resulting in decisions is the same as you having agency.
This is why I can't like this meme format. They're always made by midwits that put themselves as the intelligent side.
I never claimed free will is the result of quantum indeterminacy. Quantum indeterminacy simply refutes the idea that the universe is deterministic, and thus opens the door to the possibility of free will. I personally believe in free will because it is a feature of my most immediate experience, which I hold as more fundamental than abstract ideas about the laws physics or causality which contradict the notion of free will.
>and thus opens the door
How, you fricking moron. You just agreed with me that random coinflips in your brain does not equal free will. "Quantum indeterminacy" allows, at most, for random coinflips in your brain. That's all.
>Holding the intuitions of a pattern seeking meat sponge above the better performing impersonal consensus of various meat sponges trying not to be enslaved by what feels most intuitive at any given time.
You are a moronic sack of shit.
> free will is quantum dice roll
I feel like that is a brainlet argument
Free will is an nonsense concept anyway. Nobpdy can define it without accidently describing determinism or being totally incomprehensible.
>higher iq people tend to view the world deterministically?
Nonsense, I haven't seen any high IQ folks believing that their intelligence is irrelevant kek (they might tell this aloud so you normies don't feel bad) Typical midwit post.
Because high IQ people know that their intelligence is itself a part of the causal chain. Unlike you, a midwit who had to be told this.
>hurr durr look at me!
>this event happened therefore I had no choice but to follow this path
>free will doesn’t exist
Determinists are self absorbed individuals who believe the world revolves around them. Facts of life that are determined, such as geographic location, biological sex etc. only have meaning to which a person assigns meaning to.
>Determinists are self absorbed individuals who believe the world revolves around them
>The people who thinks they are a part of the world, and are beholden to the same laws that govern every other thing in the world are more self absorbed than the people who think they can do anything because...they just feel like it or something.
uhuh
Because higher iq doesn't mean you are more wise. It's natural that people born with a greater propensity towards deductive thought assume the nature of reality is their own individual world view.
My problem is, if you can't fully predict my behavior, how could you assume that my behavior is determined?
WTF I'M MAD NOW
Free will and determinism are compatible, and also Kant completely misrepresented what the so-called empiricists thought.
No they aren't
Yes they are. Just because my choices are predictable doesn't mean I'm not making them.
This isn't up to discussion bro, determinism is the opposite of free will.
It should be up for discussion because it's obviously a category error.
Now you're using more words you don't understand.
You don't have "free will". You are a bipedal chimp and you will react to various stimuli based on chemicals in your brain. If I inject different chemicals into you or poke at your brain, you will feel different emotions, get sleepy/agitated/hyperactive, etc. Shit, even the simple act of me vibrating my throat and moving my mouth can make you feel things regardless of whether you want to or not. If I walk up to you and tell you I'm going to beat you and rape your wife, you're going to get super pissed at me and have less control over yourself. It's so easy, I don't know how someone could possibly argue that we have free will. We just react to stimuli, that's it.
Yet the chimp scratches his itch every time, never stopping to observe his fingers and realize he commands the power to suffer the itch at no benefit. Free will is manifested in any creature able to question it.
Midwit question. I haven't found that truly high-IQ people easily dismiss free will, that seems more of a 120-130 range behavior.
Smart enough to understand high school science, not smart enough to have given the foundations of our scientific knowledge any serious thought or study.
Look up compatibilism and then also look up Roger Penrose's thoughts on consciousness and incompleteness theory.
>compatibilism
Subset of determinism
>Roger Penrose's thoughts on consciousness and incompleteness theory.
He doesn't want determinism to be true, regarding human choice
Ok well you can make that assertion, but I'm demonstrating that it's in no way a settled matter that free will and determinism are even dichotomous.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%207%20Freedom/Freedom_Compatibilism.htm
That whole thing is basically just wrong. Calling compatibilism a type of determinism is begging the question at best and childishly obtuse contradiction at worst.
I'm sure, I'm sure.
Compatibilism is determinism in denial. Cope.
ITT: Losers who blame everything but themselves as why they can’t get laid
Determinism is a low IQ take and has been disproven by religious practice no less, one person is deterministic solely because of karma, karma understood as in, you repeat na action, a tendency is created, a new wrinkle is made in the brain, for repeating this action, the only way out of karma is to meditate (see: Neuroplasticity and Meditaiton) which allows us to retake our lives.
In short, midwits thinking they are high IQ curbstomped by religion again.
What you posted is only tangentially related to the topic of discussion, if even.
>>>/x/
Nice cope and crying like a b***h.
I accept your concession.
>karma
>wrinkle in the brain
Stay away from intellectual discussions
This post doesn't even scratch the midwit barrier. Embarrassing.
I mean it was at least as insightful as "compatibilism isn't real because I said so."
>If we redefine free will to mean voluntary action, free will is compatible with determinism!
more like copetabilism
>yeah everything is predetermined... except my mind... because it just is ok?
Because its scary to accept determinism also its easy to buy into the illusion of free will cause it feels free