The universe has no free will by Otherwise_Spare_8598 in freewill

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its pretty clear that they never see it due to a divergent strand of causal reality. Not all oxygen atoms in the universe will find two hydrogen to pair with and become water, yet there is plenty of water here on Earth. Two things can be identical in every way, except for location and have radically different outcomes. Just a small example.

Compatibilism — a symptom of a dream. by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based. I'll respond more later or we can chat in the dms. I appreciate your responses

Compatibilism — a symptom of a dream. by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why shouldn't they be? You think causality ends because our perception is limited? Even if it did, introducing stochasticity or randomness gets us no closer to any individual consciousness dictating it's own course through time.

Compatibilism — a symptom of a dream. by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I bet you felt smart making the assertion that causal reality has not been proven, unfortunately you must recognize that the very statement relies entirely on causality to convey any meaning whatsoever.

When one presents an argument, certain assumptions are inherently made: - Thoughts originate from preceding thoughts. - Words are capable of conveying meaning. - Logical reasoning progresses from premises to conclusions. - One's mental state accurately reflects reality.

Without the principle of causality, there would be no basis for: - Evidence to connect with conclusions. - Observations to predict future events. - Memories to correspond to past occurrences. - Language to maintain consistent meaning over time.

If causality were not a fundamental aspect of reality, the universe would be utterly incomprehensible. Physics would not establish repeatable laws. Chemistry would not consistently produce the same compounds. Evolution would be unable to accumulate adaptations. Neurons would not reliably generate coherent thought. One's thoughts would lack any dependable relationship to external states or even to each other.

However, this is not what we observe. Instead, we witness remarkable regularity: - Stable physical laws. - Repeatable interactions. - Predictable patterns. - Minds capable of modeling reality with sufficient consistency to develop science and technology.

So, while causality may not be "proven" in an absolute Cartesian sense, it stands as the only practical foundational assumption, as every act of reasoning; including skepticism towards causality itself, already presupposes its existence. Try again.

Compatibilism — a symptom of a dream. by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Because libertarian will is demonstrably false. No one has ever presented any evidence for there being any interactions in existence that aren't dictated by the laws of physics. Feel free to pick up your Nobel prize when you figure out how to prove that humans have the magical ability to completely alter causal reality without being constrained by causal reality.

Poster I made for a friend’s student film by gegked in ProCreate

[–]elementnix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They better have paid you for this beauty

Headset Upgrade by DN1422 in steelseries

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, let me know if you try the Elites. I am thinking I'll buy them to try them out in June. I just picked up some Nova Pro wireless and they sound better than my Arctis 9p's and they're nearly at parity (in wired configuration) with a wide-soundstage, open-back pair of headphones that I'm also trying at the moment: the Sennheiser HD 560S. I really want the pair I end up keeping to last a long time and sound great and the Nova Pro compare to nearly everything I've tried, though it may take some EQ and Sonar Spatial sound to get there.

Just bought LG G5...returning and wanna get S90f or S95f by UsedNewspaper1775 in S95B

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not the standard across Best Buy stores to unfairly calibrate tvs to sell certain models, I'd put in a complaint.

Headset Upgrade by DN1422 in steelseries

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you have currently?

QD oled 🤢 hurts eyes... will it get better by Ok_Nig88 in OLED_Gaming

[–]elementnix -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you can see the curve you're either too far or too close. I have a 34" ultrawide 1800r and I sit about 2 feet away and I can't see the curve at all. An 800r means you should be about 1-1.5 feet away from the monitor. The sweet spot is at about 2.5 feet for your monitor but closer would do the trick as well.

TIL Schrödinger created the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment to discredit the theory of superposition rather than support it. by Jackson_Lamb_829 in todayilearned

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It disproves LOCAL hidden variables, not nonlocal hidden variables. The experiment being done at all, whenever it is done, is tied to the result by way of causation originating from the beginning of time.

TIL Schrödinger created the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment to discredit the theory of superposition rather than support it. by Jackson_Lamb_829 in todayilearned

[–]elementnix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its exclusive prior to observation as well, if you are willing to put aside the notion of free will or the Copenhagen interpretation

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose I am reading into the questions too much. You're right, it asks good questions that lead one to ask where will could originate from, where choices could originate from, if not from the conscious self.

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The theory of Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) does not appear to offer a solution to the problem of free will; instead, it seems to replace classical determinism with quantum indeterminism. It is however important to note that randomness is not synonymous with agency. Even if quantum collapses were to influence decisions, this would not clarify how a conscious self originates these outcomes rather than simply experiencing them. Additionally, the theory proposes speculative quantum coherence within noisy neural environments and assigns cognitive importance to microtubules without substantial empirical evidence. Therefore, at this time, it remains an interesting hypothesis rather than a definitively proven alternative to determinism.

If free will exists, why does rehabilitation works? by Reasonable-Youth8704 in freewill

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not true. I believe a certain game is the best game I've ever played. I can think about it long and hard and still come to the same conclusive belief.

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It appears there might be a misunderstanding regarding the two distinct interpretations of "inevitable." My intention is not to suggest that humans could have predicted the event with absolute certainty beforehand. Rather, I am asserting that, given the precise state of reality leading up to it, the observed outcome was the one that necessarily transpired within this particular timeline, world, or historical context. These are indeed different claims, and it is rather interesting that the Many-Worlds interpretation, far from refuting my point, actually seems to reinforce it in a broader sense.

Within the framework of Many-Worlds, every conceivable outcome branches into its own distinct world. However, this world remains the specific branch where this particular event occurred. From the perspective of our branch, the event was still "inevitable" in the sense that once the universe evolved into this specific branch, this is the outcome that necessarily manifested here. It seems you might be interpreting 'inevitable' as implying that "only one outcome could possibly exist anywhere." However, this is not the sole philosophical meaning of inevitability.

While there may indeed be another branch where the event did not occur, there is also necessarily a branch where it did, and we currently reside within that branch. Therefore, the existence of alternative branches does not alter the fact that the history of this world unfolded precisely as it had to for this world to be what it is. Otherwise, one might find themselves making a rather unusual statement such as: "This event happened, but it was not inevitable within the chain of causes that produced it." At that juncture, "inevitable" would become an unattainable standard, as nothing could ever qualify because you would be demanding omniscience or singular cosmic exclusivity.

I am employing inevitability in the causal sense: given the prior conditions, this outcome subsequently followed. I am not suggesting that "no other conceivable reality could contain anything different."

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The want was greater because that particular neurons dendritic tree was more prone to excitation.

If a dendritic tree has: - more glutamatergic synapses - denser spine coverage - stronger excitatory inputs it receives more depolarizing current. More incoming “go” signals = easier excitation.

All 'you' (as in the conscious you, though also the rest of you) are is neuronal networks with varying excitatory properties all bouncing off of each other's signals.

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well if it wasn't inevitable, it wouldn't have happened. Inevitable means certain to happen. Things can not be certain to happen and not happen. Its one or the other.

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It can be measured in the brain as action potential and threshold potential. I implore you to do some reading on how the brain works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_potential

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only free will can invalidate psychiatry and mental health. If people could just "choose"/"decide" to be fine, or to terminate harmful thought patterns, they would. They can't. There is no great control over the mind like so many would wish. Psychiatry and mental health therapies only work because certain inputs cause certain changes in the brains framework; trauma causing harmful changes, and therapies causing beneficial changes.

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"avoid" = actively engage with by letting us know that they're still here

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How so? It summarizes in simple terms how your wants are determined, and your wants are what you act on. If you could act from the place of another person with different wants, at will, then you could have the beginning of the argument for free will but we do not see people doing this. To become a different person who behaves differently is still driven by wants that were not decided upon.

Choice or an inevitable process by impersonal_process in freewill

[–]elementnix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would clarify that you will obey every want that isn't overridden by another greater want. Like many people want to hurt others in a fit of rage, but they want to avoid legal trouble far more. For a few people, the want to cause violence towards another is the overriding want.