Or not. Once you invoke ‘there is no free will’ then you literally have stated that everything is determanistic meaning everything that will happen Has happened.
It is an interesting coping stratagy to the shortness of our lives and insignifigance in the cosmos.
How about: there’s no difference between actually free will and an infinite universe of infinite variables affecting your programming, resulting in a belief that you have free will. Heck, a couple million variables is more than plenty to confuddle these primate brains.
Ok, but then you run into why does billions of vairables create free will in a human but not a computer? Does it create free will in a pig? A slug? A bacterium?
Because billions is an absurd understatement, and computer have constrained problem spaces far less complex than even the most controlled life of a lab rat.
And who the hell argues the animals don’t have free will? They don’t have full sapience, but they absolutely have will.
So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?
I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.
I’d say it ends when you can’t predict with 100% accuracy 100% of the time how an entity will react to a given stimuli. With current LLMs if I run it with the same input it will always do the same thing. And I mean really the same input not putting the same prompt into chat GPT twice and getting different results because there’s an additional random number generator I don’t have access too.
You can go ahead and produce the “proof” you have that humans have free will because I am not wasting my time being your search engine on something that has been heavily studied. Especially when I know nothing I produce will be understood by you simply based on the fact that you are demanding “proof” free will does not exist when there is no “proof” that it does in the first place.
I tend not to waste my time sourcing Scientific material for unscientific minds.
It’s OK not to be mature, you don’t have to be mad. Your argument is that you don’t have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.
Your argument is that you don’t have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.
No.
My point is that free will has not been “solved” but there is more evidence that humans do not have it than there is evidence that we do. It has yet to be determined one way or the other.
Well, I googled exactly that and as I knew, it doesn’t say what you propose. Can you explain what the fuck you mean? Free will has no evidence nor does no free will. It’s a philosophical question and science can only confirm that we make choices. Your hostile arguments are so hard to interpret. What do you mean. No, there is not more evidence that we do. What evidence? Why is it so easy to find and basic to you that you become angry, yet it turns out you made it up? Can you elaborate?
Prove it.
Or not. Once you invoke ‘there is no free will’ then you literally have stated that everything is determanistic meaning everything that will happen Has happened.
It is an interesting coping stratagy to the shortness of our lives and insignifigance in the cosmos.
Asking to prove non-existance of something. Typical.
How about: there’s no difference between actually free will and an infinite universe of infinite variables affecting your programming, resulting in a belief that you have free will. Heck, a couple million variables is more than plenty to confuddle these primate brains.
Ok, but then you run into why does billions of vairables create free will in a human but not a computer? Does it create free will in a pig? A slug? A bacterium?
Because billions is an absurd understatement, and computer have constrained problem spaces far less complex than even the most controlled life of a lab rat.
And who the hell argues the animals don’t have free will? They don’t have full sapience, but they absolutely have will.
So where does it end? Slugs, mites, krill, bacteria, viruses? How do you draw a line that says free will this side of the line, just mechanics and random chance this side of the line?
I just dont find it a particularly useful concept.
I’d say it ends when you can’t predict with 100% accuracy 100% of the time how an entity will react to a given stimuli. With current LLMs if I run it with the same input it will always do the same thing. And I mean really the same input not putting the same prompt into chat GPT twice and getting different results because there’s an additional random number generator I don’t have access too.
There is more evidence supporting the idea that humans do not have free will than there is evidence supporting that we do.
Then produce this proof.
Yeah, no.
You can go ahead and produce the “proof” you have that humans have free will because I am not wasting my time being your search engine on something that has been heavily studied. Especially when I know nothing I produce will be understood by you simply based on the fact that you are demanding “proof” free will does not exist when there is no “proof” that it does in the first place.
I tend not to waste my time sourcing Scientific material for unscientific minds.
Hahaha yeah the philosophy of free will is solved and you can just Google it
That’s not a mature argument
Show me where I said that.
Learn what an argument is because I haven’t made one.
It’s OK not to be mature, you don’t have to be mad. Your argument is that you don’t have to provide proof that free will has been solved because it is easy to Google it.
No.
My point is that free will has not been “solved” but there is more evidence that humans do not have it than there is evidence that we do. It has yet to be determined one way or the other.
This isn’t an argument, it is a fact.
Well, I googled exactly that and as I knew, it doesn’t say what you propose. Can you explain what the fuck you mean? Free will has no evidence nor does no free will. It’s a philosophical question and science can only confirm that we make choices. Your hostile arguments are so hard to interpret. What do you mean. No, there is not more evidence that we do. What evidence? Why is it so easy to find and basic to you that you become angry, yet it turns out you made it up? Can you elaborate?