HTOTM: FUSION
it's a scale of relativity at every point above and below the observer's perspective.

Quantum physics becomes less deterministic the more you dissect it, revealing a very random underlying mechanic of our reality.

Physics becomes more deterministic as you branch out to the observer level, then it tapers off back into a less deterministic series of events as you scale out macroscopically.

In a quantum sense, the observer is the center of existence.

Back on topic, and how that has relevance is the observer itself.
If you are not aware of your observations, your actions can be safely called autonomous and not acts of intent or choice.

If you are consciously aware of your observations, it could be said that your activities are deliberate examples of exercising Free Will, and only half autonomous.

Because, let's face it, you're not in control of gravity. that's autonomous. But within the limitations of your Human Structure, you exhibit Free Will by exemplifying Conscious Awareness of your Intent.

We are both autonomous and intentional.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
Originally Posted by Zelda View Post
I would like to repeat that reality is non-deterministic. This is well established and tested physics. Look up John Bell and his inequalities. The determinism vs non-determinism argument ended decades ago. The result of a measurement in quantum physics is not predetermined, it is random.

Does this necessarily mean that the universe isn't deterministic though? Doesn't this just affect what we can determine based on what we can observe?
“Aaah rum zum zum aaah rum zum zum booly booly booly booly booly rum zum zum”
Originally Posted by Pimp View Post
Does this necessarily mean that the universe isn't deterministic though? Doesn't this just affect what we can determine based on what we can observe?

If quantum mechanical outcomes are random, which we (smarter people than me) are quite sure that they are, universe can't be deterministic. If a system has a random element in it, the outcome of the system's products/procedures will be, at some level, random as well.

That doesn't mean you can't predict almost anything based from the non random elements of the said system, but it does mean that it's not absolutely deterministic. I'm not saying
"BECAUSE QUANTUM MECHANICS EVERYTHING IS RANDOM FREE WILL EXISTS WOOOO",
because firstly I don't understand quantum mechanics, and if someone here says they do, ignore that person.

But if there is a random element to our universe, absolute determinism doesn't apply (that's at least how I understand it.).
Here is a simpler way to put what i mean

" I think it's all probabilities. The future might not be set in stone...but there's a great probability that it will happen a certain way.

So there is still a randomness to the universe, but the greater the force that something will happen...the greater a force is needed to change events"
“Aaah rum zum zum aaah rum zum zum booly booly booly booly booly rum zum zum”
Originally Posted by cocacobra View Post
I'm also very very very doubtful when it comes to any article about scientists claiming to understand how the brain works. I mean they can monitor a few things like releasing of chemicals and heat but I don't think that scientists can make such huge speculations like the one in the article claim. Not to mention that is not a very scholarly article, it's doctors answering to a reporter so there are probably some inaccuracies and dumbed down answers.

"Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."

article from the society responsible for the experiment
Good morning sweet princess
It essentially comes down to the point where all: duality, all polarity, and all "this/that"; are false dichotomies.
All of them - relatively speaking - with each, in and of itself, being an absolute made up of smaller/larger false dichotomies/absolutes ad infinitium - all of the pats are following the pi, e, and phi ratios, paradoxically braided together. "holy trinity".

The ratio of a circle's circumference, the mathematical constant e, and the ratio of every number in the Fibonacci sequence above 5:8 (0,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ...,);The numbers 3.14~, 2.71~, and 1.61~ are each infinite and are each binding our perceptions to a finite reality.

Our free will is investigative, observational, and decisive.
But we don't always exercise it.

We all have fingers, but how many of us exercise them? Or do you just use them and take 'em for granted till they hurt? Is the uncertainty, fear, pain response your only motivator to avoid something? Is the hunger, desire, pleasure response your only motivator?

The underlying argument about free will is not its existence.

Its about responsibility:

SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
That right there is enough to discredit this entire study. None of these articles mention a sample size, or anything about the participants or any real detail as to how the experiment was carried out. Plus they have to remember when they felt that they had made the decision. There just isn't enough details in the article, and I tried googling to see if I could find a report or something on the actual experiment but didn't find one. To sum it all up no processes or details nullifies the article, honestly looks like an article that should be at the bottom of some news website along with 9 tricks to make your skin look 40 years younger.

Oh and the website Zelda linked has a way to search for publications by date, but there are 0 research publications for the year of 2008 and if they aren't willing to publish their research publications then it probably was a flawed study.

I was posting the quote to concur with what you said, if I disagreed with you I would have found a better quote for it. Sorry if this article is too similar to Ele's to have been helpful.

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the results are legit. It says the predictive readings are from the frontopolar cortex. Wikipedia says:
Although this region is extensive in humans, its function is poorly understood. Koechlin & Hyafil have proposed that processing of 'cognitive branching' is the core function of the frontopolar cortex. Cognitive branching enables a previously running task to be maintained in a pending state for subsequent retrieval and execution upon completion of the ongoing one. Many of our complex behaviors and mental activities require simultaneous engagement of multiple tasks, and they suggest the anterior prefrontal cortex may perform a domain-general function in these scheduling operations.

Sounds awful like what you do when trying to check the time and concentrate on pressing a button right? Also notice how in the brain image the article showed the lower area of the hindbrain is also being recorded. I don't know brain structure very well but I am pretty confident that this more basic, primal area of the brain is associated with impulsive behaviour, like pushing a button for no reason unprompted. There are 2 peaks in predictive quality on the graph, one 7 seconds before conscious awareness and the second is only about a second before. This sounds about right.

To be fair to the experiment, the graph looks pretty empirical, if they were faking it then it would probably of been show as correct more that 60% of the time. I'm not sure if that is how they actually calculated it but the fact that after the decision is made it is 50% indicates that it might of been. If it is calculated like this then the precision of the points on the quality axis makes it look like they had a decent sample size.

On the other hand, if they are calculating it as %accuracy of prediction then the error bars should not all be the same size.

Basically, it makes sense that activity in the brain precedes basic impulsive actions like this, and distinguishing between left and right to <60% accuracy 7 seconds before it happens isn't exactly groundbreaking. If it was a decision which required action reasoning and which you are likely to not just go with by whim then I would be impressed, but otherwise I'm not really so surprised.
Last edited by Zelda; Oct 29, 2015 at 10:58 PM.
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Lazors View Post
So the alternative would be that everyone is born the same and thus could make proper decisions without interference from our genes?

The alternative to determinism is that free will exists. Or that both exist at the same time (compatibilism).

Originally Posted by Lazors View Post
Ok, but what makes that "free will" our free will? Is it really free if everyone would make the same choice in identical situations?

That's exactly it. If you grew up as Hitler, the argument goes that you would make all the same decisions that he did. That there was never any other way for things to play out other than how they happened is what they mean by 'free will doesn't exist'.

Originally Posted by Lazors View Post
Now what you are saying is that genetics is in the way of free will, which means that you don't think two people in the same situation would act in the same way.

Mhm. It's not just genetics that determines the decision making though, it's also their environment + experiences. Easy way to think of it is nature+nurture. Going back to Hitler, if you took his place, instead of actually being him, then history would've turned out differently. If you were Hitler, then it would remain the same.


Originally Posted by cocacobra View Post
I've been in situations where I would not have normally done something until someone else brought in another aspect that pushed me to do it. For instance I would have never gone rock climbing if I didn't randomly run into my friend before he went, now it's a big part of my life.

Did you randomly meet him though? Or did the chain of events that led to you and him being in the same place at the same time dictate that you'd meet him? If everything is on a set path, then that'd mean that your paths would always have intersected in that way.

Originally Posted by cocacobra View Post
My argument would then be that even if determinism is true isn't it still technically free will? Free will is just the ability to choose all the options which is true, even if it is predetermined.

This is what I was getting at with the second question I posed (what impact does this have on us/does it even matter). Everything being predetermined doesn't really have any impact on how we live our lives. Except in the ethical sense. If we take it that Hitler did everything the way he did because of his nature + nurture, and that, if we were him, we would've done the exact same thing, then we have to question just how responsible he was for his own actions. The American justice system (and many others) has, as a foundational idea, the belief that free will does exist, and that people are responsible. If it doesn't exist, then that opens up the door to compassion and more restorative (as opposed to retributive) judicial practices. We don't blame a lion for doing lion-like things. That doesn't mean we don't shoot a lion if it attacks us or anything, but it means that we're aware that 'hey, that's just how it is'. If we look at criminals with less of a 'fuck you, piece of shit' attitude and more of a 'he didn't have a say in the matter', then we're able to be more compassionate and we're able to break away from the ancient (and perhaps outdated) 'eye for an eye' mentality.

There's no practical difference that the nonexistence of free will has on our lives, but it does raise some really deep and tricky ethical questions.
Last edited by Ele; Oct 30, 2015 at 04:49 AM.
This is what I was getting at with the second question I posed (what impact does this have on us/does it even matter). Everything being predetermined doesn't really have any impact on how we live our lives. Except in the ethical sense. If we take it that Hitler did everything the way he did because of his nature + nurture, and that, if we were him, we would've done the exact same thing, then we have to question just how responsible he was for his own actions. The American justice system (and many others) has, as a foundational idea, the belief that free will does exist, and that people are responsible. If it doesn't exist, then that opens up the door to compassion and more restorative (as opposed to retributive) judicial practices. We don't blame a lion for doing lion-like things. That doesn't mean we don't shoot a lion if it attacks us or anything, but it means that we're aware that 'hey, that's just how it is'. If we look at criminals with less of a 'fuck you, piece of shit' attitude and more of a 'he didn't have a say in the matter', then we're able to be more compassionate and we're able to break away from the ancient (and perhaps outdated) 'eye for an eye' mentality.

Yes. The idea of prisons is very old anyway. We shouldn't view prison as a punishment in the first place, but more as a help institution, that prevents people from relapsing into crime.
Prisons have a really bad track record when it comes to that.
Brendan (he who passeth judgement on the frequent changing of signatures): I don't do hentai anymore