(untitled)

Aren’t our actions/thoughts determined by chemical processes that happen in our brain and it’s structure and properties are determined by our genes so that it makes it a requirement for the freedom of choice to exist to there be something that transcends the laws of physics? Then why do we hold people accountable for their actions when it’s basically the same as being born without a limb and expecting that person to be able to climb up a tree?

>>76355 >Aren’t our actions/thoughts determined by chemical processes that happen in our brain and it’s structure and properties are determined by our genes so that it makes it a requirement for the freedom of choice to exist to there be something that transcends the laws of physics? Firstly, it's its and, secondly, random chance may very well be the core of consciousness. >Then why do we hold people accountable for their actions when it’s basically the same as being born without a limb and expecting that person to be able to climb up a tree? Thirdly, by this mode of thought we can't help but do so and, fourthly, I don't subscribe to this idea that excuses lesser people who make bad choices. Fifthly and lastly, I don't think the nature of consciousness really matters this much.

>it makes it a requirement for the freedom of choice to exist to there be something that transcends the laws of physics? It's not possible to "transcend the laws of physics" by definition. If something happens that "transcends physics" then it means our knowledge of physics is incomplete. A question for you is: would we be more free if there was a soul? We would be still forced to follow our nature, just that nature would be encoded in a soul rather than a physical body. Would we be more free if our lives were dictated by random chance? This seems to be the least free we could possibly be, if our nature is not determinative of our actions. Regardless of whether we are a soul or just a body, we have free will because what we are determines what we do. It doesn't matter if our decisions could theoretically be predicted, that does not make them any less our decisions.

>>76355 You know, if something transceds the laws of physics... it's just a new law of physics

>>76355 >why do we hold people accountable You are held accountable precisely because you are deterministic which allows to manipulate your behavior with punishment. Nobody would bother if you weren't deterministic because then it would be a pointless effort.

No. Common misconception, but your brain does not work in fully predictable and deterministic pattern. There's a school of thinking that wishes it would, but that's all it is: a kind of cult/religion. Why do you think we're still worrying about consciousness and its implications? Here's an introductory article so you can acclimate yourself to the topic: plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

>>76372 Clearly you aren't acting fully random as people don't spontaneously stab themselves with knives or do other dumb stuff. The opposite of random is deterministic. These people merely argue about the degree of determinism and wish to have a random factor to escape the outlook of a set future.

>>76371 So, the ony way to win is to become ungovernable?

>>76372 Does GPT work in fully predictable and deterministic pattern? Of cource it is if you know all the parameters, but imagine you don't. You can model it, predict it's behaviour, train another neural network to predict it's behaviour. The same way we do it to humans. So how is it different?

>>76377 >how is it different? They believe there is a true random dice throw somewhere and not just a hidden deterministic state you cant model. There is also a quantum model that argues the opposite - system is just hidden variables that are predictable but unknown. Either way its not important to OP's question. Its self evident people are predictable enough to manipulate their behavior. Its why marketing and religions exist.

>>76374 Conversations about randomness are always bound to be nigh unproductive so I want to stick to a reference that acknowledges some level of entropy in chaos the same way we observe it throughout the whole of structured existence. I'll just mention consciousness and free choice as aspects of the human experience that triumph some degrees of physical condition and can never be truly determined. Humans are suggestible, but never predictable. A lot of old CIA research goes into the topic and it's a crime they haven't publicized more of it. Feel free to read the article I linked. For some more modern neuroscience dealing with the topic, start with a modernized outlook for the key aspect of the model: https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.01.006 >>76377 It's great you bring up ChatGPT and modern AIs in general because they do serve as an example of what a wholly deterministic set of neurons and weighed synapses would be in reality, and a perfect mirror to human experience. Behold the extent of our material knowledge. Our hubris.

>>76357 Well, the argument that people punishing other people for their actions is also a part of a pre-determined chain of events has merit. >fourthly, I don't subscribe to this idea that excuses lesser people who make bad choices Why though?

physics is random at the quantum level so no

Because there are things that transcend the laws of physics, and the universe is not entirely material or explicable

Even if free will doesn't exist, not holding people accountable would cause problems for people by disrupting the social organization of humans. Just because we are aware of our lack of free will, it doesn't mean we can do anything with that information. We are not gods. I think it's better to play the game, and keep living as a human, simply because doing anything else is just as meaningless.

>quantum physics has entered the chat

>>76355 >Then why do we hold people accountable for their actions when it’s basically the same as being born without a limb and expecting that person to be able to climb up a tree? Because we have no free will as you said, so we do whatever we're pre-determined to do which in this case is to hold people accountable for such things.

Determinism and free will are not incompatible concepts. That someone would ALWAYS make a certain choice does not mean they acted without free will. A hypothetical entity that always acts nondeterministically would actually lack free will, it does not have the capacity to make a choice and merely rolls the dice.

>>76716 the problem of the free will problem is that no one makes a clear definition and no one agrees on any currently in existence, so anybody is free to define free will the way he likes it most. this way all discussions boil down to people talking with their imaginary companions while technically sitting and producing sounds in one room. absolutely disgusting