Most guys on this forum are NPCs

[Epicenter]

No, all humans are NPCs. We have no free will so that's it.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Bigfoot lives ^

 

[Epicenter]

Bigfoot lives ^

Science say. Maybe.

Would you like to have free will?

 

[Ricky]

This is pretty good at least it is a few minutes in.

 

[Plinco]

Free will is specifically, the choice to either focus on a thought or not to focus on a thought. The better you are at focusing away from an impulse, the more free will you have. Because focusing away from impulses requires effort, since you'll get tired after some time from doing it, means that by extension free will requires effort.

 

[Epicenter]

Free will is specifically, the choice to either focus on a thought or not to focus on a thought. The better you are at focusing away from an impulse, the more free will you have. Because focusing away from impulses requires effort, since you'll get tired after some time from doing it, means that by extension free will requires effort.

No that is not free will. It is impulse control. You can't decide 'freely' if it makes sense to train it. It comes to you and moves you. You are the object. Things happen to you. There is no real you. The brain has no identity. The feeling of identity is just a construct. Like a movie that is playing in your head where you don't have any control. You can't decide to go crazy or to be healthy. It happens to you but there is no you. Just stuff seems to be happening and some sofware in our brain seems to do stuff.

There is no real I. Only something seems to talk about an I.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Science say. Maybe.

Would you like to have free will?

Do you believe humans have souls?

 

[BillyPilgrim]

This is pretty good at least it is a few minutes in.

How was it? OP oddly expects us to watch a 100 minute video after insulting the board with his headline.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExaW10amNscXIxMnltOWtnYWhnejV3YXE3Zng1cThuMzdkdWloenlzdCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/5k5vZwRFZR5aZeniqb/giphy.gif

 

[Plinco]

No that is not free will. It is impulse control. You can't decide 'freely' if it makes sense to train it. It comes to you and moves you. You are the object. Things happen to you. There is no real you. The brain has no identity. The feeling of identity is just a construct. Like a movie that is playing in your head where you don't have any control. You can't decide to go crazy or to be healthy. It happens to you but there is no you. Just stuff seems to be happening and some sofware in our brain seems to do stuff.

There is no real I. Only something seems to talk about an I.

Much of your thinking is narrative. Because human communication has the ability to generate metaphors, it can grasp abstract concepts, such as the self by using the analog "I" and metaphor "me" in order to metaphorically place oneself in a narrative, and then multiple narratives, and then can switch focus on which narrative to act on.

"I" is an analog, and "me" is a metaphor of a person's mind, or consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property of the wiring of the brain. There's no specific part of the brain that is conscious, but how the brain is wired as a result of the metaphor property of language. Consciousness makes free will possible. Impulse control allows a person's consciousness to be more effective in focusing which narrative to act on, which is the essence of free will.

 

[Epicenter]

Do you believe humans have souls?

No

 

[Epicenter]

Much of your thinking is narrative. Because human communication has the ability to generate metaphors, it can grasp abstract concepts, such as the self by using the analog "I" and metaphor "me" in order to metaphorically place oneself in a narrative, and then multiple narratives, and then can switch focus on which narrative to act on.

"I" is an analog, and "me" is a metaphor of a person's mind, or consciousness. Consciousness is an emergent property of the wiring of the brain. There's no specific part of the brain that is conscious, but how the brain is wired as a result of the metaphor property of language. Consciousness makes free will possible. Impulse control allows a person's consciousness to be more effective in focusing which narrative to act on, which is the essence of free will.

Your thinking is narrative. Your brain chemisty among many other things 'decides' what 'you chose'. Same like a computer the transistors and the software 'decide' how to drive a car.

 

[Plinco]

Your thinking is narrative. Your brain chemisty among many other things 'decides' what 'you chose'. Same like a computer the transistors and the software 'decide' how to drive a car.

The brain chemistry is the impulse. Unlike animals, personal character can override that. The effectiveness of your consciousness is in part impulse control. For example, a person acting emotionally is acting impulsively, and is lacking in free will, whereas someone who has mastered themselves and is able to reason while being put under pressure has more free will.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

Free will does not exist, our existence is channeled through the Survival Instincts crafted by a millenia of dopamine seeking.
Some people have delayed gratification, however that implied gratification is ultimately a requisite to our existence.

 

[Epicenter]

The brain chemistry is the impulse. Unlike animals, personal character can override that. The effectiveness of your consciousness is in part impulse control. For example, a person acting emotionally is acting impulsively, and is lacking in free will, whereas someone who has mastered themselves and is able to reason while being put under pressure has more free will.

Mostly guys who are brainwashed by religion believe this unscientific crap. The urge to reason is an emotion too. The urge to act has to come from somewhere. It comes from your brain soup.

Not much different than an AI.

 

[Plinco]

The urge to reason is an emotion too.

"urge" is an emotion, reason is not. Logical reasoning identifies reality, and is not automatic. Emotions are automatic reactions and are not basis for action.

I think I've made a good case in this thread for the basis of the concept of free will that a rational person should agree with, and it's based on my understanding on how the human mind works based on the science. I would recommend the book The Origin Of Consciousness And The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. As far as free will specifically, look up the concept of ego depletion, there's a lot of research in that and strongly suggests the existence of free will. There's also an ethical philosophic dilemma that if a person doesn't have free will, then there's no need for ethical principles if people's actions are already determined. Ethical principles implies choice.

Free will does not exist, our existence is channeled through the Survival Instincts crafted by a millenia of dopamine seeking.
Some people have delayed gratification, however that implied gratification is ultimately a requisite to our existence.

Given the evidence and reasoning in my posts in this thread, why would you still think there's no volitional consciousness?

 

[Epicenter]

"urge" is an emotion, reason is not. Logical reasoning identifies reality, and is not automatic. Emotions are automatic reactions and are not basis for action.

I think I've made a good case in this thread for the basis of the concept of free will that a rational person should agree with, and it's based on my understanding on how the human mind works based on the science. I would recommend the book The Origin Of Consciousness And The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. As far as free will specifically, look up the concept of ego depletion, there's a lot of research in that and strongly suggests the existence of free will. There's also an ethical philosophic dilemma that if a person doesn't have free will, then there's no need for ethical principles if people's actions are already determined. Ethical principles implies choice.



Given the evidence and reasoning in my posts in this thread, why would you still think there's no volitional consciousness?

Your guy is not taken serioulsy

I'm a cyberneticist, but I've studied neurobiology. This argument is ridiculous. It creates a VERY narrow view of consciousness which is defined in terms of VERY recent culture. The brain structures haven't changed vastly in 3000 years. What gives us our conscious capacity is not our recent advancements.

It would be like saying that a computer isn't fully computational until you've installed Mine Sweeper -- A totally arbitrary piece of software that's been chosen at random by some foolish pundit.

It's like the moron has never heard of a Native American before.

Ignoring all the tribes of humans that are fully conscious despite having been separated MUCH further back than 3000 years ago is completely asinine and utter rubbish. Australia Exists!

Hell, even an illiterate hillbilly will tell you that animals communicate with sound and many such hillbilly folks wouldn't be conscious by the definition given by Jayne. These hill folk can tell you more about the evolution of language and sentience than this fellow.

It's not an interesting read IMO, it would be a waste of time -- There are better sci-fi books in my queue

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/1gz0ju

This is the REASONING of bard AI to Julian

Yes, Julian Jaynes's theory of the bicameral mind is controversial and has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence. Some of the specific criticisms include:

• Jaynes's interpretation of ancient texts is often highly selective and ignores evidence that contradicts his theory.
• Jaynes provides no clear explanation of how the bicameral mind could have evolved or how it would have functioned in the real world.
• Jaynes's theory is not falsifiable, meaning that it cannot be tested and proven wrong.

Despite these criticisms, Jaynes's theory remains influential and has inspired further research on the nature of consciousness and the evolution of the mind. However, it is important to note that Jaynes's theory is just a hypothesis, and there is no scientific consensus on its validity.

To answer your question more directly, Julian Jaynes has no evidence to support his claim that free will does not exist. His theory of the bicameral mind is based on his interpretation of ancient texts, but this interpretation is controversial and disputed by many scholars. Additionally, Jaynes does not provide any clear explanation of how the bicameral mind would have functioned or how it would have prevented people from having free will.

Overall, Jaynes's theory of the bicameral mind is a fascinating and thought-provoking hypothesis, but it is important to remember that it is just a hypothesis and that there is no scientific evidence to support it.

I let bard AI debunk your 'ego deplation' 'argument'

Yes, you are correct. Ego depletion is about willpower, not free will. It is the idea that self-control is a limited resource, and that exercising self-control on one task can make it more difficult to exercise self-control on subsequent tasks.

It is possible that ego depletion could be used as an argument against free will, but it is a weak argument. Ego depletion simply suggests that our ability to exercise self-control is limited. It does not mean that we have no control over our choices.

We still have the ability to choose between different options, even if our ability to make good choices may be impaired by ego depletion. Additionally, we can learn to manage our self-control resources more effectively, which can help us to avoid the negative effects of ego depletion.

In conclusion, ego depletion is not a strong argument against free will.

Finally Computers and animals can reason too. You don't need free will for that. It is basically like mathemathical calculation.

 

[Epicenter]

 

[Plinco]

That cyberneticist has a different definition of what consciousness is, and it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I still think he's wrong.

Here's a rebuttable to Sam Harris:

Reasoning and consciousness are two different processes.

AI is only as good as the people who programmed it, and many in Silicon Valley are not exactly politically neutral. Google has a political agenda and they don't go too far out of their way to hide it either. That said, I'm convinced that AI doesn't know what it's talking about with regard to consciousness.

Jaynes gave ideas on how the bicameral mind worked, and how it dissolved. He did accept that there were flaws in his theory, specifically comparing the linguistic development of early Chinese civilization and the eastern Mediterranean civilizations, but it's the best explanation I've seen. There's a little bit of scientific research involving schizophrenics and some of Jaynes' ideas, at least a couple of decades ago.

 

[Epicenter]

That cyberneticist has a different definition of what consciousness is, and it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I still think he's wrong.

Here's a rebuttable to Sam Harris:

Reasoning and consciousness are two different processes.

AI is only as good as the people who programmed it, and many in Silicon Valley are not exactly politically neutral. Google has a political agenda and they don't go too far out of their way to hide it either. That said, I'm convinced that AI doesn't know what it's talking about with regard to consciousness.

Jaynes gave ideas on how the bicameral mind worked, and how it dissolved. He did accept that there were flaws in his theory, specifically comparing the linguistic development of early Chinese civilization and the eastern Mediterranean civilizations, but it's the best explanation I've seen. There's a little bit of scientific research involving schizophrenics and some of Jaynes' ideas, at least a couple of decades ago.

Actually you don't know what you are talking about. The AI is right. I used it only because writing in English takes too much energy for me. Your ego deplation argument is extremely bad. It is connected with willpower not with free will. If you don't know that you are not at all familiar with the topic at all.

Scientists don't take Julian seriously period.