/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11537320]

>The heisenberg principle proves the existence of free will

[Anonymous No.11537323]

/sip

[Anonymous No.11537338]

>>11537323
This.

[Anonymous No.11537339]

Cringed and Bluepilled.

[Anonymous No.11537344]

>>11537323
based

[Anonymous No.11537346]

the fact that I can move my arm when I want to proves my free will

[Anonymous No.11537347]

>>11537320
The first symptom of physicist gone mad

[Anonymous No.11537355]

the fact that i exist proves my free willy

[Anonymous No.11537358]

>>11537355
You exist because your dad came into your mom.

[Anonymous No.11537362]

>>11537346
Are you a compatibilist or do you just not know what free will means?

[Anonymous No.11537367]

>>11537362
>do you just not know what free will means?
Nobody does, for it is entirely meaningless

[Anonymous No.11537371]

It is not in the probabilistic nature of quantum particles that one finds the free will, but rather the random firing of neurons.
To the materialist the events in the mind are formed by events in the brain. It is merely a consequence of a cascade of chemical reactions. You choose to raise your arm and your arm goes up. Presumably, nerve impulses reaching appropriate muscles in your arm made those muscles contract, and that's how the arm went up. And these nerve signals presumably originated in the activation of certain neurons in your brain. What caused those neurons to fire? We now have a quite detailed understanding of the process that leads to the firing of a neuron in terms of complex electrochemical processes involving ions in the fluid inside and outside of a neuron, differences in voltage across cell membranes and so forth. All in all we seem to have a pretty good picture of the processes at this microlevel on the basis of the known laws of physics, chemistry and biology. If the immaterial mid is somehow going to cause a neuron to emit a signal it must somehow intervene in these electrochemical processes. But how could that happen? At the very interface between the mental and the physical where direct and unmediated mind-body interaction takes place the nonphysical mind must somehow influence the state of some molecules perhaps by electrically charging them or nudging them this way or that way.
It is possible that if we mapped out the human brain and correlated it with consciousness, in the seemingly random fluctuations of neuronal firing, arise the experience of the will.

[Anonymous No.11537380]

>>11537358
that doesn´t prove anything!

[Anonymous No.11537472]

>of course free will is an illusion silly, Sam Harris is never wrong

[Anonymous No.11537559]

>>11537320
Trying to attribute any physical reality to mathematical formalism is the symptom of a deluded pseud. It's a framework to describe certain phenomena, I can toss it in favor of another model if I so choose. Try not to draw any metaphysical conclusions from physics

[Anonymous No.11537605]

>>11537559
Can metaphysical conclusions be derived in any manner whatsoever?
How would you derive metaphysical conclusions?

[Anonymous No.11537611]

>>11537323
>we can't offer proof of God's existence but we know he will be SEETHING if you don't have faith in his existence so you better do as we... i mean, God, says or else
really makes me think

[Anonymous No.11537616]

>people dont have free will

[Anonymous No.11537619]

>>11537371
so youre a dualist. not disagreeing with your analysis or thesis, just want to make sure here

[Anonymous No.11538032]

>consciousness is real

[Anonymous No.11538062]

>>11537323
Snap