We’re nowhere close to possessing the knowledge necessary to assert the illusory nature of free will as anything approaching material fact.
-
-
Replying to @MattPirkowski
If we take "free will" to mean that one's mind can transcend what its brain has intended for it, I see no evidence for this. All signs point to a strictly physicalist relationship between mind and brain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @MattPirkowski
Of course, free will is a flexible term, and if you interpret it to mean something other than what I have defined it as here, you could make the case that we do in fact have free will.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Disagree. Physicalism by no means implies we understand the relationship between low level processes and higher order parameterizations of behavior over time. We know far closer to nothing than everything about the fundamental nature of the systems in question. Not definitional.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @G_S_Bhogal
From an emergent perspective, one would expect the fundamentally probabalistic nature of physical reality to permeate the entirety of higher-order systems above.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPirkowski
We can't be sure that reality is in fact fundamentally stochastic. Bohr's theory hasn't been proven. But we can be reasonably sure that consciousness is a product of material interactions. This precludes free will, as it means we can't transcend the material make-up of our minds.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
You seem to be a super-determinist. I find it more likely that locality or realism will prove illusory. And we can’t yet prove it is / isn’t, but for the time being empirical observation leans toward the affirmative. And we’re ultimately still arrogant apes who know very little
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MattPirkowski
Yeah, I'm a hard determinist. I also find the many-worlds interpretation of QM more plausible than the Copenhagen one. (Not that the latter suggests free will; it simply suggests random will.) And yes, although the broad consensus is of no free will, it is a consensus of


1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I sympathize, though lean toward the notion that we’re variably capable of small degrees of parameterization of our own locally non-deterministic probability space. This also implies that not everyone has the same degree of free will, and that perhaps some may as well have none.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @G_S_Bhogal
How? Not sure. But perhaps we’d agree that much remains to discover. It is also likely impossible to do so as humans. Yet if we do transcend our species, we’ll likely fall into a new domain of unanswerables...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yep. Right now we're trapped in an infinite maze of questions, and can only go by what we know, but perhaps one day we'll use black holes to harness the computing power of the universe (or multiverse), and reach nirvana in a singularity. Heh, until then, everything's guesswork.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
