Far-right libertarians, paleoconservatives, minarchists,
propertarianists, etc… are experts in pseudointelectualism,
pseudoscience and in twisting the meaning of well-stablised words
>!(i.e. Ayn Rand, Jordan B Peterson).!<
So let’s break this down in a step-by-step basis.
The connection between thermo and information theory was a new one to
me
The concept of gravity is not the same in physics than in
medicine.
The concept of marginality is not the same in economics than in
sociology.
In a similar manner, the concept of information is not the same in
physics than in neuroscience >!(i.e. black holes destroy information
as they shallow matter and emit hawking radiation, white holes emit
energy that lacks information)!<.
Information, as physicists define so, has nothing to do with the
formation of human memories.
He mentions Chaos Theory, a field in mathematics that studies
pseudorandomness, and that has NOTHING to do with neuroscience.
However, there is an important thing that we have to note.
random does not equal free
difficult to measure does not equal impossible to measure
rigid does not equal stagnant
extending that to brain interaction seems like a logical
conclusion
That’s not how the scientific method works my friend.
You made an observation: “The human brain works like a quantum
computer” >![which I think is false]!<
Now it time to make an hypothesis, and to test that hypothesis.
If you can’t >![and I am afraid that you can’t]!<, back to
square one with you.
there is a butterfly effect we might see where one neuron firing one
way instead of another way can influence the entire brain wave, and that
this may be where creativity and free will emerge from.
Again.
randomness =!= freedom
That is not how the human brain works, but supposing it is how the
human brain works your hypothesis is bullocks and your observation non
existant.
Instead of trying to obtain the truth, you try to justify your
preconceptions.
Again, that’s not how science works my friend. Science does not work
backwards from your initial premisses.
> To be honest your post is itself garbled nonsense, possessing that annoying nerd intonation of the sort deployed by people who think debates should be a sequential series of snark volleys and childish quips.
holy fuck your prose is annoying
> Its good enough for me
Wow, ok Jordan Peterson. Science is not supposed to search what is useful, it is supposed to search what is true.
You cannot simple redifine terminology with the purpuse of it fitting your narrative.
>one can define free will as to render the concept absurd, constructing some vague choice-with-no-influence but I’m not sure such ill defined concepts clarify anything.
Nice strawman bro, I am not talking about material influences in decision making. I am talking about the influence of randomness and how it is pointless if you try to combat materialism or compatibilism.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that those Free Will proponents are right and decision-making has a high component of randomness because of reason X. So what? Random Will is not Free Will, Jesus Fucking Christ.
>Plus Fayarebend >>>> Karl Popper.
Keep dreaming.
> Wow, ok Jordan Peterson. Science is not supposed to search what is useful, it is supposed to search what is true.
>
> You cannot simple redifine terminology with the purpuse of it fitting your narrative.
To be honest your post is itself garbled nonsense, possessing that annoying nerd intonation of the sort deployed by people who think debates should be a sequential series of snark volleys and childish quips.
> Nice strawman bro, I am not talking about material influences in decision making. I am talking about the influence of randomness and how it is pointless if you try to combat materialism or compatibilism.
> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that those Free Will proponents are right and decision-making has a high component of randomness because of reason X. So what? Random Will is not Free Will, Jesus Fucking Christ.
To be honest your post is itself garbled nonsense, possessing that annoying nerd intonation of the sort deployed by people who think debates should be a sequential series of snark volleys and childish quips.
> Keep dreaming.
To be honest your post is itself garbled nonsense, possessing that annoying nerd intonation of the sort deployed by people who think debates should be a sequential series of snark volleys and childish quips.
'science' doesn't define words, people do, and this particular interpretation (or definition) of what free will means happens to be an extremely common one.
Ok, I am going to end this. Though you are being extremely uncharitable I will give you that, let's suppose that the libertarian interpretation of Free Will is right though they have 0 empirical observations to back it up and that the different concepts between the different fields have the exact same meaning.
He has to prove the following:
1. Our current understanding of quantum physics is 100% correct and not due to problems in measurement ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement\_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem))
2. Quantum mechanics affect the brain in a significant manner
3. Pseudorandomness is not only difficult to measure, but impossible to measure.
4. Freedom is a concept that can be observed, scientifically measured and defined.
5. Our current knowledge of marketing, propaganda and sociology is mostly wrong.
By the way, I see you browse and CTH (quarantined because valid reasons) and masstagger, which means that you are not willing to change your preconceived ideas, so fuck you for even asking with bad faith.
> On the subject of free will, humans clearly make decisions, weight between options and engage in contrafactual thinking, taking into account the environment, previous choices and, of course, the innate “circuitous paths” within our own brains. Is that a free will? Its good enough for me. Now, one can define free will as to render the concept absurd, constructing some vague choice-with-no-influence but I’m not sure such ill defined concepts clarify anything.
I'm pretty sure everybody is a Compatibilist with respect to a pragmatic definition of free will. The disagreements people have are about whether there is actually any metaphysical distinction between what humans do and what clouds do.
what the fuck happened here?
I’m leaving it up because I’m hungover and fascinated
Far-right libertarians, paleoconservatives, minarchists, propertarianists, etc… are experts in pseudointelectualism, pseudoscience and in twisting the meaning of well-stablised words >!(i.e. Ayn Rand, Jordan B Peterson).!<
So let’s break this down in a step-by-step basis.
The concept of gravity is not the same in physics than in medicine.
The concept of marginality is not the same in economics than in sociology.
In a similar manner, the concept of information is not the same in physics than in neuroscience >!(i.e. black holes destroy information as they shallow matter and emit hawking radiation, white holes emit energy that lacks information)!<.
Information, as physicists define so, has nothing to do with the formation of human memories.
He mentions Chaos Theory, a field in mathematics that studies pseudorandomness, and that has NOTHING to do with neuroscience.
However, there is an important thing that we have to note.
random does not equal free
difficult to measure does not equal impossible to measure
rigid does not equal stagnant
That’s not how the scientific method works my friend.
You made an observation: “The human brain works like a quantum computer” >![which I think is false]!<
Now it time to make an hypothesis, and to test that hypothesis.
If you can’t >![and I am afraid that you can’t]!<, back to square one with you.
Again.
randomness =!= freedom
That is not how the human brain works, but supposing it is how the human brain works your hypothesis is bullocks and your observation non existant.
Instead of trying to obtain the truth, you try to justify your preconceptions.
Again, that’s not how science works my friend. Science does not work backwards from your initial premisses.
Read Karl Popper my dude.