Another Free-will poll, please bear with me!

[bennyboy]

I think free will is as real as anything else in mind, which is to say that it is an illusion.  The mind creates a model of the world which includes real world objects, like ships and telephone poles, but it also creates a range of entities that only exist in the mind: pain, feelings, concepts, moral judgements.  These make-believe entities are not 'as real' as ships and telephone poles, they exist only as elements of a model of the world that includes them.  They are not 'real' in the sense of being as real as perceptions of ships and telephone poles.  They are constructs of the mind.  While they might 'appear' as real as ships and telephone poles, there is a better way of describing them than to say that they are 'real objects', and that is the language of the brain's neurology.  A language in which objects like pain and feelings and will are constructed out of whole cloth inside the mind.  They are illusions because they appear as natural features of the mental landscape, but they aren't natural features; they are mental constructs.

It seems to me you are describing us as beings who are fully immersed in the Matrix.  But I always get a kind of philosophical Spidey-sense in situations like this: for if the brain isn't real in the whole-cloth sense that we look at it, then where and what is mind, really?

[Angrboda]

It seems to me you are describing us as beings who are fully immersed in the Matrix.  But I always get a kind of philosophical Spidey-sense in situations like this: for if the brain isn't real in the whole-cloth sense that we look at it, then where and what is mind, really?

I'm not sure I understand your question. The mind is created whole cloth, but some things in that mental construct have a correlation with things in the real world (this desk, my body) and some things are purely mental constructs in that they don't correspond to anything real. In fact, a lot more of the mind is illusory in this sense than we normally grant. Our eyes present the brain with two 2D pictures of the world, but we don't perceive the world as two dimensional. Even if we close one eye, features of the 2D picture are used to make the best guess as to a 3D view in the mind, utilizing cues like color, shadow, size and parallax. So in a sense, the mind lives in a Matrix of constructed objects and constructed illusions, like will, feelings, concepts, and morals.

The whole of the mind, whether there is correspondence with things in the external world or not, is a whole cloth construct. It's all illusory in the sense that things in the external world are only incorporated into the mental model after being abstracted from our sense data and interpreted (small/big, near/far, part/whole,line/boundary). (The pain isn't in my foot, it's in the model of my foot in my mind. That sinking feeling in my chest isn't a feeling in my chest, it's a part of my mental model of the world. My imagination of a pony doesn't occur somewhere deep in the center of my head, that's just where in my mental model my 'consciousness' seems to be situated. Our model could place the image of a pony anywhere, from my foot to 6 feet above my head, but it doesn't. Consciousness is 'situated' in space and time (in my head, in the now), despite the fact that if consciousness occurs as a function of the brain, it is spread out among many neurons, and is not 'occurring' at any specific "now." This appearance of my mind being situated in space and time is yet another illusion. It doesn't correlate with real objects in the external world.)

[robvalue]

Long and tedious post:

---

Wallym: I've read your objection and I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. You can describe processes still, but to say we can "change" anything isn't accurate in my opinion, if we're only at the mercy of QR. So either I'm missing something or we're just using different terms for the same thing. My point was that people worry about how the justice system should change if we find out there is no free will, I'm pointing out that this is a non-issue. If no one has any free will, then it can't "change" in any meaningful way. I think people sometimes revert back to the idea of free will for some parties even after making an assumption that there isn't such a thing.

By "choice" or "change" I mean a genuine decision where an agent has picked from more than one actual, real possibility that isn't just being randomly or predictably chosen. Definitions are still a problem here, of course.

We either start a discussion with the assumption that we have free will of some kind, or that we don't (unless we are discussing whether we actually have it or not specifically). If we assume that we don't, literally nothing means anything, there are no choices to be made, there is no "ought", stuff is just going on.

I don't deny that it can totally feel like we're making decisions, even if we're not. It's just I don't think we can be certain whether we are or not.

I used to say I "Live as if there is free will" but I have realized, just yesterday in fact, that it is impossible to do otherwise. It is a contradiction to say that you would choose to act as if you have no free will, because then in fact you are utilizing free will to make that choice. And how would you know how you "would act" without free will anyway? You could have a sensation of letting go, feeling no guilt, and so on, but who's to say that isn't you making an active choice to feel that way?

You say we can learn things by finding out that there isn't free will... but again, if we assume there is no free will, then we either will learn things or we won't, no actual progress or decisions are going on beyond QR. So yes, we can "learn", but our very actions of learning, and then putting this into use, is just clockwork like everything else, possibly with random elements. So it is as meaningless an issue as everything else. If you begin with the assumption there is no true free will, that is. There is no danger of "missing out on learning" because we're not choosing anything anyway, we will learn or we won't.

---

Apologies if I'm not explaining myself very well. Finding the right language for this kind of topic is very hard for me! It's like each word needs carefully defining, and then each word in the definition needs carefully defining... eventually I snap a twig and someone hears me.

---

[Anima]

Determinism. I don't need to explain it, proponents of free will need to make a case for it with evidence. Everything I do has a preemptive cause, I'm conditioned since birth by biology and sociological barriers - All I do is pre-scheduled by variables that lead me to the result.


Because the only thing that can go out the window is the punitive side of the justice system - The rehabilitation procedure, the prevention and coercion needn't go away. I may not apply punitive/retributive measures to anyone, but I can still execute them if I believe they'll inevitably commit more crimes (or imprison them for life, whatever). Your argument would only apply if a justice system was based purely on bronze age divine retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) - Since it isn't (and it shouldn't be), acknowledging there is no free will does not mean we need to abolish the justice system because the purpose of justice is not to "hurt" people but to ensure peaceful living conditions for society and to give each person what's rightfully theirs.

I'd like to point out that I think this post need more Kudo's! 
I hear this argument so often, and you gave a very succinct and accurate view as to how determinism would actually make appositive change to our legal system (so it's not mere mental masturbation), and why determinism actually leads people to behave more humanely, I think.  Contrary to popular opinion, which seems to be that determinism somehow would lead to nihilism, or at best just apathy. 

Also for anyone interested and who has an hour to spend, here is Sam Harris giving a great speech on the topic.  He says he finds people are often more resistant to the idea of determinism than they are to atheism, even.  It's really worth a listen if you have time.

I cannot properly state how ironic and funny both the original post and Aurora's kudos for it are.

Your argument state only the punitive side will go (though you can still execute because that is not punitive??) out the window. I must take it to mean that any further rehabilitation of that which is devoid of willful action shall be akin to Pavlovian Conditional Response (aka retrain the reactionary meat).

However, if the reactive meat has no choice and that reactive meat responds to stimuli (without a metaphysical program) than rehabilitation would and could not be taken to the Pavlovian level. Only a change of stimuli would effectuate change (otherwise we are arguing the reactionary meat function according to a metaphysical program to which positive and negative reinforcement may be applied. Bringing back the punitive side). Sounds good so far?

Now let us say the deterministic reactionary meat in question were pedophile priests. By the logic of your own argument they may be treated by simply moving them around to different locations such that they may be subjected to different stimuli than that which lead to their previous actions.

Furthermore, your argument assumes the commission of a "crime" by reactionary meat is to be prohibited due to its impact peaceful living and a persons right to what is theirs. Neither of these claims may be said in a deterministic or reactionary system. By the argument being made there is no person much less a right of personal possession and I am sure each of you have seen the Fifith Element? If not here is an excerpt:

https://youtu.be/Tt1W0F0yObg

[henryp]

Long and tedious post:

---

Wallym: I've read your objection and I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. You can describe processes still, but to say we can "change" anything isn't accurate in my opinion, if we're only at the mercy of QR. So either I'm missing something or we're just using different terms for the same thing. My point was that people worry about how the justice system should change if we find out there is no free will, I'm pointing out that this is a non-issue. If no one has any free will, then it can't "change" in any meaningful way. I think people sometimes revert back to the idea of free will for some parties even after making an assumption that there isn't such a thing.

By "choice" or "change" I mean a genuine decision where an agent has picked from more than one actual, real possibility that isn't just being randomly or predictably chosen. Definitions are still a problem here, of course.

We either start a discussion with the assumption that we have free will of some kind, or that we don't (unless we are discussing whether we actually have it or not specifically). If we assume that we don't, literally nothing means anything, there are no choices to be made, there is no "ought", stuff is just going on.

I don't deny that it can totally feel like we're making decisions, even if we're not. It's just I don't think we can be certain whether we are or not.

I used to say I "Live as if there is free will" but I have realized, just yesterday in fact, that it is impossible to do otherwise. It is a contradiction to say that you would choose to act as if you have no free will, because then in fact you are utilizing free will to make that choice. And how would you know how you "would act" without free will anyway? You could have a sensation of letting go, feeling no guilt, and so on, but who's to say that isn't you making an active choice to feel that way?

You say we can learn things by finding out that there isn't free will... but again, if we assume there is no free will, then we either will learn things or we won't, no actual progress or decisions are going on beyond QR. So yes, we can "learn", but our very actions of learning, and then putting this into use, is just clockwork like everything else, possibly with random elements. So it is as meaningless an issue as everything else. If you begin with the assumption there is no true free will, that is. There is no danger of "missing out on learning" because we're not choosing anything anyway, we will learn or we won't.

---

Apologies if I'm not explaining myself very well. Finding the right language for this kind of topic is very hard for me! It's like each word needs carefully defining, and then each word in the definition needs carefully defining... eventually I snap a twig and someone hears me.

---

Perhaps we're just speaking the same words in different contexts.

I'm a chess computer.  I select my moves based on my programming, input, and time.  Despite having no actual say in the pieces I move, I still perform the analysis and select a move.  Changes to my programming, input, and time will result in changes to how I analyze and move the pieces.

If I am given a bit more time, I will find that moving the knight is preferable to moving the pawn.  So now I move the knight.  

This is learning.  For a while, I think the best move is moving the pawn.  Given time, I learn that it actually moving the knight.  There is change, in that I now move the knight instead of the pawn.

I think where we're losing eachother, is that I'm looking at it from 'state' to 'state' as time progresses, while you're looking at the totality?

[robvalue]

I think we have entirely the same position but are describing it in different ways, yeah.

Sure, you can highlight a sequence of events or processes and call the result "learning", I have no problem with that. I'm just saying you could also call it "stuff doing what it does according to determinism/QR". Both are fine.

[Anima]

Determinism. I don't need to explain it, proponents of free will need to make a case for it with evidence. Everything I do has a preemptive cause, I'm conditioned since birth by biology and sociological barriers - All I do is pre-scheduled by variables that lead me to the result.


Because the only thing that can go out the window is the punitive side of the justice system - The rehabilitation procedure, the prevention and coercion needn't go away. I may not apply punitive/retributive measures to anyone, but I can still execute them if I believe they'll inevitably commit more crimes (or imprison them for life, whatever). Your argument would only apply if a justice system was based purely on bronze age divine retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) - Since it isn't (and it shouldn't be), acknowledging there is no free will does not mean we need to abolish the justice system because the purpose of justice is not to "hurt" people but to ensure peaceful living conditions for society and to give each person what's rightfully theirs.

Furthermore, why are we rehabilitating at all. The perpetrator is reacting or acting according to a predetermined set of responses. There is no person (or no person who can resist the predetermined responses), so why not just kill every offender from the offset and be done with it? The program of this meat does not fit with the program of the rest of the meat. One does not try to rehabilitate a bad apple into a good one for the sake of the bunch. One just discards said apple. More to the point we were predetermined in our action and thus bare no liability for responding to our stimuli to kill them for their infraction immediately.

[Whateverist]

The perpetrator is reacting or acting according to a predetermined set of responses.  There is no person (or no person who can resist the predetermined responses), so why not just kill every offender from the offset and be done with it?  The program of this meat does not fit with the program of the rest of the meat.

Just because we require reasons to believe your god nonsense doesn't mean we reject everything that lacks evidence. No one can do that. You seem to think unless we accept the god proposition without evidence we are required to reject all propositions which lack evidence.

But why should I violate my repulsion toward harming others? It exists because I myself experience it. It is as real as "I" am. Your god may seem to you as real as you are, but that isn't giving me any reason to sign on. Your inability to imagine normal human consciousness sans god is your own failing. We can't explain it to you so long as you are motivated to persist in your stupidity bias.

[Anima]

The perpetrator is reacting or acting according to a predetermined set of responses.  There is no person (or no person who can resist the predetermined responses), so why not just kill every offender from the offset and be done with it?  The program of this meat does not fit with the program of the rest of the meat.

Just because we require reasons to believe your god nonsense doesn't mean we reject everything that lacks evidence.  No one can do that.  You seem to think unless we accept the god proposition without evidence we are required to reject all propositions which lack evidence.

But why should I violate my repulsion toward harming others?  It exists because I myself experience it.  It is as real as "I" am.  Your god may seem to you as real as you are, but that isn't giving me any reason to sign on.  Your inability to imagine normal human consciousness sans god is your own failing.  We can't explain it to you so long as you are motivated to persist in your stupidity bias.

Ad hominem for the win? From your other posts I took you to be better than that Whateverist.

1. I made no reference to god or gods. I am simply following the logic of the argument. I understand well the argument without god's presence (which is why I stated in my other post that one needs to appeal to an imaginary friend for moral conduct, where the imaginary friend for the Atheist is this "I" which cannot be proven. ); I get it; I grasp the concept and may assure you that nothing has been stated yet which is beyond my understanding.

2. I am interested in hearing from you how willingness to accept some propositions without evidence (likely the ones that affirm what you already believe) and others only with evidence (likely the ones that do not affirm what you already believe) is not an example of bias?

3. I am to understand that I cannot accept your experienced based explanation anymore than you are to accept me stating, "God exists because I myself experience Him. He is as real as 'I' am". This standard was not established by me, but by those who hold proof is by explicit direct empirical evidence. I am willing to accept implicit circumstantial empirical evidence, knowing that acceptance of such evidence supports "I", "Him", and scientific knowledge in general.

[henryp]

Determinism. I don't need to explain it, proponents of free will need to make a case for it with evidence. Everything I do has a preemptive cause, I'm conditioned since birth by biology and sociological barriers - All I do is pre-scheduled by variables that lead me to the result.


Because the only thing that can go out the window is the punitive side of the justice system - The rehabilitation procedure, the prevention and coercion needn't go away. I may not apply punitive/retributive measures to anyone, but I can still execute them if I believe they'll inevitably commit more crimes (or imprison them for life, whatever). Your argument would only apply if a justice system was based purely on bronze age divine retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) - Since it isn't (and it shouldn't be), acknowledging there is no free will does not mean we need to abolish the justice system because the purpose of justice is not to "hurt" people but to ensure peaceful living conditions for society and to give each person what's rightfully theirs.

Furthermore, why are we rehabilitating at all.  The perpetrator is reacting or acting according to a predetermined set of responses.  There is no person (or no person who can resist the predetermined responses), so why not just kill every offender from the offset and be done with it?  The program of this meat does not fit with the program of the rest of the meat. One does not try to rehabilitate a bad apple into a good one for the sake of the bunch.  One just discards said apple.  More to the point we were predetermined in our action and thus bare no liability for responding to our stimuli to kill them for their infraction immediately.

Think of it as a computer program.  It's a bug fix.  We try to fix the code, because our code might break someday, or the code of someone we're programmed to care about's code may break.  And we'd want them to be fixed as well, rather than trashed.

And you absolutely can just kill every offender.  That's certainly an option.  Plenty of people have throughout history, and many still do.  But our current programming seems to have identified some societal consequences to that which for the most part keeps up from using that strategy at this time in most of the 1st world countries.