• WldFyre@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s so funny and interesting how completely differently we feel about this haha

    But from the inside your mind you would of course say you have free will because that is how you defined it.

    No I wouldn’t say that. And that’s how compatibilists have re-defined free will, it’s not what people generally think of when they think of free will. “You don’t have a choice, but you just feel like you have a choice, which is actually free will” is not a statement most people would agree with.

    In a universe with only such PC based human minds, you wouldn’t argue that you don’t have free will because we’re just software running silicon chips.

    Yes I would. I’m also arguing that now about our human based human minds.

    Otherwise you’d have to invent a new word for what you meant with free will, like internally derived mental agency or something.

    Or, I could just accept that free will doesn’t exist, it’s a fake feeling. Similar to how love feels like it comes from the heart but it’s all in the brain.

    We have consciousness, and are self aware. But the universe is deterministic and there was never any other choice you could have made at any point in your life. A million times over and you would have always done exactly the same things, and had the exact same chemical reactions to the stimuli you experienced. It’s not a contradictory world view, and it doesn’t require any form of free will, let alone redefining it. But people get uncomfortable thinking about it so it often gets rejected out of hand.

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah I’m just arguing for fun :) But I do think questions like this might become relevant in the foreseeable future with AGI. Kurzgesagt has an interesting video on free will in case I haven’t linked that already.

      that’s how compatibilists have re-defined free will, it’s not what people generally think of when they think of free will

      I’d still argue this is a kind of category error made by philosophers. The concept of free will existed within human minds before philosophers mused about it. It’s a very useful concept for minds regardless of the true nature of our physical universe.

      Concepts can exist without being “real” as in a phenomenon in the physical universe outside of minds. Concepts can exist only in minds, many do. You could argue money isn’t real except in our collective consciousness. But what does that mean?

      Or you could for example say that humans don’t exist because all you see is quantum physics. Waves in water don’t exist because only molecules or even just subatomic particles exist. Just as quantum physics can’t tell you anything about the concept of “wet pants” from wading through the ocean, it can’t tell you anything about free will.

      I don’t know if our universe is deterministic or not, from what I understand waveform collapse casts some doubt about this. But even if you had human minds on deterministic computer hardware, I’d say the conclusion doesn’t follow.

      Just because I’d always make the same choice under the same conditions, doesn’t mean I didn’t make a choice.

      I do agree that “free will” in a deterministic universe isn’t as cool as I’d like to be. I guess that is what I mean with “pure mind”. There is an unease there or an embarrassment of thinking of yourself as just a flesh brain. But how WOULD a pure mind with true free will decide given the same circumstances? Non-deterministic with some random influence? Wouldn’t that be the an illusion as well?

      What else is free will but a conscious decision based on thinking and inputs, however that works?

      Maybe the better question is to what degree do we have free will in a certain environment. Just as consciousness might have degrees.

      I’d be curious what you would call “the phenomenon previously known as free will”? And what conclusions would you draw if free will doesn’t exist, what would be the impact on ethics, law and sociology? Does it all topple like a jenga tower? Does none of it mean anything?

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I genuinely am enjoying your comments, it’s a super interesting topic and you have good points.

        Just because I’d always make the same choice under the same conditions, doesn’t mean I didn’t make a choice.

        This might be another point of us misunderstanding each other. I would argue that it’s not that you always would make the same choice. I’d say that you couldn’t ever make a different choice. In a vacuum, I think it looks like the same outcome, but I think it’s subtly different if you look at it more generally, like a system of choices/interactions.

        I guess that is what I mean with “pure mind”. There is an unease there

        I know what you mean, it made me very uncomfortable when I first learned about this point of view. But some eastern cultures/philosophies don’t have the same individualistic/“liberal as in libertarianism” mindset when it comes to personal choices and outcomes, so I imagine that unease is partially due to our cultural upbringing.

        What else is free will but a conscious decision based on thinking and inputs, however that works?

        I think a lot of what people experience as free will is just rationalization after the fact based on past experiences and internal belief/value systems. Similar to how split-brained people don’t just invent provably false stories explaining why they did something, they believe the false stories that their brain invented after they had already performed the actions.

        On a real world, practical level, I think accepting this doesn’t really change interactions on a personal level, but more shifts the macro/societal level of cause and effect. Maybe instead of expecting kids to just choose to apply themselves better at school, we focus more on methods that improve outcomes, as overly basic example.

        I’d be curious what you would call “the phenomenon previously known as free will”?

        I haven’t given it any thought, and I’m not sure it matters. What would you call “the phenomenon previously known as soul/thetan/djinn”? I don’t believe the phenomenon exists, I don’t think I’d need a name for that. If we’re being super semantic I guess “agency” somewhat works.

        And what conclusions would you draw if free will doesn’t exist, what would be the impact on ethics, law and sociology? Does it all topple like a jenga tower?

        I don’t think it means we stop penalties for crimes, if that’s what you mean. I think society is a system, and the existence and application of penalties on unwanted/harmful behavior along with rewards for wanted/beneficial behavior shift the balance of actions and behaviors of the system on a whole for the better, as individual systems (not just people, but families, peer groups, etc) work to maximize outcomes for themselves or their value systems.

        Does none of it mean anything?

        Plenty of philosophies think we don’t have free will, and none of them have advocated for or turned into suicide cults, so don’t let this turn you off from the thought. I think we experience what we experience, and free will doesn’t cheapen that. Enjoying and valuing what we have and what we experience for what it is instead of for what effort you went through to earn it is already a part of many people’s value systems, so I don’t believe it actually takes a large personal shift for most people.

        • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think a lot of what people experience as free will is just rationalization after the fact based on past experiences and internal belief/value systems.

          Yeah I’d agree with that except that it’s not a rationalization, it’s more like acceptance of reality and the only sensible way to think.

          You could add that a mind with free will is a massively complex information processing system that can’t be predicted from the outside. It might be deterministic and repeatable, but even if you had access to a copy of the mind, you couldn’t input the exact same real world inputs to predict an outcome. At least not outside of a laboratory and artificially created world. So it’s not about “couldn’t ever make a different choice” but that the choice cannot be predicted from either outside or inside.

          Maybe something like the second law of thermodynamics: “Free will of a mind is the tendency to be unpredictable without full knowledge of all external and internal information”.

          So you theoretically could take free will away for a known simulated mind in a controlled known simulated environment. Otherwise even a simulated human mind running deterministically on a PC would have free will.

          Looking at neurological pathologies or cultural differences is interesting, e.g. leasure time, or more time to grow up as a teenager and access to education has a huge impact. As does the increasing disinformation on news and social media. The concept of free will is useful to improve our society to allow people to make more conscious decisions. Or to understand how people are more and more programmed to say and think certain things because the “technology of propaganda” is advancing. Simply having access to truthful information and having time to think increases our potential for consciousness and free will. In our nihilistic and postmodernist times this is important.

          Of course, most of our decisions are made subconsciously without thinking. But a simulated human mind on a PC could go back and examine why it has made a decision. Maybe temporarily rewind and see what decision it would have made in a slightly different mood or with more information. It could then learn and train itself to be more conscious or even edit itself. So being actually deterministic would not decrease consciousness or free will, it could increase it from the perspective of a mind.

          So whatever you think about the mental phenomenon, it is a useful and valuable concept from the perspective of the mind(s). Obviously the universe doesn’t care but that is it’s problem 🌌😜