5 ms·

So typical - there is no clear definition, lots of ambiguous terms...People just want to have this free will so much that they always intentionally conflate the

So typical - there is no clear definition, lots of ambiguous terms...People just want to have this free will so much that they always intentionally conflate the terms. It's not happening, free will is the human-life equivalent of square circle. 1. Determinism or not, free will doesn't exist in either case. 2. Lack of knowledge is not the same as random. 3. Me deciding something doesn't happen because decisions are not points in time - your decision is smeared in space time and it lasts for long. Even when you say "fuck it, it's chocolate" that is not a _single_ moment in time where the decision is made. 4. The whole idea of "me" being a singular, well defined thing is purely an artefact of human language. We are a process, not a thing. If free will is so real, can you freely choose never to choose again? Of course not. You are forced to choose because the choosing is an unstoppable process which evolves over time. Just like universe. Cannot stop the motion.

naasking 7y ago
> People just want to have this free will so much that they always intentionally conflate the terms. It's a matter of denotative vs. connotative definitions. Free will proponents are saying, "hey that thing we all do when we make a choice that rocks can't do, that's free will", and you're saying "free will has such and such properties, so whether we have it depends on whether our choices have these properties". I'd argue that most people reason denotatively, in which case merely pointing out the thing we're trying to define suffices as an existence proof. What remains is defining what it is, logically. > 1. Determinism or not, free will doesn't exist in either case It sure does! > The whole idea of "me" being a singular, well defined thing is purely an artefact of human language. We are a process, not a thing. Agreed. I don't see why this poses any difficulty. The behaviour of the process is largely governed by free will, just like a process on your computer will often sort lists. > If free will is so real, can you freely choose never to choose again? Of course not. Sure, via suicide.
- tpetrina 7y ago
  Suicide is not the answer to the problem - you need to exist and not decide, not deliberate and not think...or you do accept that some thoughts cannot be _prethought_ by you and they come to you for you to control. So why control _those_ thoughts? Why deliberate in _that particular way_?
  - naasking 7y ago
    > Suicide is not the answer to the problem - you need to exist and not decide It is the answer to the problem as stated. Of course, if you move the goalposts to require two properties that are logically inconsistent, then sure, no conception of free will would qualify. I'm not sure why I should find that compelling. Finally, your focus on "control" is telling of particular assumptions that free will must have certain properties (a connotative definition). Consider whether you are simply mistaken that these properties are necessary. As I said, there is a clear distinction between the behaviour of people and inanimate matter. There is a lot of latitude there for a process that we would recognize as free will.
jfk13 7y ago
Your claims are no more convincing than the article. You're entirely free to hold your beliefs about this, of course (or are you? perhaps they're predetermined), but don't imagine they're somehow more valid than the alternatives.
- tpetrina 7y ago
  They aren't predetermined, free will is not the opposite of determinism. You cannot have process interacting with itself in non-random and non-deterministic way. It's a contradiction! I mean, it's basically an infinite regression: either something happens outside of your control or you control what you control what you control...
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    > It's a contradiction! I mean, it's basically an infinite regression: either something happens outside of your control or you control what you control what you control... But you can have a process interacting with itself in a nonlinear way, and the outcome of those types of processes are difficult to predict. Even if you write a small non linear program, with each instruction completely simple and clear, it's still very difficult to predict the outcome without running the program. Now imagine that at a scale ten or twenty orders of magnitude higher.
    - tpetrina 7y ago
      But then free will requires you to mentally conceptualise future events like "I want to go to cafe" and then translate them into interaction between trillions of neurons, 10 to the power of 29 atoms in that exact non-linear fashion! So freely chosen decision is actually a translation of human-level concepts to non-linear highly complex set of neurons/atoms/particles and it is working flawlessly? Wow!
      - gerbilly 7y ago
        Yeah, free will is perhaps our sensed experience of the process you describe (the interaction between trillions of neurons, 10 to the power of 29 atoms in that exact non-linear fashion!)
pmarreck 7y ago
Proving free will exists is like proving red exists. You can point to the wavelength (or the brain signals) and declare “that is red” (or “that is the brain signature of a person deciding”) but neither of these conveys in any way the actual subjective experience of perceiving red or making decisions. Note that even if you were to, say, take a colorblind person and force them to see red by directly stimulating the relevant portion of their brain, that STILL does not neatly encompass everything there is to know about “seeing red.” Also, what does a total lack of free will mean for the criminal justice system, which operates on the unspoken assumption that behavior is at least in part willful?
- tpetrina 7y ago
  So it boils down always to moral choices - hence the whole problem is basically a problem of moral systems. Why do you build wind barriers? Same reason for prisons - to prevent future things. As best as you can. Now is that a deterministic, chaotic, stochastic or purely random but stable process - do we care that much? Should the fact that you want to punish/reward influence how you interpret the universe and logic? Human centric always free will is...
- chr1 7y ago
  > what does a total lack of free will mean for the criminal justice system nothing, the goal of justice system is to prevent repetition of the crime, and it works the same whether the behavior was willful or not.
happytoexplain 7y ago
You assert that people simply define the term in a way that allows them to claim it exists, but then you simply define it in a way that allows you claim it doesn't exist. Wouldn't the obvious conclusion be that there is a semantic disagreement, rather than "no, you're wrong and I'm right"? Your post seems very dissonant to me.

naasking 7y ago

> People just want to have this free will so much that they always intentionally conflate the terms. It's a matter of denotative vs. connotative definitions. Free will proponents are saying, "hey that thing we all do when we make a choice that rocks can't do, that's free will", and you're saying "free will has such and such properties, so whether we have it depends on whether our choices have these properties". I'd argue that most people reason denotatively, in which case merely pointing out the thing we're trying to define suffices as an existence proof. What remains is defining what it is, logically. > 1. Determinism or not, free will doesn't exist in either case It sure does! > The whole idea of "me" being a singular, well defined thing is purely an artefact of human language. We are a process, not a thing. Agreed. I don't see why this poses any difficulty. The behaviour of the process is largely governed by free will, just like a process on your computer will often sort lists. > If free will is so real, can you freely choose never to choose again? Of course not. Sure, via suicide.

tpetrina 7y ago
Suicide is not the answer to the problem - you need to exist and not decide, not deliberate and not think...or you do accept that some thoughts cannot be _prethought_ by you and they come to you for you to control. So why control _those_ thoughts? Why deliberate in _that particular way_?
- naasking 7y ago
  > Suicide is not the answer to the problem - you need to exist and not decide It is the answer to the problem as stated. Of course, if you move the goalposts to require two properties that are logically inconsistent, then sure, no conception of free will would qualify. I'm not sure why I should find that compelling. Finally, your focus on "control" is telling of particular assumptions that free will must have certain properties (a connotative definition). Consider whether you are simply mistaken that these properties are necessary. As I said, there is a clear distinction between the behaviour of people and inanimate matter. There is a lot of latitude there for a process that we would recognize as free will.

jfk13 7y ago

Your claims are no more convincing than the article. You're entirely free to hold your beliefs about this, of course (or are you? perhaps they're predetermined), but don't imagine they're somehow more valid than the alternatives.

tpetrina 7y ago
They aren't predetermined, free will is not the opposite of determinism. You cannot have process interacting with itself in non-random and non-deterministic way. It's a contradiction! I mean, it's basically an infinite regression: either something happens outside of your control or you control what you control what you control...
- gerbilly 7y ago
  > It's a contradiction! I mean, it's basically an infinite regression: either something happens outside of your control or you control what you control what you control... But you can have a process interacting with itself in a nonlinear way, and the outcome of those types of processes are difficult to predict. Even if you write a small non linear program, with each instruction completely simple and clear, it's still very difficult to predict the outcome without running the program. Now imagine that at a scale ten or twenty orders of magnitude higher.
  - tpetrina 7y ago
    But then free will requires you to mentally conceptualise future events like "I want to go to cafe" and then translate them into interaction between trillions of neurons, 10 to the power of 29 atoms in that exact non-linear fashion! So freely chosen decision is actually a translation of human-level concepts to non-linear highly complex set of neurons/atoms/particles and it is working flawlessly? Wow!
    - gerbilly 7y ago
      Yeah, free will is perhaps our sensed experience of the process you describe (the interaction between trillions of neurons, 10 to the power of 29 atoms in that exact non-linear fashion!)

pmarreck 7y ago

Proving free will exists is like proving red exists. You can point to the wavelength (or the brain signals) and declare “that is red” (or “that is the brain signature of a person deciding”) but neither of these conveys in any way the actual subjective experience of perceiving red or making decisions. Note that even if you were to, say, take a colorblind person and force them to see red by directly stimulating the relevant portion of their brain, that STILL does not neatly encompass everything there is to know about “seeing red.” Also, what does a total lack of free will mean for the criminal justice system, which operates on the unspoken assumption that behavior is at least in part willful?

tpetrina 7y ago
So it boils down always to moral choices - hence the whole problem is basically a problem of moral systems. Why do you build wind barriers? Same reason for prisons - to prevent future things. As best as you can. Now is that a deterministic, chaotic, stochastic or purely random but stable process - do we care that much? Should the fact that you want to punish/reward influence how you interpret the universe and logic? Human centric always free will is...
chr1 7y ago
> what does a total lack of free will mean for the criminal justice system nothing, the goal of justice system is to prevent repetition of the crime, and it works the same whether the behavior was willful or not.

happytoexplain 7y ago

You assert that people simply define the term in a way that allows them to claim it exists, but then you simply define it in a way that allows you claim it doesn't exist. Wouldn't the obvious conclusion be that there is a semantic disagreement, rather than "no, you're wrong and I'm right"? Your post seems very dissonant to me.