Utopia Talk / Politics / More study on free will

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 06:05:36 Abstract Free will is widely considered a foundational component of Western moral and legal codes, and yet current conceptions of free will are widely thought to fit uncomfortably with much research in psychology and neuroscience. Recent research investigating the consequences of laypeople’s free will beliefs (FWBs) for everyday moral behavior suggest that stronger FWBs are associated with various desirable moral characteristics (e.g., greater helpfulness, less dishonesty). These findings have sparked concern regarding the potential for moral degeneration throughout society as science promotes a view of human behavior that is widely perceived to undermine the notion of free will. We report four studies (combined N = 921) originally concerned with possible mediators and/or moderators of the abovementioned associations. Unexpectedly, we found no association between FWBs and moral behavior. Our findings suggest that the FWB – moral behavior association (and accompanying concerns regarding decreases in FWBs causing moral degeneration) may be overstated. http://psyarxiv.com/zpj5x/ Though pratically, it is difficult for me to see how any society would operate without clamering to the illusion, atleast to some degree. We still have to put murderers in prison, as we always have, for the sake of everyone else, for instance. There is no origin point, purely genetic, cultural, or a mix that leads to free will. The religious version of free will does not offer a solution since you didn’t pick your soul. It is ultimatly icoherent since god allegedly knows everything that will happen. So not even magic offers a good free will origin story.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 06:12:14 Agency.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 06:16:12 Ok.
Daemon Member	Sun May 20 06:55:15 "We still have to put murderers in prison, as we always have, for the sake of everyone else, for instance." Deterrence would still work without FW.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 06:58:19 The distinction between agency and free will is quite important. Free-will is ultimately a religious concept.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 07:28:21 No it isn’t necessarily religious. Free will is the idea that you were free to chose differently than you did. A claim that is impossible to test, but not religious. It is intuitivly ”true”, that we are free to do as we please.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 07:31:41 *Then
Asgard Member	Sun May 20 07:41:29 We are not free to do anything. Every decision we make is dependent on 1) Our society 2) Our immediate family 3) Our interests 4) Our needs 5) Our desires 6) Our need to breed 7) Our need to survive Religion came around turned all 7 to "Our need of religion" like a monopoly would. A mind controlling Monopoly, for manipulation purposes. The hegemonic rule you call Democracy also claimed it as its own And your wife also took it and called it "my needs... what about MY needs? you heartless bastard".
jergul large member	Sun May 20 09:40:45 Nimi Where does the term free will come from? Can a cat have free will? You run into all kinds of problems when you use the wrong terminology. Agency is a far superior form. Unencumbered with morality and has much higher resolution (virii can have agency for example). The article's premise disapears when you use agency. There would be no assumption that a belief in agency reflects a moral code, nor any surprise that there is not connection between a belief in agency and a moral code. Does society clamour to an illusion of agency?
jergul large member	Sun May 20 09:41:15 clamer*
TJ Member	Sun May 20 09:42:41 Zero free will justifies every action by an individual and negates all responsibility. Victimized... I don't define as a religious dogma or a magical comfort. You have the free will to your own definition. It doesn't define totality.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 09:49:36 Or we could simply say that humans have agency and end the discussion.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 10:01:40 Obviously jergul, you still, despite your best attempts to convince us otherwise, can not read and understand abstracts, and in extension science papers. "and yet current conceptions of free will are widely thought to fit uncomfortably with much research in psychology and neuroscience. Recent research investigating the consequences of laypeople’s free will beliefs (FWBs) for everyday moral behavior suggest that stronger FWBs are associated with various desirable moral characteristics (e.g., greater helpfulness, less dishonesty)." The key being "current conceptions of free will", in relation to every day moral activity. And I have no idea what your definition of "Agency" is so I will cite this from wiki. "In this respect, agency is subtly distinct from the concept of free will, the philosophical doctrine that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined. Human agency entails the claim that humans do in fact make decisions and enact them on the world. How humans come to make decisions, by free choice or other processes, is another issue." You make the distinction first. Assert free will is religious and then go on to talk as if they are the same thing again.
TJ Member	Sun May 20 10:01:57 Define the totality of agency.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 10:08:24 Nimi Don't project, bro. It is unbecoming. "Human agency entails the claim that humans do in fact make decisions and enact them on the world. How humans come to make decisions, by free choice or other processes, is another issue" Free will is encumbered by religiosity and thus discussions about it seem meaningful, while simple substitution with "agency" renders points moot. "Though pratically, it is difficult for me to see how any society would operate without clamering to the illusion, atleast to some degree." What illusion? That humans have agency? This is not exactly rocket science. You are using the wrong term, so are getting into trouble.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 10:10:19 TJ Define the totality of anything.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 10:11:36 From wiki "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded." "Can a cat have free will?" A lot of things cats are not capable of cognitively speaking. Are all those things "religious"?
jergul large member	Sun May 20 10:14:44 Agency is the ability to make decisions. Wiki Be it by humans, or by cats.
TJ Member	Sun May 20 10:15:23 Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. That is in part and not the totality of free will in context and my original point.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 10:16:34 "You are using the wrong term, so are getting into trouble." I am going to stick with the studies and their terminology over the assertions of a fishermen who has spent his entire life above the arctic circle. I think that matter on the topic of human behavior, there are more seals than people where you live.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 10:22:09 Ok, you are going to stick with something you called "an illusion". Agency is the better term. It has explanatory power without contradiction.
Dukhat Member	Sun May 20 10:24:45 It's ironic that Nimatzo wants to have a conversation about agency and free will when he's one of the most helpless retards on here.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 10:36:08 >>Ok, you are going to stick with something you called "an illusion".<< Did you have a stroke recently?
jergul large member	Sun May 20 10:41:33 Nimi: "it is difficult for me to see how any society would operate without clamering to the illusion" What illusion? The illusion of agency? Its not rocket science, bro. You are getting into trouble because you are using the wrong word.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 10:44:05 Nimi: "Though pratically, it is difficult for me to see how any society would operate without clamering to the illusion, atleast to some degree. We still have to put murderers in prison, as we always have, for the sake of everyone else, for instance. There is no origin point, purely genetic, cultural, or a mix that leads to free will. The religious version of free will does not offer a solution since you didn’t pick your soul. It is ultimatly icoherent since god allegedly knows everything that will happen. So not even magic offers a good free will origin story." Jergul: Use the term agency instead. Problem solved! Geeze.
TJ Member	Sun May 20 10:47:19 Every choice has obstacles (Agency) that impede decision. Most move toward the least resistance. Still a free choice. Nuance...
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 10:54:16 "The distinction between agency and free will is quite important." "Use the term agency (when you are talking about lay peoples usage of free will) instead" Did you have a stroke recently? Like in the last hour?
TJ Member	Sun May 20 11:01:07 "The distinction between agency and free will is quite important." Totality hehe
jergul large member	Sun May 20 11:02:24 Nimi The distinction is important because substitution resolves the problems you raised. I find it easy to relate to you with civility for as long as I remember English is not your mother tongue. Nuance indeed.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 11:03:54 Here are the problems you raised: Nimi: "Though pratically, it is difficult for me to see how any society would operate without clamering to the illusion, atleast to some degree. We still have to put murderers in prison, as we always have, for the sake of everyone else, for instance. There is no origin point, purely genetic, cultural, or a mix that leads to free will. The religious version of free will does not offer a solution since you didn’t pick your soul. It is ultimatly icoherent since god allegedly knows everything that will happen. So not even magic offers a good free will origin story." Jergul: Use the term agency instead. Problem solved!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 11:05:49 Let take this slowly Jergul. Being able to can make decisions does not answer the question, could you have decided otherwise. I find it difficult to relate you with civility because I have a good memory of our many interactions.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 11:10:54 Nimi I get that. The trick is not taking this forum, nor any poster in it (including yourself) too seriously. It also does not answer the question, how much do apples cost. Agency simply denotes that humans (and cats) are responsible to some undefined degree for the choices they make. To what extent depends on circumstance.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 11:15:20 You are "free" to sell your "solution" to the rest of society, once you figure out what you are talking about. I don't believe in god either, but I think that illusions/delusion has utility and I don't see how we are moving past it any time soon. So we will act like everyone is free to choose, so we can hold people accountable, otherwise chaos would ensue. Holding on to the illusion is practical. Well until you have fleshed out your Agency theory. Good luck.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 11:20:12 Nimi It is not a new term. Agency is simply a lot malable than the primarily religious concept of "free will". The trouble you are struggling with mainly is the dichotomy of absolutes: Either free will is entirely free, or there is no free will. With agency, it is understood there is always some limitation. Its a better word nimi.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 11:31:04 I don't seem to have that problem with other posters jergul, so it isn't me, it's you. It isn't your alleged contrarian position to learn (lol) it is that you are full of shit. "Agency simply denotes that humans (and cats) are responsible to some undefined degree for the choices they make." And you think this has explanatory power. Wow. You can act and therefore we will hold you accountable. Were you free to choose differently? Free will is about that, not that you can act (an evolved ability found in all animals). You can act on instinct or many other things that completely or partly rob you of many or all choices. Also I am not interested in having a mangled version of the debate between Dennett and Harris with you. I can just go and listen to the debate again, or smash my face into a wall.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 11:32:42 "Its a better word" I am not interested in semantic differences.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 11:40:01 Nimi I agree that this thread is kind of silly, if that is what you meant. But agency is not an illusion, and would thus have greater explanatory powers than say something you think it illusionary. "Agency simply denotes that humans (and cats) are responsible to some undefined degree for the choices they make. To what extent depends on circumstance." Clarify circumstance and you clarify to what degree a person was resposible in a given circumstance. I thought that self-evident, but am happy to clarify. You could smash your face into a wall, or you could realize that agency is a better term than free will. It bypasses all kinds of problems that exist only by using the wrong term.
jergul large member	Sun May 20 11:41:29 The semantics rest in thinking free will must be absolute, while agency is obviously always qualified.
TJ Member	Sun May 20 12:04:27 If I was debating from a religious point of view I would argue that free will didn't exist in this world. It would be easy to consider a strong stance that free will is an illusion and easily justified from a philosophical position. My position is from an equal and factual reality rather than a an improvable take on the subject. Both agency and free will in the proper context are valid to a complete understanding of the subject.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 20 14:10:20 You can exert your free will to the limit that you do not interfere with the rights of others.
Asgard Member	Sun May 20 14:16:37 Except when you have guns, then you can exert your bullets into other people all you want, buy some more guns, and then shoot more people to your heart's desire, ain't that right ol' Roddy?
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 20 14:24:36 Not sure, but I believe that would be a violation of their Right to live. Providing, of course, they have not violated any fundamental rights of others.
Asgard Member	Sun May 20 14:27:07 These dead people who died of gunfire, as a consequence of the bullets fired at them by gun-owners, these dead people are against guns now, now that they're dead. So it's good that they're shot, and how dare their families and friends interview on Fox demanding gun-laws all of a sudden, righty ol' bugger you?
Asgard Member	Sun May 20 14:28:01 I mean, these dead people, they're against gun laws and threaten your right to bear arms.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 20 14:34:03 Those dead people don't vote. Oh, wait! Some do vote Democratic. The gun owners violated the right of the dead people. Providing, of course, they did nothing that brought on the gunfire. Did they?
Asgard Member	Sun May 20 14:51:27 Dunno, did they? A gun is always right.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 20 15:45:20 A gun is never right except in defense. You are aware that if you believe that if guns kill people, then you must believe spoons make people fat, and pencils cause errors.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 20 16:26:50 Except that spoons were not made to make people fat nor pencil to produce errors. Guns were made to kill and they are very efficient at doing just that. So while I support your right to own guns, these analogies always fall short.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Sun May 20 17:19:17 They may fall short, but so do guns. Hell, some guns are used in the Olympics and some go into collections without ever being fired.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun May 20 20:35:57 Not sure if this thread was a continuation of some other argument, but... .. "and yet current conceptions of free will are widely thought to fit uncomfortably with much research in psychology and neuroscience" "Widely" is the qualifier here, because in reality many in the sciences do *not* think that neuroscience and psychology have produced a vision of the mechanical mind as being determined. A lot of this idea that materialism (taken here as science-fed understanding that everything is composed of atoms and constituent parts which follow physical properties) is at odds with free will (that being a biological machine in a world without 'magic' ('magic' more traditionally as Descartes' belief that the mind was separate from the body) means that everything is determined) is a pollution carried forward somehow from Spinoza (and from Plato traditions in part before him), which is to say that the weak argument of "[materialism means determinism]" is a [300+]-year-old trap. Luckily these trappings were shortly afterwards made fun of at length by Diderot (who speaks more from the Heraclitus tradition)... like this concept of creeping determinism: the fallacy that because something happened that it could only have happened in this one way — and that "thus" choice is an illusion ("[Oh! The very occurrence of an event means that that event was determined! What sound science this must be!.. why can't I ever replicate my results?]"). The error exists further in cases where many variables contribute to an outcome (variables such as society, family, interests, etc.) — the outcome is said to be determined simply because variables existed, which is a fallacy contradicted outright by Chaos theory or made a joke again by creeping determinism (i.e., an abundance of variables does not mean one possible outcome (the "no choice"). In fact, an abundance of variables means an even greater abundance of outcomes into infinity) Then of course there exist other issues, like that awareness of a determining situation (awareness of a "determinism") itself gives a thinking machine choice against that determinism (c.f., Sartre's « mur » or his thoughts on "bad faith"). And even Nietzsche — who could not decouple religion from "free will" and who thus [wrongly] fancied that free will was a religious invention [rather than a capability of complex machinery] and whose arguments I see above in statements about free will being an invention for the sake of accountability (never-mind that accountability was a choice which can also be chosen against?) — could not help but speak in non-deterministic vocabulary while describing the "will to power" and the capabilities of the Übermensch. Even in the sci-fi realms of fifth dimensional beings (e.g., Vonnegut's Tralfamadorians or Ted Chiang's heptapods) — whose lives have already [supposedly] been inked — there exists choice via the ability to freely visit any part of one's life and even to alter the continuum such that the lesser dimension is affected by observation (this also echoed in the very real "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle"). Scientists without imagination make the same mistake as religious people: they surrender the burden of complexity by creating a debilitating heuristic. For the religious, that heuristic is faith/"God", and for the imagination-less scientific, it's determinism. Not by coincidence, determinism has all of the same fallacies as god belief, and maybe at the forefront is the want to see linearity in a world without straight lines. The worst religious would be the ones who think that anything beyond their ability to rationalize must be "God" ("[Oh! A sunset! So beautiful! It must have been made by 'God'!]"), and the worst scientific would be the ones who can never reconcile their errors and always ascribe causality to the popular doctrines ("[We studied this one factor for months because another paper remarked that it might be important. It must be the root cause of everything... certainly it's the cause of us not getting published.]"). Not too surprisingly, those who believe in gods such as determinism end up being swept away by "bigger" forces (somewhat self-fulfilling). Consider also that for determinism ever to be correct, it must account for every variable (no error report), which requires error to be reduced or otherwise crushed or discarded (the self-fulfilling heuristic; "[it was determined because we isolated our science to select, easily-controlled variables. Certainly the universe, despite having infinite variables, must be so-easily determined too?]"), or which requires that infinite variables be collected (Pokémon consumerism?), which, ironically, would be the act of a more and more self-determining mind defeating determinisms.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 01:40:15 Actually I said free will is intuitivly true and self evident. Its’ unravelling is at the hands of modern science. Real or not, it has utility and I will add maybe even necessary for the types of societies we want to live in. If I step back a little, the problem (for me) is that the concept informs a lot of personal and social decision making. Something for which there is no evidence for informs things like revenge, pride and forms the basis of the judicial and prison system. I can argue that for practical reasons we must, but if you look around the world and compare, there huge difference in prison systems. Nuance, that is what this provides for me and in my wildest dreams for anyone else.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 01:47:17 And this is a continuation of another thread. The other position is "libertarian free will", so the subject of the study was for the benefit of those that hold such a view. Does holding such a view make you more moral? According to the study, no more no less.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Mon May 21 06:26:18 Depends on your morality.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 07:25:23 No, it depends on the experiments in the study. Which of course may be completely wrong and detached from reality. A lot of behavioral research experiment design have questionable merit in the real world. You can measure things in a study where you place 30 people in a room and give them a series of questions, and still not be able to say what happens the next day or how the things you tried to measure actually play out in real world settings.
Daemon Member	Mon May 21 07:26:33 "the outcome is said to be determined simply because variables existed, which is a fallacy contradicted outright by Chaos theory" Not at all. What makes you think so? Even if we assume that there is some kind of random input into the system this will in no way support the idea of free will.
Seb Member	Mon May 21 07:53:33 Oh dear... someone is quoting chaos theory incorrectly again. Chaos theory applies to deterministic dynamical systems that are determined, but very sensitive to, initial conditions. Chaotic systems in practice are non-predictable if initial conditions cannot be known specifically, but that does not make them non deterministic - and indeed it is possible to observe a system where the underlying mechanisms are not known and figure out whether it is random or deterministic by looking at the statistics of the outcomes produced. However, as Daemon says, Chaos theory does not admit the possibility of free will here - as chaotic systems are by definition deterministic. They could however allow a route to scale up indeterministic effects to give an illusion. The lack of "choice" in physical laws and reconciliation of that with "free will" is kind of missing the point - there are plenty of indeterministic effects in physics like symmetry splitting. I suspect that really this is a whole red herring. The concept of free will is likely a misconception (as is our idea of what the absence of it means), as is our theory of how the mind works, and functional models of the brain.
Seb Member	Mon May 21 08:01:24 Nim: "evidence for informs things like revenge, pride and forms the basis of the judicial and prison system." Well, here's the thing. If free will is an illusion, it's clearly an evolutionary useful illusion and the incorporation of it within society not necessarily a bad thing. I'm surprised you are getting so hung up on it :P On a more serious note, focusing on whether free will is philosophically sound or not is missing the point. Clearly things like the presense or absence of punishment alters whatever process leads to actions being taken - whether that is by rational deliberation by an entity with free will, or an automatic, predetermined firing of neurons. The physical changes in the brain corresponding to something that feels to the conscious entity like a decision are clearly effected by the physical arrangement that corresponds to the knowledge of punishment, or, having previously experienced it. I suspect the real problem here is not "is free will real" but rather out understanding of consciousness. I suspect much of what we believe to be conscious activity by an integrated, unitary mind is actually the product of lots of different, rather less tightly coupled processes - which may be overridden with conscious thought - but on which for the most part the conscious mind is merely a sense-making rationalising layer floating on top. Indeed when you look at people with various forms of brain dammage that lead to exaggerated confabulation to explain away disabilities (like loss of a limb) they are not able to perceive tend to support that view. However, the fact that many decisions are not taken by our conscious mind doesn't undermine legal concepts of agency, provided that there are feedbacks that change the weighting of those subconscious processes.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 08:33:07 "If free will is an illusion, it's clearly an evolutionary useful illusion and the incorporation of it within society not necessarily a bad thing." That is what I have said. The same thing is argued about religion and god, elsewhere. "I'm surprised you are getting so hung up on it" I am sure this means something to you, not to me ;) https://after-on.com/episodes/026 I can recommend this podcast, named "Reality isn't" if anyone feels like questioning reality. Don Hoffman is quantitative psychologist.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 08:44:32 "doesn't undermine legal concepts" I think we agree that the legal concepts are safe, it is more the manner in which we engage with those that transgress perhaps how we view them. Should it be about punishing people because they made the wrong choice or rehabilitation to help them change the probable outcomes. We still have to lock them up regardless, so the deterrent effect of prison remains unchanged.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Mon May 21 10:18:54 Sentience isn't something we have, it's something we do. You have to be willing to go against instinct and think about what you are doing to have free will. Even then, we all have moments where our emotions compel us to action
Seb Member	Mon May 21 11:12:08 Nim: I think prison should focus on rehabilitation and deterence anyway. However I don't think that the unravelling of consciousness effects this. Finding out the conscious mind might be a looser concept than previously thought - well you are punishing the person. It's like getting hung up on whether it's fair to punish the mind for the transgressions of the body. The mistake is to assume a decision isn't deliberative consequence of subconscious thought processes.I suspect we shall find that the mind consists of an aglomoration of various cognitive processes.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 13:22:58 seb You are viewing this topic and this thread too much from your own POV. None of this may be news to you and you may have reached the practical conclusions from another path. I refer you to the studies premise and add, that this may not have been intended for you. That people believe in this type of free will, well of that there is no doubt.
murder Member	Mon May 21 13:26:38 "I think prison should focus on rehabilitation and deterence anyway." I think prison should focus on protecting the non-criminals outside the prison walls.
Seb Member	Mon May 21 14:10:38 murder: That too.
TJ Member	Mon May 21 14:12:37 Can anyone define the processes of each state of mind listed below? 1) conscious 2) subconscious 3) unconscious Do any of the three ever shutdown? Maybe I'm thinking of unconscious bias and maybe I'm not. Anyone want to get absurdly weird? Describe the variables in a random bag of dirt. Maybe I should smoke some extraordinary weed. Is my post full of random thoughts or is there an association within all of the questions? This is a test of my own ignorance. Term it rehabilitation if you choose. I'm attempting to make sense out of nonsense. :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 14:17:09 You are deep enough in the rabbit hole. I suggest you smoke some weed and then listen to this. http://after-on.com/episodes/026
TJ Member	Mon May 21 14:19:41 Once I got past the self promotion some interest was sparked.
Dukhat Member	Mon May 21 14:20:14 Free will is a broad subject and evokes deeply emotional responses and overlaps with philosophical questions that are ultimately not easily explained by science. Ageny is a more narrow and useful term. In Nimatzo's case, he feels the walls closing in on him as a middle-age man with a family and kids. His economic mobility is near-zero and his ability to just leave is limited by the law which obligates him to take responsibility for himself. So he obsesses over this and other inane and pointless issues to deal with his own helpless. His agency is limited not only because of the constraints of the law and society but of his own mind which travels down narrow paths to confirm his sympathies towards the male victimhood cult he recently subscribed too. But really, his story is not different from many if not most people. The time time you stop learning and letting yourself think you don't have a choice in most matters is the moment you are figuratively if not literally dead. At that point, it seems the mind seems to seek solace in extremist viewpoints to deal with the internal pressure that builds up inside. Like incels who blow up and kill people. Losing weight, working on yourself in general, and lowering your standards towards women would all prove more tangible results. But the agency is gone; the helplessness has set in; and only one course is viable: violence. That or shitposting on random internet websites.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 21 14:23:43 It is well in line with that last post of yours. He explains that mathematical simulations where the species are aware of the true state of reality from the start of the simulation always fail within the first couple of generations, but the species that evolve their understanding through increments survive. Everything you hear, feel and sense is an average of billions of things going on at the same time 0_0
TJ Member	Mon May 21 14:38:43 ;)
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: