4 ms·

You're thinking of luck in a narrow sense. If an otherwise fiscally responsible and decent person wins the lottery, they're set for life. But luck means a lot

You're thinking of luck in a narrow sense. If an otherwise fiscally responsible and decent person wins the lottery, they're set for life. But luck means a lot more than just getting some big break. It means your genetics, parents, your friends and your teachers. It means your childhood environments. It means everything your senses have ever detected. It means toxins you've been exposed to, diseases, parasites, and microbiome. It means chance genetics that can lead to diseases. Just because some people with difficult childhoods end up being wildly successful, and some people who were handed every opportunity (good schools, rich parents) end up making a mess of their lives, doesn't at all imply that the traditional notion of free will is at work. Even what little we understand about psychology suggests that it's because of difficult upbringings that some people are so tenacious at achieving success, and it's because of having things handed to them that someone you'd expect to succeed ends up an underachiever for life. In other words, not having luck early in life can be its own luck in shaping your psychology, and having luck early in life can be its own bad luck in shaping your psychology.

jacquesm 8y ago
> You're thinking of luck in a narrow sense. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. > If an otherwise fiscally responsible and decent person wins the lottery, they're set for life. That depends. They might get ill or they might get robbed. As the parable says 'we'll see'[1]. > But luck means a lot more than just getting some big break. Yes, obviously. > It means your genetics, parents, your friends and your teachers. It means your childhood environments. It means everything your senses have ever detected. It means toxins you've been exposed to, diseases, parasites, and microbiome. It means chance genetics that can lead to diseases. That was the point of TFA: it means everything and as soon as something means 'everything' it might as well mean nothing. > Just because some people with difficult childhoods end up being wildly successful, and some people who were handed every opportunity (good schools, rich parents) end up making a mess of their lives, doesn't at all imply that the traditional notion of free will is at work. It also doesn't imply that it isn't. > Even what little we understand about psychology suggests that it's because of difficult upbringings that some people are so tenacious at achieving success, and it's because of having things handed to them that someone you'd expect to succeed ends up an underachiever for life. That's the core of the parable. Everything in your life that happens by chance can be 'good' or 'bad', it all depends. > In other words, not having luck early in life can be its own luck in shaping your psychology, and having luck early in life can be its own bad luck in shaping your psychology. Exactly. But the people that make 'good' decisions tend to do better all things considered than the people that make 'bad' decisions, and that's where free will comes in. Even if statistically speaking some of the good decisions will lead to bad outcomes this is not the majority of the cases. We'll have a simple example: smoking is bad for you. Decide not to smoke and you will likely live a healthier and longer life and your reproductive chances go up. That's a decision that's all yours and even if your personality make-up is a big factor in whether or not you will take up smoking and if you do you may quit or not depending on your genetics again - all due to luck - in the end you consciously decide whether or not you wish to continue to smoke or not. So you can reduce everything to luck but it doesn't help you at all, it's a nihilist approach. http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=31 http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=31
- Diederich 8y ago
  > and as soon as something means 'everything' it might as well mean nothing. Can you expand on that? I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to be sure. > in the end you consciously decide whether or not you wish to continue to smoke or not. Citation needed. The genetic and environmental precursors to addiction are pretty well documented these days.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    > Can you expand on that? I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to be sure. Hope that's expansion enough: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SharpshooterFallacy http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SharpshooterFalla... > > in the end you consciously decide whether or not you wish to continue to smoke or not. > Citation needed. The genetic and environmental precursors to addiction are pretty well documented these days. Absolutely. And yet, a percentage of the people that have all the 'wrong' bits set ends up not smoking. They have a harder time of it resisting the pressure but in the end it is a conscious decision. It's just that the odds are stacked against them and more of them will end up smoking. But not everybody. And then there are such things as compensating environmental factors as well.
    - Diederich 8y ago
      > all the 'wrong' bits set ends up not smoking. How would we know that all of the 'pro-smoking' bits are set? Are we aware of all the possible bits? I've always been ardently anti-smoking, even as a kid, even though I was surrounded by smokers. (I'm not claiming that YOU are claiming those are even close to all of the relevant bits, just stating background.) So now I'll make something up: perhaps I was going to become a smoker, except as a toddler, something really bad (from my toddler perspective) happened to me while I was pondering the people smoking around me. And that alone setup sufficient neural pathways that over-rode all of the 'pro smoking' bits, present and future. I believe that the relevant 'bits' are so numerous as to be effectively random. I understand your assertion that free will can't be a thing in a fully deterministic universe, that randomness is a requirement. At the same time, I'm still not convinced that randomness necessarily leads to free will. I honestly don't think that humans have the linguistic or cognitive tools necessary to rigorously discuss or even consider this question. Is there an effective difference between having and not having 'free will' when the playing field is so many orders of magnitude more complex than our ability to quantify or understand it? A sufficiently advanced bot in a sufficiently advanced game, even when using a completely deterministic pseudo random number generator, should be fully able to convince us that it has free will.

jacquesm 8y ago

> You're thinking of luck in a narrow sense. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. > If an otherwise fiscally responsible and decent person wins the lottery, they're set for life. That depends. They might get ill or they might get robbed. As the parable says 'we'll see'[1]. > But luck means a lot more than just getting some big break. Yes, obviously. > It means your genetics, parents, your friends and your teachers. It means your childhood environments. It means everything your senses have ever detected. It means toxins you've been exposed to, diseases, parasites, and microbiome. It means chance genetics that can lead to diseases. That was the point of TFA: it means everything and as soon as something means 'everything' it might as well mean nothing. > Just because some people with difficult childhoods end up being wildly successful, and some people who were handed every opportunity (good schools, rich parents) end up making a mess of their lives, doesn't at all imply that the traditional notion of free will is at work. It also doesn't imply that it isn't. > Even what little we understand about psychology suggests that it's because of difficult upbringings that some people are so tenacious at achieving success, and it's because of having things handed to them that someone you'd expect to succeed ends up an underachiever for life. That's the core of the parable. Everything in your life that happens by chance can be 'good' or 'bad', it all depends. > In other words, not having luck early in life can be its own luck in shaping your psychology, and having luck early in life can be its own bad luck in shaping your psychology. Exactly. But the people that make 'good' decisions tend to do better all things considered than the people that make 'bad' decisions, and that's where free will comes in. Even if statistically speaking some of the good decisions will lead to bad outcomes this is not the majority of the cases. We'll have a simple example: smoking is bad for you. Decide not to smoke and you will likely live a healthier and longer life and your reproductive chances go up. That's a decision that's all yours and even if your personality make-up is a big factor in whether or not you will take up smoking and if you do you may quit or not depending on your genetics again - all due to luck - in the end you consciously decide whether or not you wish to continue to smoke or not. So you can reduce everything to luck but it doesn't help you at all, it's a nihilist approach. http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=31 http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=31

Diederich 8y ago
> and as soon as something means 'everything' it might as well mean nothing. Can you expand on that? I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to be sure. > in the end you consciously decide whether or not you wish to continue to smoke or not. Citation needed. The genetic and environmental precursors to addiction are pretty well documented these days.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > Can you expand on that? I think I understand what you're saying, but I'd like to be sure. Hope that's expansion enough: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SharpshooterFallacy http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SharpshooterFalla... > > in the end you consciously decide whether or not you wish to continue to smoke or not. > Citation needed. The genetic and environmental precursors to addiction are pretty well documented these days. Absolutely. And yet, a percentage of the people that have all the 'wrong' bits set ends up not smoking. They have a harder time of it resisting the pressure but in the end it is a conscious decision. It's just that the odds are stacked against them and more of them will end up smoking. But not everybody. And then there are such things as compensating environmental factors as well.
  - Diederich 8y ago
    > all the 'wrong' bits set ends up not smoking. How would we know that all of the 'pro-smoking' bits are set? Are we aware of all the possible bits? I've always been ardently anti-smoking, even as a kid, even though I was surrounded by smokers. (I'm not claiming that YOU are claiming those are even close to all of the relevant bits, just stating background.) So now I'll make something up: perhaps I was going to become a smoker, except as a toddler, something really bad (from my toddler perspective) happened to me while I was pondering the people smoking around me. And that alone setup sufficient neural pathways that over-rode all of the 'pro smoking' bits, present and future. I believe that the relevant 'bits' are so numerous as to be effectively random. I understand your assertion that free will can't be a thing in a fully deterministic universe, that randomness is a requirement. At the same time, I'm still not convinced that randomness necessarily leads to free will. I honestly don't think that humans have the linguistic or cognitive tools necessary to rigorously discuss or even consider this question. Is there an effective difference between having and not having 'free will' when the playing field is so many orders of magnitude more complex than our ability to quantify or understand it? A sufficiently advanced bot in a sufficiently advanced game, even when using a completely deterministic pseudo random number generator, should be fully able to convince us that it has free will.