6 ms·

It’s interesting how many comments immediately defend the evidence of “free will”. I’m not saying this article comes close at all to invalidating “free will” bu

It’s interesting how many comments immediately defend the evidence of “free will”. I’m not saying this article comes close at all to invalidating “free will” but it begs the question how will humanity react if we do invalidate it one day? Seems on the same scale as “the world is round” or “Earth revolves around the sun”.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Seems nonsensical to me. You can predict 99.999% of our behaviors... as long as you make one decision your whole life that bucks the model, you are not the model.
root_axis 8y ago
What does "free will" even mean in this context?
ardy42 8y ago
> I’m not saying this article comes close at all to invalidating “free will” but it begs the question how will humanity react if we do invalidate it one day? It (or more precisely, the people who fully internalize the result and who have the power to act on it) will probably start treating other people a lot more like we currently treat machines.
Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
Why would you assume that "Free Will" is something that can be proven/disproven? Something that is in the domain of science? To clarify the question, what kind of scientific experiment would you even imagine that would even resemble something producing evidence for or against free will? (These experiments talked about in this topic do not at all fit it: they just show that there are conscious and subconscious parts of our experience of life and our experience of the process of choice. In what world would that be related to the degree of "free-ness" of that choice is beyond me. I thought we all knew already that there are conscious and subconscious parts of the brain and that many of activities of "I" are subconscious.)
- nur0n 8y ago
  One way is to show that, given a state of the universe, it is possible to determine the next state. From what I understand, this does not seem to be the case.
  - shrimp_emoji 8y ago
    I think it can't be the case because the brain is a chaotic system. But hiding behind chaotic behavior to preserve "free will" is farcical, isn't it? We can't know how the pendulum[0] will swing next, so we can say that it's got free will? 0: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-compound-pendulum.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-c...
    - DangitBobby 8y ago
      It's not "farcical". If you could prove that physical states are deterministic, you could prove that there is no free will. That statement makes no claims whatsoever about what it means that physical states are not known to be deterministic. In other words, it could have been useful as proof negative of free will, but not as proof positive. And that's okay.
      - incompatible 8y ago
        Wheter "free will" exists or not seems like a technicality, tied to whether the Universe is deterministic or not. Whether or not it's deterministic, a brain must still go through its thought processes to come up with any decision. The only difference that non-determinism makes is that the decision may randomly go one way or the other based on low-level fluctuations. Thinking and decision making still occurs even if the Universe is deterministic.
        DangitBobby 8y ago
        It sounds like we agree. To be clear, I think that free will--by definition--cannot exist in a purely deterministic universe. Any semblance of free will in such a universe would be purely illusory. It also cannot exist in a universe where events can only ever be some combination of random events and determined events. Randomness is also not free will. Free Will would have to be some other special category of events that is neither determined not random. We don't have a word or phrase to describe what these events would be like other than "Free Will." However, lacking the vocabulary and math to describe it does not make it non-existent.
empath75 8y ago
What does free will mean in this situation? It’s still your brain making the decision, whether it’s conscious or not. It seems to me that if you have a materialist theory of consciousness that there have to be unconscious essentially mechanical processes underlying it. But as long as those processes are contained within the being making the decision, it seems to me that it should still be considered ‘free will’. Now, perhaps there is some level of determination there that makes the traditional idea of free will hard to maintain, but I’m not sure we have to toss the concept out entirely. I’ve always largely considered it a convenient fiction useful for legal and ethical discussions. If you’re designing a legal system, I don’t think you care as much about the first causes of human action compared to whether the action was done by a particular human being without being forced to do it by some external actor.
noiv 8y ago
Sure, it's a construct, but do you really want to throw responsibility over board? Why punish people if their choices are just consequences of weird electron configurations?
- spiralx 8y ago
  Because not having free will won't change the fact that we act as though we do, nor will it change the desired outcome - punishment is meant as a deterrence, not just retribution.
  - OpenBSD-supreme 8y ago
    Punishment and retribution may be (err... are) the wrong reasons. It should be about debugging the economic/environmental problem in crimes of desperation and the mental problems in crimes of calculation, and it should be balanced with preserving the safety and integrity of the public. The way I see it the vast majority of crime is caused by desperation (apparently no options in the face of survival needs, eg basic food/shelter/comfort) or by sociopathy (not respecting the rights of others). Locking criminals into concrete boxes and lording over them constantly sure doesn't do much to instill the correct models of how to live in our society. Most of these people will one day be released, and most of the released will return to prison, because prison not only fails to repair the traumas which put them there but actually fosters more traumas which on average worsen their mental conditions! It's a self feeding system! The men who manage to escape the cycle on release most often have great external support networks, the few without the network somehow do it by their own wills to power. The remainder run circles through the rotating doors and continue to be a menace on society. A menace which justifies larger police, court, and prison budgets.
  - noiv 8y ago
    That needs some citation. Or why then is justice so fixated at the right guy suffers at the end?
animal531 8y ago
Yeah, I don't even think it even touches the concept of free will. What it does show is that thought is layered, where you as en entity is only conscious of the "top" layer. But the lower layers are all still you, molded based on your experiences and conscious layer. The part of you that goes, "I choose A" is only the vocal/mental switch where you become conscious of the choice.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

Seems nonsensical to me. You can predict 99.999% of our behaviors... as long as you make one decision your whole life that bucks the model, you are not the model.

root_axis 8y ago

What does "free will" even mean in this context?

ardy42 8y ago

> I’m not saying this article comes close at all to invalidating “free will” but it begs the question how will humanity react if we do invalidate it one day? It (or more precisely, the people who fully internalize the result and who have the power to act on it) will probably start treating other people a lot more like we currently treat machines.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago

Why would you assume that "Free Will" is something that can be proven/disproven? Something that is in the domain of science? To clarify the question, what kind of scientific experiment would you even imagine that would even resemble something producing evidence for or against free will? (These experiments talked about in this topic do not at all fit it: they just show that there are conscious and subconscious parts of our experience of life and our experience of the process of choice. In what world would that be related to the degree of "free-ness" of that choice is beyond me. I thought we all knew already that there are conscious and subconscious parts of the brain and that many of activities of "I" are subconscious.)

nur0n 8y ago
One way is to show that, given a state of the universe, it is possible to determine the next state. From what I understand, this does not seem to be the case.
- shrimp_emoji 8y ago
  I think it can't be the case because the brain is a chaotic system. But hiding behind chaotic behavior to preserve "free will" is farcical, isn't it? We can't know how the pendulum[0] will swing next, so we can say that it's got free will? 0: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-compound-pendulum.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-c...
  - DangitBobby 8y ago
    It's not "farcical". If you could prove that physical states are deterministic, you could prove that there is no free will. That statement makes no claims whatsoever about what it means that physical states are not known to be deterministic. In other words, it could have been useful as proof negative of free will, but not as proof positive. And that's okay.
    - incompatible 8y ago
      Wheter "free will" exists or not seems like a technicality, tied to whether the Universe is deterministic or not. Whether or not it's deterministic, a brain must still go through its thought processes to come up with any decision. The only difference that non-determinism makes is that the decision may randomly go one way or the other based on low-level fluctuations. Thinking and decision making still occurs even if the Universe is deterministic.
      - DangitBobby 8y ago
        It sounds like we agree. To be clear, I think that free will--by definition--cannot exist in a purely deterministic universe. Any semblance of free will in such a universe would be purely illusory. It also cannot exist in a universe where events can only ever be some combination of random events and determined events. Randomness is also not free will. Free Will would have to be some other special category of events that is neither determined not random. We don't have a word or phrase to describe what these events would be like other than "Free Will." However, lacking the vocabulary and math to describe it does not make it non-existent.

empath75 8y ago

What does free will mean in this situation? It’s still your brain making the decision, whether it’s conscious or not. It seems to me that if you have a materialist theory of consciousness that there have to be unconscious essentially mechanical processes underlying it. But as long as those processes are contained within the being making the decision, it seems to me that it should still be considered ‘free will’. Now, perhaps there is some level of determination there that makes the traditional idea of free will hard to maintain, but I’m not sure we have to toss the concept out entirely. I’ve always largely considered it a convenient fiction useful for legal and ethical discussions. If you’re designing a legal system, I don’t think you care as much about the first causes of human action compared to whether the action was done by a particular human being without being forced to do it by some external actor.

noiv 8y ago

Sure, it's a construct, but do you really want to throw responsibility over board? Why punish people if their choices are just consequences of weird electron configurations?

spiralx 8y ago
Because not having free will won't change the fact that we act as though we do, nor will it change the desired outcome - punishment is meant as a deterrence, not just retribution.
- OpenBSD-supreme 8y ago
  Punishment and retribution may be (err... are) the wrong reasons. It should be about debugging the economic/environmental problem in crimes of desperation and the mental problems in crimes of calculation, and it should be balanced with preserving the safety and integrity of the public. The way I see it the vast majority of crime is caused by desperation (apparently no options in the face of survival needs, eg basic food/shelter/comfort) or by sociopathy (not respecting the rights of others). Locking criminals into concrete boxes and lording over them constantly sure doesn't do much to instill the correct models of how to live in our society. Most of these people will one day be released, and most of the released will return to prison, because prison not only fails to repair the traumas which put them there but actually fosters more traumas which on average worsen their mental conditions! It's a self feeding system! The men who manage to escape the cycle on release most often have great external support networks, the few without the network somehow do it by their own wills to power. The remainder run circles through the rotating doors and continue to be a menace on society. A menace which justifies larger police, court, and prison budgets.
- noiv 8y ago
  That needs some citation. Or why then is justice so fixated at the right guy suffers at the end?

animal531 8y ago

Yeah, I don't even think it even touches the concept of free will. What it does show is that thought is layered, where you as en entity is only conscious of the "top" layer. But the lower layers are all still you, molded based on your experiences and conscious layer. The part of you that goes, "I choose A" is only the vocal/mental switch where you become conscious of the choice.