9 ms·

Are you saying that humans are partially automatons pre-programmed to behave in certain specific ways in certain situations? What are the implications of a the

Are you saying that humans are partially automatons pre-programmed to behave in certain specific ways in certain situations? What are the implications of a theory like that for free will?

vczf 6y ago
Not GP, but my understanding is that free will is weak, not strong. You can suppress a desire to eat a donut (requires willpower) but can't prevent the thought/desire from arising on its own when presented with the stimulus. Similarly, we can suppress the desire to go to war after a provocation. However, we can't choose to not feel furious, at least for an instant. Thoughts and feeling tend to arise on their own, and free will is about whether we accept or reject them.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Free will is itself still just an electrochemical process running in a physical brain. It's subjectively real, but the inputs that drive that subjective feeling are still either deterministic or random.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    "either deterministic or random" is a possibly dangerous dichotomy. Some things are neither determined nor random, in the "arbitrary" sense of the term. A child that grows up in a musical household is more likely to become a musician. That's neither random nor determined. In populations, or over repeated instances, these can resolve to near deterministic results. At the individual level, they are more random seeming.
    - _0ffh 6y ago
      Don't know about the danger in there, but what else would you want to add to the mix besides determinism and randomness? I don't know of anything else that could possibly have any influence, unless you want to go supernatural.
      - AgentMatt 6y ago
        I share the sentiment of the parent with regards to "either deterministic or random" sounding off to me. I wanted to propose "stochastic" as a better term, but apparently "random" and "stochastic" are synonyms. [1] What it comes down to is that "random" to me has a connotation of arbitrary, unpredictable. Whereas "stochastic" to me suggests a deterministic process with random influences. So maybe the sentiment is better expressed as making sure it is clear that deterministic and random are the two extremes of a continuum, rather than an either/or distinction. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-difference-between-stochastic-and-random https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-di...
        dalbasal 6y ago
        That is what I meant, which is why I said "in the arbitrary sense." I think our language is lacking here. In technical terms, neither random nor stochastic imply evenly distributed. In casual conversation, "random" does. "Emergent" may be a better term for what I meant. Randomness (in the casual sense) is an ingredient in a stochastic process leading to non-random, even effectively deterministic results. The comment I was replying to: "the inputs that drive that subjective feeling are still either deterministic or random." The ingredients which lead someone to suddenly sing a son apropos of nothing (seemingly random/arbitrary) are the same as those leading someone to pull their finger away from a flame... seemingly deterministic.
      - dalbasal 6y ago
        Is evolution by natural selection deterministic or random?
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Both. Evolution by natural selection is composed of several processes and events, some of which are random, some of which are deterministic.
        dalbasal 6y ago
    - ses1984 6y ago
      In populations, children who grow up in musical households are more likely to become musicians. That is neither random nor determined. A particular child growing up to be a musician, is either random or determined. Maybe each child in a population is determined, or random, but at least you can analyze things at the population level.
  - vczf 6y ago
    Why not reduce it further? Everything is matter or energy, and the entire universe can be reduced to quantum/chemical/kinetic processes. I don't disagree with you, but I find more subjective meaning in the difference between normal cognition and metacognition, compared to viewing the system up close.
- laumars 6y ago
  What makes you decide you want to surprise the desire to eat the donut? Is that free will or was that impulse also determined from other stimulus such as body shaming, underlying health problems or financial hardship preventing one from impulse buying? I do think if you unravel how every decision is made and the origins behind those opinions then you ultimately end up with every reaction being a result of either biology or circumstance.
  - vczf 6y ago
    Emotions, typically. Most decisions are made with emotional compute, influenced by biology, past experience, and present psychological state. At the same time, being mindful and observing those emotions (predicted pleasure from the flavor, predicted guilt...) does interrupt that emotional processing and allow a "decision" to be reached in a completely different way. Free will may only exist subjectively, but mindfulness does free the self from the emotional decision-making of the monkey brain.
    - laumars 6y ago
      But you’ve also cited that emotions are the result of stimulus. Both hunger and anger (in the examples you’ve given) are the result of conditions external to ones free will. The positive spin on this is if we are going to apply a software development mindset to free will then you can also argue that the value of software isn’t its sentience but it’s usefulness. For example computer games don’t need sophisticated AI to be enjoyable. So however we argue the definition of free will, that shouldn’t take anything away from the experience of life.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Hum... I can't tell if you are sarcastic. The internet really sucks this way. But if not, well, have you really never noticed? And yeah, theories of free will better support only partial freedom, otherwise they have no chance.
dalbasal 6y ago
That's some feisty old philosophical language.... To put it in more poetic terms (Leonard Cohen's), I think free will is overrated. We very often act because because we are compelled to act, or not to act. Back to the original topic or bird warfare... What I mean is that whatever compels (or maybe convinces) woodpeckers to warfare may be similar to what compels or convinces humans to do the same thing. If not birds, chimps. The debate about free will are poetic in nature, imo. It's a matter of what we call things and how feel about them. Less so about what things are.
air7 6y ago
I always feel like the gloomy conclusion that we humans have no free will is always just two logical jumps away and we just prefer not to take them.
- jasperry 6y ago
  All meaningful choices are driven by motives. What makes life interesting is that, pressured by unpredictable stimuli from the outside world, we can understand ourselves better and find new ways to move toward our goals. The control we have over our destiny comes from our ability to adapt and grow that way, not from the fact that our brain can somehow flip random coins. The answer to this possibly ill-posed question about "free will" doesn't need to make us gloomy; it doesn't need to have any bearing on how we feel about our life.
- yetihehe 6y ago
  I like the idea of hitting people who say we have no free will. I tried it once, but it's counter-productive for discussion. Subject was more occupied with the fact of hitting him than with continuing discusussion if my action should have consequences or not (no free will = I didn't do it out of my own will, so why should I suffer consequences).
  - watwut 6y ago
    Possibly the subject war preprogrammed to seek punishment after being hit?
    - yetihehe 6y ago
      No, he was totally stumped, did not speak with me that evening and later said that he still doesn't know why I hit him. We were drunk at the time and philosophical discussions between drunk people are rarely valuable in my experience.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think your problem is that you assume free will is a prerequisite for accountability, consequences, or justice. When my computer breaks, I either fix it or replace it. I don't ask if the computer actively chose to break. Assume there is a robot programmed to walk around punching people, do you ignore it because it isn't making choices? Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people due to a combination of random and deterministic factors (no free will), do you ignore them?
celim307 6y ago
We are just the biological process whose end result is the singularity. We are the stepping stone for the final consciousness
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Perhaps for the first consciousness.

Are you saying that humans are partially automatons pre-programmed to behave in certain specific ways in certain situations? What are the implications of a theory like that for free will?

vczf 6y ago

Not GP, but my understanding is that free will is weak, not strong. You can suppress a desire to eat a donut (requires willpower) but can't prevent the thought/desire from arising on its own when presented with the stimulus. Similarly, we can suppress the desire to go to war after a provocation. However, we can't choose to not feel furious, at least for an instant. Thoughts and feeling tend to arise on their own, and free will is about whether we accept or reject them.

nitrogen 6y ago
Free will is itself still just an electrochemical process running in a physical brain. It's subjectively real, but the inputs that drive that subjective feeling are still either deterministic or random.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  "either deterministic or random" is a possibly dangerous dichotomy. Some things are neither determined nor random, in the "arbitrary" sense of the term. A child that grows up in a musical household is more likely to become a musician. That's neither random nor determined. In populations, or over repeated instances, these can resolve to near deterministic results. At the individual level, they are more random seeming.
  - _0ffh 6y ago
    Don't know about the danger in there, but what else would you want to add to the mix besides determinism and randomness? I don't know of anything else that could possibly have any influence, unless you want to go supernatural.
    - AgentMatt 6y ago
      I share the sentiment of the parent with regards to "either deterministic or random" sounding off to me. I wanted to propose "stochastic" as a better term, but apparently "random" and "stochastic" are synonyms. [1] What it comes down to is that "random" to me has a connotation of arbitrary, unpredictable. Whereas "stochastic" to me suggests a deterministic process with random influences. So maybe the sentiment is better expressed as making sure it is clear that deterministic and random are the two extremes of a continuum, rather than an either/or distinction. [1] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-difference-between-stochastic-and-random https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-di...
      - dalbasal 6y ago
        That is what I meant, which is why I said "in the arbitrary sense." I think our language is lacking here. In technical terms, neither random nor stochastic imply evenly distributed. In casual conversation, "random" does. "Emergent" may be a better term for what I meant. Randomness (in the casual sense) is an ingredient in a stochastic process leading to non-random, even effectively deterministic results. The comment I was replying to: "the inputs that drive that subjective feeling are still either deterministic or random." The ingredients which lead someone to suddenly sing a son apropos of nothing (seemingly random/arbitrary) are the same as those leading someone to pull their finger away from a flame... seemingly deterministic.
    - dalbasal 6y ago
      Is evolution by natural selection deterministic or random?
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Both. Evolution by natural selection is composed of several processes and events, some of which are random, some of which are deterministic.
        dalbasal 6y ago
  - ses1984 6y ago
    In populations, children who grow up in musical households are more likely to become musicians. That is neither random nor determined. A particular child growing up to be a musician, is either random or determined. Maybe each child in a population is determined, or random, but at least you can analyze things at the population level.
- vczf 6y ago
  Why not reduce it further? Everything is matter or energy, and the entire universe can be reduced to quantum/chemical/kinetic processes. I don't disagree with you, but I find more subjective meaning in the difference between normal cognition and metacognition, compared to viewing the system up close.
laumars 6y ago
What makes you decide you want to surprise the desire to eat the donut? Is that free will or was that impulse also determined from other stimulus such as body shaming, underlying health problems or financial hardship preventing one from impulse buying? I do think if you unravel how every decision is made and the origins behind those opinions then you ultimately end up with every reaction being a result of either biology or circumstance.
- vczf 6y ago
  Emotions, typically. Most decisions are made with emotional compute, influenced by biology, past experience, and present psychological state. At the same time, being mindful and observing those emotions (predicted pleasure from the flavor, predicted guilt...) does interrupt that emotional processing and allow a "decision" to be reached in a completely different way. Free will may only exist subjectively, but mindfulness does free the self from the emotional decision-making of the monkey brain.
  - laumars 6y ago
    But you’ve also cited that emotions are the result of stimulus. Both hunger and anger (in the examples you’ve given) are the result of conditions external to ones free will. The positive spin on this is if we are going to apply a software development mindset to free will then you can also argue that the value of software isn’t its sentience but it’s usefulness. For example computer games don’t need sophisticated AI to be enjoyable. So however we argue the definition of free will, that shouldn’t take anything away from the experience of life.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Hum... I can't tell if you are sarcastic. The internet really sucks this way. But if not, well, have you really never noticed? And yeah, theories of free will better support only partial freedom, otherwise they have no chance.

dalbasal 6y ago

That's some feisty old philosophical language.... To put it in more poetic terms (Leonard Cohen's), I think free will is overrated. We very often act because because we are compelled to act, or not to act. Back to the original topic or bird warfare... What I mean is that whatever compels (or maybe convinces) woodpeckers to warfare may be similar to what compels or convinces humans to do the same thing. If not birds, chimps. The debate about free will are poetic in nature, imo. It's a matter of what we call things and how feel about them. Less so about what things are.

air7 6y ago

I always feel like the gloomy conclusion that we humans have no free will is always just two logical jumps away and we just prefer not to take them.

jasperry 6y ago
All meaningful choices are driven by motives. What makes life interesting is that, pressured by unpredictable stimuli from the outside world, we can understand ourselves better and find new ways to move toward our goals. The control we have over our destiny comes from our ability to adapt and grow that way, not from the fact that our brain can somehow flip random coins. The answer to this possibly ill-posed question about "free will" doesn't need to make us gloomy; it doesn't need to have any bearing on how we feel about our life.
yetihehe 6y ago
I like the idea of hitting people who say we have no free will. I tried it once, but it's counter-productive for discussion. Subject was more occupied with the fact of hitting him than with continuing discusussion if my action should have consequences or not (no free will = I didn't do it out of my own will, so why should I suffer consequences).
- watwut 6y ago
  Possibly the subject war preprogrammed to seek punishment after being hit?
  - yetihehe 6y ago
    No, he was totally stumped, did not speak with me that evening and later said that he still doesn't know why I hit him. We were drunk at the time and philosophical discussions between drunk people are rarely valuable in my experience.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think your problem is that you assume free will is a prerequisite for accountability, consequences, or justice. When my computer breaks, I either fix it or replace it. I don't ask if the computer actively chose to break. Assume there is a robot programmed to walk around punching people, do you ignore it because it isn't making choices? Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people due to a combination of random and deterministic factors (no free will), do you ignore them?

celim307 6y ago

We are just the biological process whose end result is the singularity. We are the stepping stone for the final consciousness

dalbasal 6y ago
Perhaps for the first consciousness.