3 ms·

Do We Have Free Will? Maybe It Doesn't Matter

2 points by dnetesn 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago
>"That’s quite a bold conclusion given that the most popular positions seem to be either: “Free will exists and is central to ethics,” and “Free will doesn’t exist, and it’s ethically important for everyone to recognize this fact.”" The second position makes no sense. If free will doesn't exist, there's no "ethical importance" to anything, including recognition of the fact. A rape and murder is no more ethically wrong than a boulder falling. Even more so, if free will doesn't exist, (a) it's not up to us whether we recognize this fact or not, and (b) whether we recognize it or not will have no consequence at all (since it can only have a consequence in what we willingly do, but since we don't have free will, we'll do what we were to do anyway). If people are to argue that free will doesn't exist, then they should be coherent and consistent about it, and recognize that: (a) they argue so because they can't argue otherwise - they don't have any free will on the matter (b) recognizing this fact or not is not up to anybody (people will do what people would have done anyway, as with determinism and no free will there's no change ever to the future from a predetermined past) (c) morality means nothing (as people where always meant to do something, even as babies, they don't have any agency about it), punishment or lack of punishment is predetermined and doesn't affect anything that will happen, and so on >For Harris, those people are wrong, not just about the existence of free will, but the character of their own experience. Harris, in that episode, says that, if there’s anything novel about his position on free will, it is the claim that the experience of having free will is a penetrable illusion: If you pay sufficient attention to your mind when making a decision, it’s possible to see that you’re not really “deciding” anything. Options of what you might do simply appear in consciousness, and the feeling of “choosing” an option is just another thought that appears in consciousness, completely out of your control. This is similary bogus. The agent in free will doesn't have to be the conscious voice "speaking" in your mind. Your uncoscious processing bringing up those things to "appear in consciousness" is still being done by you and your mind.

2 points by dnetesn 6y ago

>"That’s quite a bold conclusion given that the most popular positions seem to be either: “Free will exists and is central to ethics,” and “Free will doesn’t exist, and it’s ethically important for everyone to recognize this fact.”" The second position makes no sense. If free will doesn't exist, there's no "ethical importance" to anything, including recognition of the fact. A rape and murder is no more ethically wrong than a boulder falling. Even more so, if free will doesn't exist, (a) it's not up to us whether we recognize this fact or not, and (b) whether we recognize it or not will have no consequence at all (since it can only have a consequence in what we willingly do, but since we don't have free will, we'll do what we were to do anyway). If people are to argue that free will doesn't exist, then they should be coherent and consistent about it, and recognize that: (a) they argue so because they can't argue otherwise - they don't have any free will on the matter (b) recognizing this fact or not is not up to anybody (people will do what people would have done anyway, as with determinism and no free will there's no change ever to the future from a predetermined past) (c) morality means nothing (as people where always meant to do something, even as babies, they don't have any agency about it), punishment or lack of punishment is predetermined and doesn't affect anything that will happen, and so on >For Harris, those people are wrong, not just about the existence of free will, but the character of their own experience. Harris, in that episode, says that, if there’s anything novel about his position on free will, it is the claim that the experience of having free will is a penetrable illusion: If you pay sufficient attention to your mind when making a decision, it’s possible to see that you’re not really “deciding” anything. Options of what you might do simply appear in consciousness, and the feeling of “choosing” an option is just another thought that appears in consciousness, completely out of your control. This is similary bogus. The agent in free will doesn't have to be the conscious voice "speaking" in your mind. Your uncoscious processing bringing up those things to "appear in consciousness" is still being done by you and your mind.