4 ms·

My Diogenes answer would be to walk across the room and slap you: “if I didn’t chose to do it you cannot be angry at me.” That’s tongue and cheek sure, but th

My Diogenes answer would be to walk across the room and slap you: “if I didn’t chose to do it you cannot be angry at me.” That’s tongue and cheek sure, but the point I feel stands. Free will is certainly constrained, and our material and biological conditions do matter - there’s no amount I can will to make myself fly, but they are not necessarily as rigid of constraints as many would have you believe. We can overcome our biology, our predilections, and many of our shortcomings. We have to consciously choose to do so though.

threatofrain 3y ago
Not really. We don't need an answer to the question of free will to react to anything.
huygens6363 3y ago
I’m not sure what the point is? Why can’t I be angry? Surely you must see anger is and never will be rational (and also not free). My anger at your slapping is as much determined as your slapping. I see no problem. Free will arguments usually refer to these “justice requires freedom”-like arguments and I feel that’s not the case at all. You can punish, you can feel anger. It’s all included. You cannot separate reactions, this one is free, this one is not. It’s a package deal.
- vasco 3y ago
  There's free will in the sense that the system is so chaotic and complex that it's impossible to predict for us now at current technology levels, maybe never possible to predict, but I don't see anything in science that would allow free will to be a thing. We're complex automata in the end.
  - piloto_ciego 3y ago
    I think this is a failure in imagination not a failure in science. Still, all these free will deniers are basing their worldview on the (radical) assumption that. 1. Everything has a cause 2. Everything is explainable 3. physical matter is all there is 4. Science can describe literally everything about the universe 4a. Corollary - things that aren’t describable by science don’t exist All of those claims are unfalsifiable at best and demonstrably false at worst (depending on how hard you squint). Science is effective for repeatable experiments, but that’s not a guarantee that there aren’t events that are one-and-done.
    - huygens6363 3y ago
      I agree, but I have to admit that once we have to invoke mysterious one-off miracles and unknowable states of existence to explain something so radically basic like “free will” we have IMO gone off track. This feels like a God of the gaps type argument and those give off a particular smell.
    - LocalH 2y ago
      Those damn unknown unknowns keep mucking things up for us, don't they
csomar 3y ago
> We can overcome our biology, our predilections, and many of our shortcomings. We have to consciously choose to do so though. Hmm, no we can't. And the few people who seemingly can do that, it's because their biology/environment allowed that. So kind of circling back to determinism. Free will is a myth that's used to lock people up. If you slap someone in the face, we'll lock you up somewhere because we don't know if you'll do it again. It doesn't matter if there is free will or not. Society has decided to put annoying elements in a huge bastille and call it a day.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  Who's this "society" and how has it managed to have free will? If someone can't "decide" to slap their neighbor in the face and is determined to do that, why can't the same reasoning be applied to society? Society didn't freely choose to lock someone up, it was determined to do so.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Either way, face slappers and other annoying people get locked up.
- dsign 3y ago
  I'm going to nominally disagree with you, my genes are in total control and I must. Free will is a matter of definition, and certain definitions, no matter how hard we try, can't be formulated as easily as one does in, say, Euclidean geometry. So you can come up with a definition of the free will you don't have, let's call it "absolute determinism", and it has all sort of interesting criminal applications, beyond slapping people on the face (yes, who does that anyway?). For example, you could use your[^1] absolute determinism to build a very advanced AI that relies on a pseudo-random generator with a fixed seed. Fallibility is the result of using stochastic search methods, and your AI shows it. In that respect and many others, your AI acts exactly as a human would because you programmed it that way. Yet, you have the strongest argument possible to affirm that the AI you created has no free-will. One day, the AI leaves a bunch of children mentally dysfunctional[^2]. But it has no free-will, all it is emanates from you. So you must be charged for the AI's crime. Your lawyers come to court and state that you in turn have no free-will, that you are God's creature. The prosecutor brings a priest to say that God gave you free will. The judge says that precedent demands you be thrown from a high mountain, but it's feeling like a good day for a crucifixion. Of course, the trial is a shamble, a racket run by Sapiens' genes to ensure that they are passed down. And from that point of view, you committed the ultimate sin. The way out? Submit to your genes, do what they tell you to. Believe in free-will. [^1] I wash my hands. [^2] Wait, did that happen already?
dennis_moore 3y ago
> “if I didn’t chose to do it you cannot be angry at me." Yes I can, because I didn't choose to be angry either.
- piloto_ciego 3y ago
  But would anger be reasonable? Of course not.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    I disagree. But we’re not going to solve free will in HN comments. Personally I don’t think “free will” means anything or makes sense any more than “god” makes sense. It’s just a bundle of feelings that means something different to everyone.
latexr 3y ago
> walk across the room and slap you: “if I didn’t chose to do it you cannot be angry at me.” Of course they could. Anger is a way for the body to react without choosing as a defense mechanism against the next slap. Either your biology would recognise the anger and step back, or the other person would punch you back, making you afraid to repeat what you did. I’m not siding with or against free will, I just don’t think your example works to prove the point.
ZeroMinx 3y ago
> tongue and cheek tongue-in-cheek slap

threatofrain 3y ago

Not really. We don't need an answer to the question of free will to react to anything.

huygens6363 3y ago

I’m not sure what the point is? Why can’t I be angry? Surely you must see anger is and never will be rational (and also not free). My anger at your slapping is as much determined as your slapping. I see no problem. Free will arguments usually refer to these “justice requires freedom”-like arguments and I feel that’s not the case at all. You can punish, you can feel anger. It’s all included. You cannot separate reactions, this one is free, this one is not. It’s a package deal.

vasco 3y ago
There's free will in the sense that the system is so chaotic and complex that it's impossible to predict for us now at current technology levels, maybe never possible to predict, but I don't see anything in science that would allow free will to be a thing. We're complex automata in the end.
- piloto_ciego 3y ago
  I think this is a failure in imagination not a failure in science. Still, all these free will deniers are basing their worldview on the (radical) assumption that. 1. Everything has a cause 2. Everything is explainable 3. physical matter is all there is 4. Science can describe literally everything about the universe 4a. Corollary - things that aren’t describable by science don’t exist All of those claims are unfalsifiable at best and demonstrably false at worst (depending on how hard you squint). Science is effective for repeatable experiments, but that’s not a guarantee that there aren’t events that are one-and-done.
  - huygens6363 3y ago
    I agree, but I have to admit that once we have to invoke mysterious one-off miracles and unknowable states of existence to explain something so radically basic like “free will” we have IMO gone off track. This feels like a God of the gaps type argument and those give off a particular smell.
  - LocalH 2y ago
    Those damn unknown unknowns keep mucking things up for us, don't they

csomar 3y ago

> We can overcome our biology, our predilections, and many of our shortcomings. We have to consciously choose to do so though. Hmm, no we can't. And the few people who seemingly can do that, it's because their biology/environment allowed that. So kind of circling back to determinism. Free will is a myth that's used to lock people up. If you slap someone in the face, we'll lock you up somewhere because we don't know if you'll do it again. It doesn't matter if there is free will or not. Society has decided to put annoying elements in a huge bastille and call it a day.

vladvasiliu 3y ago
Who's this "society" and how has it managed to have free will? If someone can't "decide" to slap their neighbor in the face and is determined to do that, why can't the same reasoning be applied to society? Society didn't freely choose to lock someone up, it was determined to do so.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Either way, face slappers and other annoying people get locked up.
dsign 3y ago
I'm going to nominally disagree with you, my genes are in total control and I must. Free will is a matter of definition, and certain definitions, no matter how hard we try, can't be formulated as easily as one does in, say, Euclidean geometry. So you can come up with a definition of the free will you don't have, let's call it "absolute determinism", and it has all sort of interesting criminal applications, beyond slapping people on the face (yes, who does that anyway?). For example, you could use your[^1] absolute determinism to build a very advanced AI that relies on a pseudo-random generator with a fixed seed. Fallibility is the result of using stochastic search methods, and your AI shows it. In that respect and many others, your AI acts exactly as a human would because you programmed it that way. Yet, you have the strongest argument possible to affirm that the AI you created has no free-will. One day, the AI leaves a bunch of children mentally dysfunctional[^2]. But it has no free-will, all it is emanates from you. So you must be charged for the AI's crime. Your lawyers come to court and state that you in turn have no free-will, that you are God's creature. The prosecutor brings a priest to say that God gave you free will. The judge says that precedent demands you be thrown from a high mountain, but it's feeling like a good day for a crucifixion. Of course, the trial is a shamble, a racket run by Sapiens' genes to ensure that they are passed down. And from that point of view, you committed the ultimate sin. The way out? Submit to your genes, do what they tell you to. Believe in free-will. [^1] I wash my hands. [^2] Wait, did that happen already?

dennis_moore 3y ago

> “if I didn’t chose to do it you cannot be angry at me." Yes I can, because I didn't choose to be angry either.

piloto_ciego 3y ago
But would anger be reasonable? Of course not.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  I disagree. But we’re not going to solve free will in HN comments. Personally I don’t think “free will” means anything or makes sense any more than “god” makes sense. It’s just a bundle of feelings that means something different to everyone.

latexr 3y ago

> walk across the room and slap you: “if I didn’t chose to do it you cannot be angry at me.” Of course they could. Anger is a way for the body to react without choosing as a defense mechanism against the next slap. Either your biology would recognise the anger and step back, or the other person would punch you back, making you afraid to repeat what you did. I’m not siding with or against free will, I just don’t think your example works to prove the point.

ZeroMinx 3y ago

> tongue and cheek tongue-in-cheek slap