4 ms·

Yeah I put this in the same bucket as religion and freewill. These are things people cling onto because we so desperately want to feel special and magical. It'

Yeah I put this in the same bucket as religion and freewill. These are things people cling onto because we so desperately want to feel special and magical. It's similar to learning that the universe doesn't literally revolve around us.

umvi 2y ago
> free will Assuming free will doesn't exist, how would a world where free will does exist be any different? As far as I can tell, our current world is indistinguishable from a world with free will, therefore our world is equivalent to one with free will.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  > As far as I can tell, our current world is indistinguishable from a world with free will As far as I can tell, everything in our world is governed by the laws of physics, and free will is an illusion. We "make choices", but only because physics moves our brain from one state to the next, and your "choices" only have one option - the one that follows physics. (this assumes there's no true randomness in the universe, as it requires a source of true randomness, so infinite regress)
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    But even with true randomness, it would not suddenly turn will into free will. It would turn it into chaotic/unpredictable will maybe, governed by random events, not free.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - dsego 2y ago
    > We "make choices", but only because physics moves our brain from one state to the next Is it deterministic, who makes the choices for us, why does physics move our brain, what's the cause?
    - bufferoverflow 2y ago
      That doesn't matter.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  If free will existed and I told you to give me all your money, you would be able to refuse, otherwise you wouldn't.
  - temporarely 2y ago
    You are confusing suggestibility with the question of free will.
    - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
      How do you expect to refuse suggestion without free will?
      - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
        You’re confusing different levels of free will. To us free will feels real because that’s how our neurons fire. We can refuse because there are patterns of neuron activation that lead to the physical act of refusal.
        GoblinSlayer 2y ago
        If you don't have free will, you shouldn't be able to resist my suggestion. That's what it means to lack free will - to obey suggestion. If free will existed in this form, then your claim that free will doesn't exist will be wrong. If you want to say that some forms of free will exist and some don't, feel free to elaborate which do and which don't. If you want to say that compatibilistic free will exist and libertarian doesn't, that's completely reasonable, but "free will exists" is the accurate description of this situation.
        temporarely 2y ago
        Will is affecting, bringing about, one's intent. Intentions are based on thought. Thought is engendered in the mind. A weak mind is susceptible to suggestions. Suggestibility is indicative of an inability to resist 'external' (not necessarily in the physical sense) influences. The question of free will is meaningful as a dual of the proposition of determinism. I suggest to you :) that you lack clarity of thought and need to work on that.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- temporarely 2y ago
  The core of the flaw in your proposition is the premise of making the determination based on external observation. The actual question is this: do I have free will or not? Life presents us with choices. To paraphrase the prince of Denmark, 'Do I decide to do x or !x? That is the question'. Related question is does I (distinct from Reality) even have a real existence? In the 2 slit experiment, as long as the future state of the system is undecidable, we see light behave as waves. When the future of the system is constrained (by measure, which is a 'means of determination') does light behave like a particle.
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    Undecidability existed in antirealism, but today antirealism is unpopular, and measurement doesn't create reality.
    - temporarely 2y ago
      Constrain =/= create
- CooCooCaCha 2y ago
  No, your response is not scientific. The default, rational assumption is that the brain works through normal physical processes. In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics that influences the physical world. No evidence for this force of nature exists. And, at a high level, this is no different from other quackery like psychics, witchcraft and other similar nonsense where people insist that their minds can influence the physical world beyond normal physics.
  - mkleczek 2y ago
    > In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics that influences the physical world. I guess this could be something analogous to dark matter... It is as much physics as any other unexplainable "fundamental" concept.
  - QuantumG 2y ago
    Normal physical processes are not deterministic. You don't need to speculate on a source of non-determinism, it's right there in the substrate. Penrose's entire argument is based on a fallacy (you need quantum effects for a system to be non-deterministic) and we've known this since the double-pendulum.
  - antiquark 2y ago
    > In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics Is this an axiom?
    - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
      No it’s just logical. If the brain is just normal physics then your behavior is dictated by the laws of physics. This is not what most people consider free will. Therefore, you would need something outside of physics for there to be free will. Like a spirit.
      - PreachSoup 2y ago
        I think it's just most people don't really understand physics. If they get the concept of emergent effects, complexity and how free will vs no free will are basically indistinguishable to the humans, I doubt they would still agree with the same conclusion.
- antiquark 2y ago
  Similarily, you could use the example of two people, Alice and Bob. Alice has free will, but Bob doesn't. How would their behavior differ? I've never seen an answer to this question, which hints that the question itself is ill-formed.
  - galaxyLogic 2y ago
    I think Free Will basically means that nobody else can force us to will, to desire, to like what we like. A non-free-will would be something where somebody else controls my mind. Like you could imagine hearing thoughts in your head which you think are thought by someone else, like in schizophrenia I guess. You can force me to do something but you cannot force me to will/want/like anything.
  - danyala 2y ago
    Bob would become non-deterministic. It’s a bit like when we add async to an old JS project. Once you await, you can’t stop! Now, you’re looking sideways. Try looking down at a bunch of little Bobs. That’s where it gets interesting in my opinion.
- dgoodell 2y ago
  I think you need to define free will before deciding whether or not it exists. People that argue about it are mostly just using different definitions for it. Actually, the whole thing seems to be just a semantic argument, there's no science or anything involved. IMO, I think free will is just a lie we tell ourselves. The inner workings of our brains are mostly hidden from us. When asked why we did something we just make up some bullshit that's not unlike what ChatGPT does when it helpfully fabricates an answer for us.
  - throwawayqqq11 2y ago
    The dedinition should distinguish free will vs free agency. We have free agency to do what is possible for us, like ultimately committing suicide to restrict that freedom, but we dont have the freedom to choose how we choose because this will never be fully transparent to us, even though we can approximate it with mindfullness. So, to answer OPs question how the world would look like with "free will", i imagine a world without all those cognitive biases like this entire tribalistic political bullshit we are seeing around the world with identity infested right (and lesser, left) wing movements as a reaction to ever more complex global problems, so quite a contrast.
  - munksbeer 2y ago
    >I think you need to define free will before deciding whether or not it exists. I don't think that is possible. Or at least I've never seen a definition that isn't self referntial or makes sense. Possibly I'm uneducated.
    - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
      Some definitions: 1) ability to do as you want 2) ability to do otherwise 3) ability to control choice 4) be an author of choice
      - munksbeer 2y ago
        Self referential.

umvi 2y ago

> free will Assuming free will doesn't exist, how would a world where free will does exist be any different? As far as I can tell, our current world is indistinguishable from a world with free will, therefore our world is equivalent to one with free will.

bufferoverflow 2y ago
> As far as I can tell, our current world is indistinguishable from a world with free will As far as I can tell, everything in our world is governed by the laws of physics, and free will is an illusion. We "make choices", but only because physics moves our brain from one state to the next, and your "choices" only have one option - the one that follows physics. (this assumes there's no true randomness in the universe, as it requires a source of true randomness, so infinite regress)
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  But even with true randomness, it would not suddenly turn will into free will. It would turn it into chaotic/unpredictable will maybe, governed by random events, not free.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dsego 2y ago
  > We "make choices", but only because physics moves our brain from one state to the next Is it deterministic, who makes the choices for us, why does physics move our brain, what's the cause?
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    That doesn't matter.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
If free will existed and I told you to give me all your money, you would be able to refuse, otherwise you wouldn't.
- temporarely 2y ago
  You are confusing suggestibility with the question of free will.
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    How do you expect to refuse suggestion without free will?
    - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
      You’re confusing different levels of free will. To us free will feels real because that’s how our neurons fire. We can refuse because there are patterns of neuron activation that lead to the physical act of refusal.
      - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
        If you don't have free will, you shouldn't be able to resist my suggestion. That's what it means to lack free will - to obey suggestion. If free will existed in this form, then your claim that free will doesn't exist will be wrong. If you want to say that some forms of free will exist and some don't, feel free to elaborate which do and which don't. If you want to say that compatibilistic free will exist and libertarian doesn't, that's completely reasonable, but "free will exists" is the accurate description of this situation.
        temporarely 2y ago
        Will is affecting, bringing about, one's intent. Intentions are based on thought. Thought is engendered in the mind. A weak mind is susceptible to suggestions. Suggestibility is indicative of an inability to resist 'external' (not necessarily in the physical sense) influences. The question of free will is meaningful as a dual of the proposition of determinism. I suggest to you :) that you lack clarity of thought and need to work on that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
temporarely 2y ago
The core of the flaw in your proposition is the premise of making the determination based on external observation. The actual question is this: do I have free will or not? Life presents us with choices. To paraphrase the prince of Denmark, 'Do I decide to do x or !x? That is the question'. Related question is does I (distinct from Reality) even have a real existence? In the 2 slit experiment, as long as the future state of the system is undecidable, we see light behave as waves. When the future of the system is constrained (by measure, which is a 'means of determination') does light behave like a particle.
- GoblinSlayer 2y ago
  Undecidability existed in antirealism, but today antirealism is unpopular, and measurement doesn't create reality.
  - temporarely 2y ago
    Constrain =/= create
CooCooCaCha 2y ago
No, your response is not scientific. The default, rational assumption is that the brain works through normal physical processes. In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics that influences the physical world. No evidence for this force of nature exists. And, at a high level, this is no different from other quackery like psychics, witchcraft and other similar nonsense where people insist that their minds can influence the physical world beyond normal physics.
- mkleczek 2y ago
  > In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics that influences the physical world. I guess this could be something analogous to dark matter... It is as much physics as any other unexplainable "fundamental" concept.
- QuantumG 2y ago
  Normal physical processes are not deterministic. You don't need to speculate on a source of non-determinism, it's right there in the substrate. Penrose's entire argument is based on a fallacy (you need quantum effects for a system to be non-deterministic) and we've known this since the double-pendulum.
- antiquark 2y ago
  > In order for free will to exist there would need to be some force outside of normal physics Is this an axiom?
  - CooCooCaCha 2y ago
    No it’s just logical. If the brain is just normal physics then your behavior is dictated by the laws of physics. This is not what most people consider free will. Therefore, you would need something outside of physics for there to be free will. Like a spirit.
    - PreachSoup 2y ago
      I think it's just most people don't really understand physics. If they get the concept of emergent effects, complexity and how free will vs no free will are basically indistinguishable to the humans, I doubt they would still agree with the same conclusion.
antiquark 2y ago
Similarily, you could use the example of two people, Alice and Bob. Alice has free will, but Bob doesn't. How would their behavior differ? I've never seen an answer to this question, which hints that the question itself is ill-formed.
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  I think Free Will basically means that nobody else can force us to will, to desire, to like what we like. A non-free-will would be something where somebody else controls my mind. Like you could imagine hearing thoughts in your head which you think are thought by someone else, like in schizophrenia I guess. You can force me to do something but you cannot force me to will/want/like anything.
- danyala 2y ago
  Bob would become non-deterministic. It’s a bit like when we add async to an old JS project. Once you await, you can’t stop! Now, you’re looking sideways. Try looking down at a bunch of little Bobs. That’s where it gets interesting in my opinion.
dgoodell 2y ago
I think you need to define free will before deciding whether or not it exists. People that argue about it are mostly just using different definitions for it. Actually, the whole thing seems to be just a semantic argument, there's no science or anything involved. IMO, I think free will is just a lie we tell ourselves. The inner workings of our brains are mostly hidden from us. When asked why we did something we just make up some bullshit that's not unlike what ChatGPT does when it helpfully fabricates an answer for us.
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago
  The dedinition should distinguish free will vs free agency. We have free agency to do what is possible for us, like ultimately committing suicide to restrict that freedom, but we dont have the freedom to choose how we choose because this will never be fully transparent to us, even though we can approximate it with mindfullness. So, to answer OPs question how the world would look like with "free will", i imagine a world without all those cognitive biases like this entire tribalistic political bullshit we are seeing around the world with identity infested right (and lesser, left) wing movements as a reaction to ever more complex global problems, so quite a contrast.
- munksbeer 2y ago
  >I think you need to define free will before deciding whether or not it exists. I don't think that is possible. Or at least I've never seen a definition that isn't self referntial or makes sense. Possibly I'm uneducated.
  - GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    Some definitions: 1) ability to do as you want 2) ability to do otherwise 3) ability to control choice 4) be an author of choice
    - munksbeer 2y ago
      Self referential.