Free Will

[Triple Zero]

I think a much more interesting question is:


DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?

[LMNO]

SEE?  WASN'T THAT MORE INTERESTING?





LMNO
-KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

That's not really a more interesting question. The more interesting question is, how can we reliably predict the decisions people will make faster than they can make them if we know the circumstances (their upbringing, the situation at hand, their age/sex/weight/hair color/favourite member of the monkees). That's a hard question, though, and although we have some tricks that will work some of the time, it's easier to put people in circumstances where their responses are far more predictable (say, hold a gun to their head) than to predict their responses in less predictable situations (say, when posting on an internet forum full of discordians).

[Cramulus]

I think I've been down this road already

like here The Determinism of Physical Matter
or here: Power
and I know there's a few more

so I'm going to summarize my stance on the matter

I do think that the universe is deterministic. It is made of matter, and matter has predictable properties.
I do not believe in free will if free will means some decision making apparatus outside of a deterministic physical system.

[free will vs determinism] has interested / bugged me for years.

The melioration principle is a property of animal behavior. It basically says that an organism will engage in a behavior until there are greater rewards for engaging in a different behavior. To me, this crystalizes the whole issue. Animal behavior is incredibly predictable when you look at it in terms of rewards. People are just trying to maximize their rewards.

So my take on all this is that the only real way to demonstrate independence from this principle, (aka free will) is to do something that you honestly don't want to do, something that won't give you a good reward. Are you getting a better reward for defying the system than you were for trying to live within its confines? Is that defiance in itself just a function of the melioration principle?

I mean, all that squishy human stuff (choices, emotions, brain chemistry, etc) is just a product of basic physical systems and governed by basic physical laws. You can't escape it!

sorry to ramble, this is one of those topics that I get really frustrated about.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would also argue that its probably not ALWAYS a case of either/or:

It may be deterministic that I hold the philosophy I hold, based on my life experiences, programming, education etc.

But I don't think its deterministic that I ordered a strawberry milkshake instead of a Vanilla or Cookie Dough one over the weekend. After all I like all three equally, and often prefer cookie dough.

I think sometimes philosophy argues a big picture Is/Is Not view, without realizing that at a smaller scale our decisions may behave differently (kinda like Newtonin vs Quantum)

[Cramulus]

I would also argue that its probably not ALWAYS a case of either/or:

It may be deterministic that I hold the philosophy I hold, based on my life experiences, programming, education etc.

But I don't think its deterministic that I ordered a strawberry milkshake instead of a Vanilla or Cookie Dough one over the weekend. After all I like all three equally, and often prefer cookie dough.

I think sometimes philosophy argues a big picture Is/Is Not view, without realizing that at a smaller scale our decisions may behave differently (kinda like Newtonin vs Quantum)

I would disagree - although I have no way of proving it, I think your ice cream choice was probably influenced by factors outside of your consciousness, such as your bloodsugar / nutrient levels, and operant conditioning (reward/punishment associations established throughout your lifetime).

I don't think our brains' inherent decision making processes function differently at different scales. At the neurochemical level, choosing vanilla over chocolate isn't much different than choosing a career or a mate.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would also argue that its probably not ALWAYS a case of either/or:

It may be deterministic that I hold the philosophy I hold, based on my life experiences, programming, education etc.

But I don't think its deterministic that I ordered a strawberry milkshake instead of a Vanilla or Cookie Dough one over the weekend. After all I like all three equally, and often prefer cookie dough.

I think sometimes philosophy argues a big picture Is/Is Not view, without realizing that at a smaller scale our decisions may behave differently (kinda like Newtonin vs Quantum)

I would disagree - although I have no way of proving it, I think your ice cream choice was probably influenced by factors outside of your consciousness, such as your bloodsugar / nutrient levels, and operant conditioning (reward/punishment associations established throughout your lifetime).

I don't think our brains' inherent decision making processes function differently at different scales. At the neurochemical level, choosing vanilla over chocolate isn't much different than choosing a career or a mate.

It seems to me that the less difference there is between choices, perhaps the less determined the choices may be. Of course, like you... I got no evidence (nor will any of us until we can measure outside the system).

So if we're discussing major career choice (computer science vs lawyer vs doctor) it's probably very deterministic... but if you're selecting between Milkshake Flavor A,  B and C... maybe its less deterministic... more room for a 'coin flip' somewhere in the process... specifically IF you like the three flavors equally. Obviously if you hate strawberry, then its deterministic that you won't pick that flavor... but then if you hate strawberry milkshakes, you aren't human and should be sent back to your home planet as soon as possible.

[Cramulus]

I find that to be an unsatisfying compromise. You assert that whether or not we have free will is itself determined* on a case by case basis according to how easy of a choice it is. I think that if you were to rewind this weekend, events would play out exactly like they did the first time, including your choice of flavor. Furthermore if you rewound your life until infancy and played it again, with the same exact set of stimuli and sequence of events, you'd produce the exact same person you are today.

As an interesting aside, I just learned that your position is called Compatibilism.



*

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I find that to be an unsatisfying compromise. You assert that whether or not we have free will is itself determined* on a case by case basis according to how easy of a choice it is. I think that if you were to rewind this weekend, events would play out exactly like they did the first time, including your choice of flavor. Furthermore if you rewound your life until infancy and played it again, with the same exact set of stimuli and sequence of events, you'd produce the exact same person you are today.

As an interesting aside, I just learned that your position is called Compatibilism.



*

Of course, we could both be wrong... if the Many Worlds theory is correct, perhaps all possible outcomes ALL happen and we experience all of them, which would mean that determinism and free will were both crackpot concepts... 

[Elder Iptuous]

but this thread, and all the others like it occur in every fucking world....

[Triple Zero]

It's almost like we got no free will about it ...

[Dimocritus]

I find this thread to be very interesting. Don't stop now!

[Elder Iptuous]

I find this thread to be very interesting. Don't stop now!

we couldn't even if we wanted too...


besides, Dok is still poomping...

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Meh. If the choice in question is something for which you cannot generate a good rationalization and whose solution space consists of essentially similar items, and whose outcome does nothing to change the big picture, that's not much of an argument for free will -- in fact, that'd just be low level incomputability, like switch jitter, in a deterministic universe. No one would claim that switch jitter is an argument for free will, so why should switch jitter in your head (or, say, a PRNG that uses a lava lamp, or the difficulty of aiming true in a game of billiards) be an argument for it?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Meh. If the choice in question is something for which you cannot generate a good rationalization and whose solution space consists of essentially similar items, and whose outcome does nothing to change the big picture, that's not much of an argument for free will -- in fact, that'd just be low level incomputability, like switch jitter, in a deterministic universe. No one would claim that switch jitter is an argument for free will, so why should switch jitter in your head (or, say, a PRNG that uses a lava lamp, or the difficulty of aiming true in a game of billiards) be an argument for it?

Well, then again, maybe its all the tiny inconsequential 'chooosable' options that eventually build up the big unstoppable deterministic ones.