Is free-will an illusion?

@Briancrc,

Who doesn't, these days?

@cicerone imposter,

That's not what i meant. I mean that science being a product of the human mind, those people who denigrate the human mind also denigrate science. I don't. On the contrary i argue FOR science, and thus FOR respect to the human mind.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Would it be fair to say that when you find yourself in disagreement with others (take the topic of free will or climate change) that your reaction is to make the disagreement personal? Are you just an angry person? Can you explain?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

What does that got to do with computers?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Just thinking that might be a good line of work. Some of the things you've said give me the impression that you boil things down to black and white, right and wrong, logical and illogical. You appear to have a sharp mind and are knowledgeable about a range of topics. I would believe that you are good at what you do.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Well thanks, i wish to think that too. And i do try to cut through the chase. But i'm not making disagreements personal. What i tend to do rather systematically, and that may come across as a personal attack but it isn't, is assess personal biases, eg in your case professional bias in defense of your livelihood. Not that it was hard to spot, mind you, but it does explain your resistance to any counter-argument whatsoever. I guess that sort of bias could be expressed in terms of learnt behavior, shaping etc but to me, it works better to simply ask: Where does the person speak from, what's his vantage point, what's in it for him?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

is assess personal biases, in your case professional bias in defense of your livelihood. Not that it was hard to spot, mind you, but it does explain your resistance to any counter-argument whatsoever

I agree. Everyone has bias. We are no different. But the arguments for/against are fairly well established. They mostly get repeated and passed down from one generation to the next. Occasionally, some information is new.

I asked about the hostilities in the conversation and your probable success in your field because I wondered to what you would attribute each. I also worried that bringing up the topics might be misunderstood as a personal attack, which I have no interest in. After all, we're just text on a screen (with an occasional avatar).

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

Briancrc wrote:

But the arguments for/against are fairly well established. They mostly get repeated and passed down from one generation to the next. Occasionally, some information is new.

A lot of what passes for anti-free-will arguments are obsolete, eg determinism is totally passé. But I do think one of my pro-free-will arguments is new: The idea that without free choice/agency, science is not possible, and therefore that no scientific theory can contradict human agency without contradicting itself. Science springs from a belief in human reason, and cannot logically contradict human reason.

Admitedly the same idea has been phrased in weaker forms before. Whatever it's degree of novelty, it's not an idea that has been frequently expressed here on A2K before, and that explains why someone like Fil, otherwise smart, struggled to understand what is after all a very simple idea. It's not a well-known argument, already said millions times, and thus it takes time to sink in.

Quote:

I asked about the hostilities in the conversation

But you initiated them by questioning my integrity and my courage, then by shamelessly misrepresenting several times what I said on autism, and just now by asking if I was an angry person... All this in total disagreement with your own thesis which states that people are not responsible for what they do. Go figure... The bitchy behaviorist is an interesting character.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Are you responsible for your success as a professional?

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

of course!

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

According to you, my past and present environment explains my professional performance.

According to me, it's more complicated.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

According to me, it's more complicated.

It is interestingly common that when things go well for a person the person is quick to take the credit, but when things do not go well or are unpleasant those same people are just as quick to point to outside causes.

It's also quite common to hear people attribute influence to the environment to explain their own personal failures, but attribute inner causes to explain the failures of others. "I was angry because you did these terrible things. You were angry because you're an irritable jerk."

It's hypocritical. If one was really true to a free-will belief system, then I think we should see more accepting blame for personal failures and less attribution going to the environment (e.g., "I was late to work because I'm lazy and irresponsible" instead of "I'm responsible, but by systems to keep me on track broke down").

2 Replies

@Briancrc,

Sure. I do take responsibility for my own failures, if that's what you are asking. I don't do cover ups.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

FYI, most successful people learned from their failures.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

FYI, most successful people learned from their failures.

Was this in contention?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

No. Just stating a truism in support of the previous post.

0 Replies

Maybe an explanation for the counter-intuitive phenomenon of the "angry determinist", so frequent on this thead:

Quote:

Believing there is no free will corrupts intuitive cooperation
By John Protzko, Brett Ouimette, Jonathan Schooler
Cognition, Vol.151:6–9

Abstract

Regardless of whether free will exists, believing that it does affects one’s behavior. When an individual’s belief in free will is challenged, one can become more likely to act in an uncooperative manner. The mechanism behind the relationship between one’s belief in free will and behavior is still debated. The current study uses an economic contribution game under varying time constraints to elucidate whether reducing belief in free will allows one to justify negative behavior or if the effects occur at a more intuitive level of processing. Here we show that although people are intuitively cooperative, challenging their belief in free will corrupts this behavior, leading to impulsive selfishness. If given time to think, however, people are able to override the initial inclination toward self-interest induced by discouraging a belief in free will.

0 Replies

It seems that those with a free will belief need this concept to justify their desire to take retribution. If a person freely chose to misbehave, then the free will believer feels justified in expressing anger and taking punitive measures with the person who misbehaved.

https://youtu.be/EqXfQDtPYZU

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

So what's your advice about serial killers, rapists and terrorists? Should we feed them caviar until they stop?

Justice is what keeps societies alive. And yes, it includes dissuassive punishments.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I've addressed this before. It is also specifically discussed in the last video link I provided as well as addressed in talks given by Sam Harris.

1 Reply

Is free-will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know