39
Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will (phys.org)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/philosophy@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 3 years ago (26 children)

If you ask me, it doesn't take decades of study to realise that the concept is fundamentally flawed. There is nothing fundamentally free with humans acting according to their biological desires.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (18 children)

    Right? Is there anything that points to "free will" aside from copium? We obviously make decisions based on the unchangeable past. Anecdotally, I recall coming up with this independently in my youth, and have spoken to others who did the same. The concept isn't difficult. Why is this still discussed?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Because humans hate to admit, that we all are purposeless blobs of matter coagulating out of pure chance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    something something... miracle of life... we're not just animals... something something... free to be anything you want to be and do anything you want to do and other such things being drilled into our skulls since we're young

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Why is this still discussed?

    Not to be too snarky about something we both agree on, but it is an amusing question to ask. Without free will, it's being discussed because it's being discussed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Sorry, I didn't mean to ask as why the question of free will was discussed, but rather why the concept of free will is the default over the obvious. I moved around some sentences before posting and didn't reword that appropriately. Thank you for pointing it out!!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    That'd be because there are people still adamant that they have Free Will, only because they've had that drilled into them from a young age, which is an example of their lack of Free Will...

    And those who want to state their opinion on the matter, exactly as I am, because they value what others think of them, because that sociable instinct comes in-built.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will. So do most philosophers and the vast majority of the general population.

    That's from the article. One guy saying free will is an illusion is not conclusive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Anecdotally, I recall coming up with this independently in my youth, and have spoken to others who did the same. The concept isn’t difficult. Why is this still discussed?

    So you came up with this in your youth and that...Doesn't give you pause to reconsider? Also do you distinguish this concept from similar religious/spiritual concepts like fatalism, and if so...Why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Yes, it has given me pause to reconsider, but I am no longer in my youth, and I have found no counterpoint in all these years that has turned me on the concept. The fact that children come up with the idea independently is just a testament to how simple the concept is, not evidence.

    I do distinguish this from spiritual fatalism. Fatalism seems to be the concept that any path taken will always lead to a given destiny. I think I identify more with causal determinism, wherein there is only one path. In this way, I see the universe like an incredibly complex algorithm with an uncountable number of parameters. The state of the universe is based solely upon the previous state and the laws of nature. My "choices" are based on the many complex inputs of my past. If I was given the same inputs twice, including exact identical states of everything down to the atoms, for what reason would I expect a different result?

    What are your thoughts?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Fatalism seems to be the concept that any path taken will always lead to a given destiny. I think I identify more with causal determinism, wherein there is only one path.

    Personally, I don't see much of a difference between those two, but I can see where one may view the former as more open-ended. If it's something divine pulling the strings or natural phenomena driving you to some fixed circumstances, I don't see much in the way of paths with either.

    Regarding your last point, if you were given the exact identical states of everything down to the atom, why expect a different result? Because even if it's all the exact same, you set it in motion again, and again, and again, something on some level is going to vary each time. I don't know of any process or phenomena in the universe that, despite following many of the same basic processes as one another, results in the exact same results each and every time. There's always some variation, some divergence, something that despite everything clicks ever so slightly a different way, and that's basically why anything even is at all.

    If you spun back the clock on this solar system, or even this galaxy, to the exact same conditions that gave rise to it and let it run again, I wouldn't bet on it coming out the same way, because each and every input is contingent on the other and any slight detail of those varies? Adds up and produces different results. The laws of nature are not nature, they're a good, educated attempt at understanding its operations, its processes, and they're undeniably useful, but it's wisest to remember just what they are, and what they are not. "The map is not the territory," as ol' Alfred Korzybski said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    I suppose this all boils down to whether true randomness exists. I am not of the notion that any divine pulls the strings, unless the divine is the true laws of nature. That is, not the map of nature that humanity can measure or describe, but the actual territory of nature and it's laws.

    There is always some variation in results of anything we test because of the multitude of complex inputs the universe gives two situations. We can't know of any phenomena that has the exact same result twice, because we would literally need 2 identical universes down to the Planck. Quantum entanglement is theoretically able to impact particles across immense distances, for example. A mere solar system or galaxy is not of the proper scale to test this. That is, determinism cannot be tested experimentally unless humanity could control literally all variables in a system, which I cannot imagine as possible.

    Many scientists have dubbed the unpredictable nature of subatomic particles to randomness, but as you mentioned with the map and the territory, I propose that the tools at our disposal simply cannot interpret these actions and their causes precisely enough.

    It's one of those known unknowns that will likely be a question for all time. But as long as the argument against determinism remains that humanity doesn't know the territory - the true nature - of the universe and therefore can hope there is some randomness, I cannot subscribe to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Rich people want to feel better that this isn't all their fault. And they have the money to make lying incentivised. They even have these whole fasle realities walking around at great cost to society to justify more curelity for only in your head reasons that make sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So can there never be free will? Or can artificial life be created with free will?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    I don't think so. You can and should treat thoughts and actions as if they were taken with free will, but free will doesn't exist as written.

    AI ior some human generated artificial life is no different than other programming would be as far as determinism is concerned. Just because we don't write the program in the typical way doesn't mean that it is any different than your standard script for our purposes. It's based solely on the parameters that led up to it. Down to the atom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I always assumed existence was like a dvd. If you skip back a chapter (resetting the universe to a prior state through time travel) why would anything happen any differently unless you changed something? It wouldn't. It would just play out the same way again. So in that sense, no free will. But I do think people can choose to do whatever they want. It's just, if time were replayed, they would make exactly the same choices because nothing changed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    But if we're admitting a fixed trajectory through spacetime to the present based on a multitude of parameters with fixed values (nothing would change because we changed nothing), then we are excluding randomness. So assuming no randomness, why would those parameters evolve in an unpredictable fashion (i.e. choice, unhindered by 'external' factors) and cause an unknowable trajectory through spacetime from the present to the future? I admit it's unlikely to be able to calculate said trajectory with current knowledge and technology though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    I argue that randomness is excluded because it does not exist. I question how there could be choice unhindered by external factors. Where in our universe does true randomness exist? If we had two exact copies of the universe, and in both a die was dropped in the exact universe state down to the atoms of the brain, hand, table, cube, wind, etc., it would be the same result, no?

    The fact that a dice roll is unknowable doesn't mean it was any less determined by the variety of factors that led up to it.

    You ask why parameters would evolve in an unknowable fashion. That is simply because the universe is complex and there are so many unmeasurable parameters as you mentioned. No technology or knowledge could ever measure the state of all subatomic particles instantaneously. We aren't talking about a comparitovrly simple computer program that you can run twice and just get the same result. There are so many parameters that there is perhaps no number large enough to define it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    As a materialist, I have never understood the concept or why it is worth discussing unless you are religious and believe in souls or something. Our brains are biological organs, running according to the same physical and chemical principles as everything else. What else is there to discuss?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    I feel the same way. We’re obviously governed entirely by physics… Otherwise, what? It also bothers me when people start using quantum mechanics or something as an argument for free will… just because something isn’t deterministic does not mean you have control of the dice!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    If I'm understanding the author's premise, a single born human is already cast from a mold that human had no choice in, gets exposed to treatment of which they have no control over, in an environment they have no control over, so that when they are an adult they are essentially an unchangable program that will react to life's events in one specific way until death. This includes events that adult goes through that changes them, those too were predicated on how they were essentially programmed from DNA and childhood.

    However, we has humans, can shape the conditions the next generation will encounter which would influence that generation's programming. So there is still allowance in the author's premise that would allow humanity to grow and change even if the individual can't in their lifetime.

    There is nothing fundamentally free with humans acting according to their biological desires.

    Prior generations of humanity can change the conditions that those biological desires manifest, altering those subsequent generation's behavior.

    A perfect example of this is that you, yourself, likely haven't gone to war and killed anyone for a meal in your lifetime. Prior generations addressed increasing the food supply beyond hunting and gathering. So today your biological impulses don't require murdering other humans for you to eat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent