derekabutton comments on Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will (phys.org)

submitted 3 years ago by rah@feddit.uk 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

[–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 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?

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 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.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz 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

parent

[+] MamboGator@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 5 points 3 years ago

When people say this makes life meaningless, I've tried to explain to people that they still enjoy the suspense and surprise of a movie despite knowing it was filmed in the past. But I always told "that's not the same".

parent

[–] Nepenthe@kbin.social 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

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 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!!

parent

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 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.

parent

[+] Sinaf@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Guest_User@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago

As of now sure, but you could be taught or brought to a point of understanding where you change your understanding

parent

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 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.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago

It would be really great for them to pinpoint the instant the causality is suspended, magic choices exempt from causality are made, and causality resumes on an fmri or something. Do you think that's possible?

parent

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 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?

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 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?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 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.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 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.

parent

[–] Mkengine@feddit.de 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 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.

parent

[–] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 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.

parent