AlteredEgo

@AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Those books are different from how I remembered…⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think a lot of what people experience as free will is just rationalization after the fact based on past experiences and internal belief/value systems.

  Yeah I’d agree with that except that it’s not a rationalization, it’s more like acceptance of reality and the only sensible way to think.

  You could add that a mind with free will is a massively complex information processing system that can’t be predicted from the outside. It might be deterministic and repeatable, but even if you had access to a copy of the mind, you couldn’t input the exact same real world inputs to predict an outcome. At least not outside of a laboratory and artificially created world. So it’s not about “couldn’t ever make a different choice” but that the choice cannot be predicted from either outside or inside.

  Maybe something like the second law of thermodynamics: “Free will of a mind is the tendency to be unpredictable without full knowledge of all external and internal information”.

  So you theoretically could take free will away for a known simulated mind in a controlled known simulated environment. Otherwise even a simulated human mind running deterministically on a PC would have free will.

  Looking at neurological pathologies or cultural differences is interesting, e.g. leasure time, or more time to grow up as a teenager and access to education has a huge impact. As does the increasing disinformation on news and social media. The concept of free will is useful to improve our society to allow people to make more conscious decisions. Or to understand how people are more and more programmed to say and think certain things because the “technology of propaganda” is advancing. Simply having access to truthful information and having time to think increases our potential for consciousness and free will. In our nihilistic and postmodernist times this is important.

  Of course, most of our decisions are made subconsciously without thinking. But a simulated human mind on a PC could go back and examine why it has made a decision. Maybe temporarily rewind and see what decision it would have made in a slightly different mood or with more information. It could then learn and train itself to be more conscious or even edit itself. So being actually deterministic would not decrease consciousness or free will, it could increase it from the perspective of a mind.

  So whatever you think about the mental phenomenon, it is a useful and valuable concept from the perspective of the mind(s). Obviously the universe doesn’t care but that is it’s problem 🌌😜

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Those books are different from how I remembered…⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah I’m just arguing for fun :) But I do think questions like this might become relevant in the foreseeable future with AGI. Kurzgesagt has an interesting video on free will in case I haven’t linked that already.

  that’s how compatibilists have re-defined free will, it’s not what people generally think of when they think of free will

  I’d still argue this is a kind of category error made by philosophers. The concept of free will existed within human minds before philosophers mused about it. It’s a very useful concept for minds regardless of the true nature of our physical universe.

  Concepts can exist without being “real” as in a phenomenon in the physical universe outside of minds. Concepts can exist only in minds, many do. You could argue money isn’t real except in our collective consciousness. But what does that mean?

  Or you could for example say that humans don’t exist because all you see is quantum physics. Waves in water don’t exist because only molecules or even just subatomic particles exist. Just as quantum physics can’t tell you anything about the concept of “wet pants” from wading through the ocean, it can’t tell you anything about free will.

  I don’t know if our universe is deterministic or not, from what I understand waveform collapse casts some doubt about this. But even if you had human minds on deterministic computer hardware, I’d say the conclusion doesn’t follow.

  Just because I’d always make the same choice under the same conditions, doesn’t mean I didn’t make a choice.

  I do agree that “free will” in a deterministic universe isn’t as cool as I’d like to be. I guess that is what I mean with “pure mind”. There is an unease there or an embarrassment of thinking of yourself as just a flesh brain. But how WOULD a pure mind with true free will decide given the same circumstances? Non-deterministic with some random influence? Wouldn’t that be the an illusion as well?

  What else is free will but a conscious decision based on thinking and inputs, however that works?

  Maybe the better question is to what degree do we have free will in a certain environment. Just as consciousness might have degrees.

  I’d be curious what you would call “the phenomenon previously known as free will”? And what conclusions would you draw if free will doesn’t exist, what would be the impact on ethics, law and sociology? Does it all topple like a jenga tower? Does none of it mean anything?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Those books are different from how I remembered…⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Well imagine we could copy or approximate a human mind and run it on a typical computer, free from an quantum effects. From the outside you would say “no this is not a mind, this is a computer!” (I threw it on the ground). You could restart a human mind simulation (which would be deeply unethical of course) and it would return the same results, but it would still not be predictable outside of such a simulation.

  But from the inside your mind you would of course say you have free will because that is how you defined it. The word has meaning because we created the meaning. In a universe with only such PC based human minds, you wouldn’t argue that you don’t have free will because we’re just software running silicon chips. Otherwise you’d have to invent a new word for what you meant with free will, like internally derived mental agency or something. But that is just rhetoric.

  A classical computer based human mind would in fact be more free since it could investigate, analyze and edit it’s own mind, overcoming things that it perceives as weaknesses or faults. Like my evolutionary programming might have made me biased to conserve energy and time and not think too hard on certain new information, dismissing it instead. Maybe instead you’d want to be more open minded.

  So I think arguing that free will is based on determinism, repeatability or predictability is sort of an appeal to a “pure mind”. Not sure if that is a good way to put it, but like appealing to higher standard like we’re supposed to be a supernatural soul or something. We’re not, but we still came up with that word all on our own.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Those books are different from how I remembered…⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  My argument would go something like this: If you are the computer, then it is free will. If you could predict the computer, you could argue, but you can’t. You can’t even do this theoretically since you’d need more mass than the universe and can’t initialize your predictive model. So you can only say “that decision was made inside that brain”. That is at least one sensible definition of free will.

  It’s like looking at a motor that breaks down and then saying that it’s not really the motor that breaks because the motor had no choice in it’s parts breaking. That’s just rhetoric.

  The error I believe is that we don’t want to accept that sentience can arise from mechanical universe and it’s a matter of degree and that this can create meaning. People want to set the bar higher because they want the idea of some type of “pure mind”. But since we’re already discussing the meaning of all these things, arguing that what you are reading is just quantum physics is rhetoric.

  Either what you are saying is supposed to be meaningful, or you concede that your words are meaningless. Then I anyone else wins the argument by default ;)

  Basically the definition of free will can only be made by someone who claims that meaning exists, emerging from the material world. Therefor within that emergent layer of mind and meaning, a definition of free will other than basic physics is at least acceptable.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon is living like royalty⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  “I have all these materialist things and still not happy”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Title⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Also the other man is the active person while the girlfriend is passive and doesn’t have agency.

  Also “having sex” turns fucking into a materialistic transaction instead of something you do together. According to marxist / leninist mythology that makes this a shitpost.

  Oh right :D

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨My dad fought the Nazi's they lost. The world knows it. What is the deal with their recent resurgence?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Fascism is also on the rise because of improved technology for thought control / propaganda / public relations / advertising. Social media lets the worst of humanity band together and pool their energy.

  But wealth inequality, both worse effective quality of life for the poor and increased economic power by the wealthy is I believe a main driver. Technology is just the tool. The ultra wealthy and their lackeys today have more power than ever and are more isolated and inundated with ideology that is basically insane.

  I wonder if there are studies that show correlations between quality of life and fascism in different nations.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨My dad fought the Nazi's they lost. The world knows it. What is the deal with their recent resurgence?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  My dad fought the Nazi’s they lost

  “Oh I’m sorry. How did they die?”

  “Die? No, we lost them. And now we cannot find them”

  “Oh there they are! Right there!”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How does employing a rapist not constitute an unsafe work environment for female employees?⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Sorry that must be really horrible working near someone like that. I’m also sorry there are a lot of shitty comments. It’s quite shocking he only served 2 years.

  You could ask an attorney, it’s possibly you could already sue your employer. There are also surely people or groups who have experience with this kind of thing.