The end of free will?

[Berzerker]

considering that I usually don't see a lot of targeted ads till after I've bought what I was looking for, I'm not overly concerned.
I still feel ahead of the curve.

isn't that stupefying?

 

[Birdjaguar]

"The illusion of free will is so complete that it might as well be real." Bozo Erectus on CFC

 

[MaryKB]

Huh, that is quite different!

I wonder if maybe because I use Google News, and I have preferences for that service? Mine looks like I have a news feed up at the top that I don't see on yours.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I wonder if maybe because I use Google News, and I have preferences for that service? Mine looks like I have a news feed up at the top that I don't see on yours.

Oh!

I searched for "abortion information", not "abortion"

That should give different results.
Sorry for the confusion, I fixed my original post.

**Edit**
Wait, I'm an idiot.

I searched for -> abortion information.

Using quotes "abortion information" searches for those 2 words in precisely that order, so it will search for that phrase and not for pages that contain both words seperately.

 

[Gori the Grey]

1) Isn't there some Asimov novel where some super-genius can write Future History by virtue of being able to calculate how every present thing will impact every other thing?

2) I'm not on Facebook, so I, at least, still have free will.

3) We're in the same place we often are on this site, of imagining that we will soon have a computer god and simultaneously complaining about Civ's AI.

4) Oh, and Milton's God (I'm getting to do a lot of Milton here lately) says of Adam and Eve's sin "If I foreknew, foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, which had proved no less certain unforeknown" It's typical Christian theology, I think, but Milton's phrasing is cool.

 

[Estebonrober]

1) Isn't there some Asimov novel where some super-genius can write Future History by virtue of being able to calculate how every present thing will impact every other thing?

2) I'm not on Facebook, so I, at least, still have free will.

3) We're in the same place we often are on this site, of imagining that we will soon have a computer god and simultaneously complaining about Civ's AI.

4) Oh, and Milton's God (I'm getting to do a lot of Milton here lately) says of Adam and Eve's sin "If I foreknew, foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, which had proved no less certain unforeknown" It's typical Christian theology, I think, but Milton's phrasing is cool.

1) Foundation series premise is yea based on "psychohistory" which is based on the living condition and its predictability over a long period of time.
2) That's what you tell yourself anyways.
3) too true
4) I like it

 

[Hrothbern]

Why not see Free Will as a believe construct

There are BTW experiments that show that decisions, where we have a couple of seconds to take them, are taken by our brain before we are aware of those decisions.

Apparently for those kind of decisions the "boss", our consciousness, is the last one to be informed on what "he as boss" decided.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I only did your first search, and mine is rather different. Something I find interesting, is I have that same first result you do, but my description is different!

Abortion Information | Information About Your Options
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion
Abortion is a safe and legal way to end a pregnancy. Learning more about abortion methods and options can help you decide if it is the right choice for you.
‎The Abortion Pill · ‎Considering Abortion · ‎In-Clinic Abortion

Yet when you click on the current https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion link there is a third message:

There are two ways of ending a pregnancy: in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill. Both are safe and very common. If you’re pregnant and thinking about abortion, you may have lots of questions. We’re here to help.

My guess is they change the message on that page frequently. Perhaps the google recently scanned that page right after the original post but before MaryKB checked google. My google result shows the same as MaryKB, but the first sentence is nowhere to be found on the actual planned parenthood page (at the moment at least).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Got it. The word spiritual gives you a blood flow restriction that closes your mind, so you have to substitute phrases of similar meaning. I'm cool with that.

The word spiritual has a dictionary definition that is inconsistent with your usage of it in this context. I would similarly object if you called it sensual or adamant.

 

[Estebonrober]

Why not see Free Will as a believe construct

There are BTW experiments that show that decisions, where we have a couple of seconds to take them, are taken by our brain before we are aware of those decisions.

Apparently for those kind of decisions the "boss", our consciousness, is the last one to be informed on what "he as boss" decided.

Yea there are all sorts of reasons to doubt free will in actuality, but to ourselves it seems like free will. At some point we lose the point of the debate in the semantics of physics and biology. Which is why I state that free will is like magic it appears out of the confluence of things that preclude free will itself. Of course our existence itself is a contradiction so I just hug this absurdity and go with it.

 

[timtofly]

Quantum mechanics has already ruled out a fully deterministic universe

If it is not fully deterministic and there is no free will, and things do not happen randomnly, does that not point to God? If there is a semblance of free will, it is granted by God. Saying free will does not exist is just another way of saying that God does not exist, but if you rule out a fully deterministic universe, you have to admit somewhat that God probably exist.

A deterministic universe is used to explain God, but how do you explain a universe that is mostly deterministic and free will is not random, but planned, even though you refuse to acknowledge free will exist, because then you would have to accept something is allowing it in a mostly deterministic universe? Free will would not exist in a truly chaotic universe either, but something in a chaotic universe may exhibit more free will than the rest. This would be the God complex. But God is not free in the universe. God is outside the universe. Just saying a force can create order out of chaos, does not fully explain what creation is. Unless you think it is impossible to create something out of nothing. That would mean some thoughts would not exist. We would not be able to think of God outside of the universe. Denying such a phenomenon would not be possible if there was nothing to deny.

A chaotic universe would never have order if there was not a mechanism as free will. We would not have a deterministic universe that denies the ability of free will, if free will does not exist. Choas would prevent determinism from happening by it's own free will. Determinism would not overcome choas without free will. So saying free will does not exist is the same as saying nothing exist. It is not logical. But I guess you have the free will to accept what you want, without any results to the contrary.

 

[Lexicus]

The word spiritual has a dictionary definition that is inconsistent with your usage of it in this context. I would similarly object if you called it sensual or adamant.

We can only use words the way word book says to! THE WORD BOOK KNOWS ALL

 

[Hrothbern]

Yea there are all sorts of reasons to doubt free will in actuality, but to ourselves it seems like free will. At some point we lose the point of the debate in the semantics of physics and biology. Which is why I state that free will is like magic it appears out of the confluence of things that preclude free will itself. Of course our existence itself is a contradiction so I just hug this absurdity and go with it.

Me too

yeah, the feeling to ourselves of Free Will is great !

No issue to be addicted to it... to have that feel of control.

And even if I am lured by my daughter into eating something for dinner she really wants that evening, without me actually realising what she is doing, and me saying "great idea" when she then asks "shall we eat that ?"
All the better

Perhaps Free Will has also to do with in-group vs out-group.
When our own brain tricks my consciousness it is in-group. And the very idea I could not trust myself on that is a "cannot accept" unsettling situation.
When my daughter does it, with some respect where and where not, it is still in-group (de facto to be trusted, part of the social game of bonding and bargaining)

When it is coming from out-group, it's different.
A kind of feeling of losing control on the potentially danger. Risk on danger because it is out-group. Not necessarily enough or at all alligned anymore with your own interests.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We can only use words the way word book says to! THE WORD BOOK KNOWS ALL

If someone says X, they should mean X per the widely accepted standard of usage for X.

If I tell you I'm eating popcorn, it is not reasonable anticpate a large slab of meat. Words have meaning.

Tim's example is less extreme, because described entity does not rule out "spiritual" entirely, but it's similar reasoning otherwise.

 

[timtofly]

If someone says X, they should mean X per the widely accepted standard of usage for X.

If I tell you I'm eating popcorn, it is not reasonable anticpate a large slab of meat. Words have meaning.

Tim's example is less extreme, because described entity does not rule out "spiritual" entirely, but it's similar reasoning otherwise.

Perhaps only those who do not accept free will have to do things against their will? Although, are they really forced to accept there is no free will? The only reason spiritual and devine seem to go hand in hand is because we have the freedom to change what a word means, we just do not exercise the freedom to do so. That is why we think the universe is deterministic, until it is not. Then the result is our surprise.

There is a difference between concept and reality. A concept may not be reality.

 

[Lexicus]

If someone says X, they should mean X per the widely accepted standard of usage for X.

If I tell you I'm eating popcorn, it is not reasonable anticpate a large slab of meat. Words have meaning.

Tim's example is less extreme, because described entity does not rule out "spiritual" entirely, but it's similar reasoning otherwise.

Relying entirely on dictionary definitions is wholly unsuitable for higher-level philosophical distinctions, etc. Tim explained clearly what he meant by "spiritual" in the context of his post and that should have been more than sufficient.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Relying entirely on dictionary definitions is wholly unsuitable for higher-level philosophical distinctions, etc. Tim explained clearly what he meant by "spiritual" in the context of his post and that should have been more than sufficient.

What Tim described is not consistent with the actual meaning of the word, so no. If his definition fits thousands of words equally well as "spiritual", ranging from things like "apple monster" to "magic energy man", it's not viable.

Even in "higher level philosophical discussions", constraining anticipation properly matters. He did not posit a human spirit or a religion. He posited a consciousness with some capabilities beyond that of human perception.

Perhaps only those who do not accept free will have to do things against their will? Although, are they really forced to accept there is no free will? The only reason spiritual and devine seem to go hand in hand is because we have the freedom to change what a word means, we just do not exercise the freedom to do so. That is why we think the universe is deterministic, until it is not. Then the result is our surprise.

It's worth pointing out that we don't actually know what processes in our brains lead us to be capable of thinking of free will. If we actually learn how the brain works completely, the distinction may or may not still be meaningful.

Electrical/chemical signals interact, then people do something. To the best of our knowledge, these same signals are responsible for them "thinking" anything at all, including any attempt at choosing what to think.

What precisely in this process is done "freely"? Nobody knows yet.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are a wide variety of words that can be used to refer to "something that lies outside the realm of objective realities" and while it may be showing some obsolescence I find 'spiritual' short and convenient and hate words that start with meta, so it tends to be my preference. If I had known it would give you such an instantaneous "oh no you are talking about the magic energy man, must defend atheism against senseless assault" hard on maybe I'd have gone with something else to spare your tender sensibilities, but I was not aware that you were so hyper defensive. My apologies.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I agree with you about some things, and dangers of a controlled society, but I do disagree with your premise on data collection and recommendation.

I feel data collection and analysis can help you, I view it sort of like as a filter to do searching for you so can find what you want much more easily. You have potentially billions of choices when you want something, do you really just want that all in a huge jumble you need to work through on your own? Don't you feel it's valuable if some algorithm knows what you wants, and finds things for you that you might not know about otherwise? I guess I sort of view this more like filtering, and I'm not forced to buy anything, I'm just being presented with personalized choices, but I still totally can do whatever I want.

I'm much more afraid of something from Brave New World, where you're conditioned to want certain things, and I do very much believe you can see this even today, just not as overt as you can read about in that book. I feel when you're being told what you need, when you're told what you want, then you have risk of losing your free choice.

1) "you so can find what you want much more easily"

what I want is for every day to have 26 hours, to be able to eat 4000 calories each day and not get fat, and to add a few 0s to my bank account

no algorhythm gets you what you want, unless "what you want" is being force-fed products that resemble your previous buys

algorhythms are often just that, subtle mechanisms that make you spend more of your hard earned money, so that you have to work more, so that you can consume more, ad infinitum

(not all algorhythms are the same, but these are the ones that are most sought after, because they make money. and making money, which in turns empowers, is often the goal for the people at the very top of the food chain..)

2) "You have potentially billions of choices when you want something, do you really just want that all in a huge jumble you need to work through on your own?"

I value making my own choices and not having that selection limited arbitrarily based on what a computer thinks I might like

3) "Don't you feel it's valuable if some algorithm knows what you wants"

that thought is terrifying, yes, nightmare inducing.

4) "and I'm not forced to buy anything"

no, you're incentivized, driven to, by people who have studied the human psyche in-depth and know exactly what colors, words, images, concepts and desires make us press certain buttons

5) "I'm much more afraid of something from Brave New World, where you're conditioned to want certain things, and I do very much believe you can see this even today, just not as overt as you can read about in that book. I feel when you're being told what you need, when you're told what you want, then you have risk of losing your free choice"

"conditioned" or "incentivized", that's an invisible line that's been crossed already many times, possibly without us noticing

thank you civvver for making this thread and thanks Mary for your opinion. I value it very much, I don't want cfc to be an echochamber so we need people like you to voice "contrarian" (in this case) opinions. that's cool and brave!

There are a wide variety of words that can be used to refer to "something that lies outside the realm of objective realities" and while it may be showing some obsolescence I find 'spiritual' short and convenient and hate words that start with meta, so it tends to be my preference. If I had known it would give you such an instantaneous "oh no you are talking about the magic energy man, must defend atheism against senseless assault" hard on maybe I'd have gone with something else to spare your tender sensibilities, but I was not aware that you were so hyper defensive. My apologies.

I felt intense pleasure bordering on sexual arousal while reading this post

MAN not Machine!
Down with the AI overlords!

People are more than a cost/benefit calculation.

utilitarianism is a deeply inhuman way of thinking, I agree

it's also really dumb and hinges on the idea of "objective well-being"

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Shockingly true actually. As @uppi explained not so long ago.

can you link me to that post? it's a topic I've been interested for a long time, the connection between determinism and quantum mechanics

more specifically, I have always had a gut feeling that there is some degree of "randomness" (only for lack of better word, please don't hate me for it) to literally everything, especially the big bang, but had only recently come to see it manifest in QM

Why not see Free Will as a believe construct

There are BTW experiments that show that decisions, where we have a couple of seconds to take them, are taken by our brain before we are aware of those decisions.

Apparently for those kind of decisions the "boss", our consciousness, is the last one to be informed on what "he as boss" decided.

is "subconscious" less consciousness than "electromagnetic activity in the brain"? who or what "makes" the decision, or is it already decided and then just post-rationalized by us as a free decision? these experiments are incredibly helpful and fascinating, but imho do not actually confirm/refute free will at all

but if you rule out a fully deterministic universe, you have to admit somewhat that God probably exist.

i do not understand how that logically follows