The end of free will?

[Timsup2nothin]

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!

I think in point number one I took "you so can find what you want much more easily" to mean "find what you are looking for," which defuses a lot of the concerns in the subsequent points. Making it easier to find what you are already looking for is a much different kettle of fish than conditioning people to want to look for one thing or another, which is the crux of marketing.

I'd be more concerned about how much people apparently seek to be conditioned than the techniques involved. I mean, people were driven by "keep up with the Joneses" before there was even an internet, much less the irresistable charms of soma.

 

[MaryKB]

Thank you @yung.carl.jung, even if I disagree with most of your points, lol!

Well obviously not everything you want, but I mean what you're searching for to purchase! I don't believe your selection's limited, you can still buy whatever you want, you don't have to buy your recommendations, or confine yourself to those. But generally, if you're looking to buy, you probably have patterns. Most people like to shop at stores they've found they like, because of tastes and such.

I'm going to use a recent example from my personal life: I've been spending a good deal of money lately on jewelry, clothes, and shoes. So I was looking at rings, and I saw so many that looked nice, but what I really wanted was sterling silver and blue gemstones. Well after I bought a couple rings, I started seeing more recommendations for earrings, necklaces, bracelets, and such, that are very similar to what I've bought .. so I did buy some of those, because it's something I like and I'm wanting to buy at that time. And with clothes, I bought a few tops and a dress, and then I saw recommendations for a few other things, and I'm like "Ooooh, cute!" and clicked on a few more, and so on.

My purchases make me happy, I don't feel I'm forced to buy anything, I'm fully capable of deciding if I want to purchase or not.

Like think of this, when you go shopping at a store, do you like how they're specialized? If you want groceries, you go to a grocery store, right? Or you get your shoes from a shoe store? Or at least from departments in a store? You wouldn't want literally everything just in one bin, right? And often you'll have store employees who can help you find what you want, you tell them what you're looking for and he or she will show you what kind of matches your desires. And think of realtors too, you'll say what you want in your home, and she'll give you something in your price range, in what area you want, and all of that. I feel this is just taking that to another level, by learning what you like you can get better offers.

I'd agree with you if you either had to buy what's recommended, or you could only buy what's being shown you, but neither of those are true, so you don't even have to use this, but it's just something to help you.

 

[Lexicus]

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

I was pessimistic about finding it but I actually hunted it down and it turns out I misremembered, @uppi was talking about objectivity not determinacy so I must apologize to @TheMeInTeam and @uppi as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No worries, I wish I had a perfect memory but I'd be lying to claim it.

I'd agree with you if you either had to buy what's recommended, or you could only buy what's being shown you, but neither of those are true, so you don't even have to use this, but it's just something to help you.

It's not that simple. There are measurable effects from the way these things are advertised and presented. Many people are just as happy w/o seeing them, in fact it's difficult to quantify exactly how happy someone is if they never see an ad vs do see one and buy something *on average*.

A big part of a good sales pitch is making the customer think they were in control and chose the purchase. Sometimes, they really did.

Note that such isn't a comment on "free will". Insofar as the customer is "controlled", so is the salesman.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

There are a wide variety of words that can be used to refer to "something that lies outside the realm of objective realities"

maybe all words refer to something outside of objective reality. as Ferdinand de Saussure told us:

Sign (the word apple) has two components:

Signified (the abstract, maybe even the platonic apple, the non-worldly apple) and the Signifier (our mental image of an apple, the culmination of all apples we've seen and heard of, and all their qualities)

yeah structuralism is a bit outdated, but really thought and expression in general is to be seen as distinct from experience

I was pessimistic about finding it but I actually hunted it down and it turns out I misremembered, @uppi was talking about objectivity not determinacy so I must apologize to @TheMeInTeam and @uppi as well.

still interested

I think in point number one I took "you so can find what you want much more easily" to mean "find what you are looking for," which defuses a lot of the concerns in the subsequent points. Making it easier to find what you are already looking for is a much different kettle of fish than conditioning people to want to look for one thing or another, which is the crux of marketing.

I'd be more concerned about how much people apparently seek to be conditioned than the techniques involved. I mean, people were driven by "keep up with the Joneses" before there was even an internet, much less the irresistable charms of soma.

I agree, better wording and more concise, but still I think we are talking about "desire" in both cases. mechanisms of arousing / managing desire are much older than the internet, even older than capitalism, also agreed, but they've undergone a tumorous mutation recently

Thank you @yung.carl.jung, even if I disagree with most of your points, lol!

if we perceive this process as linear than it seems very simple indeed:

1 "in myself arises a desire to buy something"
2 "I go look for that thing"
3 "algorhythms help me find something that is suitable"
4 "I make a more informed buying decision due to the algorhythm"
5 "I buy that something and I'm satisfied

but that is not how reality works, our desires are more of a feedback loop than a straight line

we browse the internet and are bombarded with images and ads "oh, right, I wanted to buy something" we begin our subsequent search and stumble upon many suitable somethings "those somethings look suitable, I desire them" then you make one arbitrary decision to get one specific something and buy it "my desire is fulfilled", but the others are of course still affecting you subconsciously, and then, next time your search... rinse and repeat.

we live in a deeply Edward Bernaisian world

Like think of this, when you go shopping at a store, do you like how they're specialized? If you want groceries, you go to a grocery store, right? Or you get your shoes from a shoe store? Or at least from departments in a store? You wouldn't want literally everything just in one bin, right? And often you'll have store employees who can help you find what you want, you tell them what you're looking for and he or she will show you what kind of matches your desires. And think of realtors too, you'll say what you want in your home, and she'll give you something in your price range, in what area you want, and all of that. I feel this is just taking that to another level, by learning what you like you can get better offers.

true, but it seldom happens that a shoe store clerk is trying to sell shoes to me while I'm researching Feudal Japan, or watching a YouTube video about the newest Minecraft mod, in fact I seldom stumble upon random shoe store clerks unless I specifically enter a shoe store

also, you can turn the clerk down, you can tell him firmly "I want to look for myself, please do not talk to me", but I don't have that possiblity with an algorhythm, I am literally forced, when doing any kind of research, to get bombarbed with advertisements for vegan cookbooks even though I eat meat on a daily basis, just because I was stupid enough to buy green teen powder on Amazon. that is not how the real world works.

and no, I do not "have to buy" what is recommendet, but the targeted ads do literally everything in their power to gather my attention, which comes pretty close to the shoe clerk strapping me to a chair and making me watch promotional flicks about the new Air Jordans..

 

[uppi]

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

If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer. Maybe in a new thread, though.

 

[Lexicus]

still interested

Is Atheism a Belief System? (split from the Political Views thread)

 

[yung.carl.jung]

or maybe via PM. I think I'll work out a set of questions and then decide whether they're worthy of a thread, or of a 1on1 dialogue

 

[Timsup2nothin]

maybe all words refer to something outside of objective reality. as Ferdinand de Saussure told us:

Sign (the word apple) has two components:

Signified (the abstract, maybe even the platonic apple, the non-worldly apple) and the Signifier (our mental image of an apple, the culmination of all apples we've seen and heard of, and all their qualities)

yeah structuralism is a bit outdated, but really thought and expression in general is to be seen as distinct from experience

Using Apple there is a minimally useful demonstration, but its utility is purely as a demonstration. Distinguishing signified from signifier as a process becomes really useful if you use the word Life instead.

 

[Lexicus]

In keeping with the discussion in that other thread on spare time, what does it mean for free will that none of us is brought into existence by our own agency?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In keeping with the discussion in that other thread on spare time, what does it mean for free will that none of us is brought into existence by our own agency?

You say that with a degree of certainty that is perhaps unwarranted.

 

[schlaufuchs]

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.

There is no "actual meaning of a word," only words as people use them, and even then, words only exist as spaces whose meaning is bounded by the negation implied by the existence of other words. You can think of "tree" as meaning tree, but in reality the word "tree" is a semantic unit indicating "not table, not chair, not person, not dog, etc.," and when this concept is understood in its fullness, it becomes clear that, in an abstract sense, no word is ever permanently or unequivocally defined, inasmuch as there are words which have not yet been created (or learned on the part of the speaker) to completely hem in the word.

To take your argument on its face-value, "if his definition fits..." then most words would not be "viable," per your definition. To take as a simple example, the word "tree" could have thousands of words which fit the definition equally well, depending on context: alder, yew, oak, bay, laurel, pine, redwood, árbol, aliso, fresno, chêne, Baum, etc.

Dictionaries are useful as a reference for understanding probable meaning with your interlocutor, but they cannot be, nor are ever intended, to exist as authorities. Dictionaries are descriptive: they track, examine, and describe the ways in which words of a pre-defined language/register are being used in that present moment. This is why dictionaries change, on a literal year-by-year basis. Moreover, it is important to remember that these webs of meaning can and do shift based on context, and therefore it is important to keep this context in mind when deciding which dictionary to consult. Just as it would be unhelpful to consult a book on the Indo-European historical language development when trying to look up conjugational paradigms for the Spanish pretérito, so too can it be, generally speaking, unhelpful to consult a Dictionary intended for general use when engaging in a discussion on theology or academic philosophy. "Sensationalism" has a VERY different understood meaning in everyday conversation than it would, say, if you were talking to someone who studies 18th/19th century French Intellectual History/History of Science.

This is all to say that a Dictionary should never be used as an intended end-point in discussion. It is neither useful nor correct (in logical, pragmatic, or semantic terms) to say "your usage of this word doesn't correspond with listed uses in this dictionary, therefore this conversation is no longer allowed to continue," rather, a Dictionary should be a first stop in an ongoing dialogue: "I'm unclear on your use of word x, and [Dictionary] hasn't helped clarify matters, could you please explain what you mean by x?" and then continue from there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is no "actual meaning of a word," only words as people use them, and even then, words only exist as spaces whose meaning is bounded by the negation implied by the existence of other words. You can think of "tree" as meaning tree, but in reality the word "tree" is a semantic unit indicating "not table, not chair, not person, not dog, etc.," and when this concept is understood in its fullness, it becomes clear that, in an abstract sense, no word is ever permanently or unequivocally defined, inasmuch as there are words which have not yet been created (or learned on the part of the speaker) to completely hem in the word.

Okay, all definitions are constructs. We still have commonly accepted meanings for most words that see regular use, however.

I'll concede I didn't frame my argument well. The idea is that using the word "spiritual" in that context is misleading based on what the commonly accepted usage of the word spiritual means, and that the clarification used should anticipate it being one option among an enormous quantity of potential theoretical entities.

"Tree" and "spiritual" both constrain anticipation. For example, if someone mentions either of these things you don't expect they are referring to a commercial airliner, and would likely reject their using them to denote a commercial airliner even if they said that they defined "tree is a commercial airliner" for the purposes of their thought experiment/argument.

Similarly, "tree" and "spiritual" are not good descriptors for "theoretical entity observing 4 dimensions from a 5th dimension or greater", despite that they're roughly equally useful in that role.

 

[timtofly]

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



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



i do not understand how that logically follows

Either free will is the ability to change one's own state of affairs, as in self determination free from the determination already in place, or it is the capability to be free of any resulting actions from our choices, one being self determination. The third option would be just having the ability to intelligently make a choice to begin with. But even making choices would be a pre-determined action placed by an outside mechanism.

The point is that determinism in anything points to an outside influence, because chaos will never create determinism, especially if free will does not exist. The semblance of free will even in a non-deterministic environment, has to be given such an ability from an outside mechanism.

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.

My direct answer would be we have an outside influencer via, God. So saying nobody knows is not a given. Most people reject the truth of the matter, or not in the least bit concerned about it.

It would seem that the brain's neurological makeup would be the closest thing to a chaotic environment that "somehow" produces a deterministic environment with cause and effect producing thoughts that may or may not be useful to us. Now we have a famous thought that the brain starts out empty, and over time is filled with useful data, and that data can be accessed, giving us somewhat useful intelligent thought processes. The other option is that it does not start out empty but pre-programmed to react to all stimulus in an idividualistic way unique to each brain in existence. Or a brain is not capable of "free will" and we call that instinct, and doing anything out of the parameter of said instinct would be "free will".

The point is that even chaos cannot generate order, if such an ability is not pre-programmed to do so. Because in order for that to happen, free will would be the only catalyst of such change. That is why free will is not being free of cause and effect, which would rule out one definition of free will. Free will is not freedom from consequences.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My direct answer would be we have an outside influencer via, God. So saying nobody knows is not a given.

Your "direct answer" has no reproducible empirical evidence whatsoever and should be rejected as a matter of course along with every similarly-arbitrarily chosen random explanation w/o evidence. If space worms sounds silly as an explanation for it, so does "god". No exceptions.

But if either of these had a tangible impact on brain function, there are real world consequences that are measurable. So we'd know for certain if we ever manage to fully map the brain's functionality.

Most people reject the truth of the matter

If the previous quote is anything to go by, your position is not an exception to this line.

It would seem that the brain's neurological makeup would be the closest thing to a chaotic environment that "somehow" produces a deterministic environment with cause and effect producing thoughts that may or may not be useful to us.

Similar rationale was used to explain cell biology in the past, before humanity knew what cells were.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Free will never existed

Quantum mechanics has already ruled out a fully deterministic universe

In keeping with the discussion in that other thread on spare time, what does it mean for free will that none of us is brought into existence by our own agency?

I think, for the purposes of the free will discussion, it shouldn't matter much if the universe is truly deterministic, or if it has some fundamental degree of indeterminacy to it. In either case, who we are "ultimately" really is just the product of our genes and environment. To what extent that was determined and to what extent it was random, in the end, doesn't seem to me to change the degree of freedom, or lack there of, that we have.

Regarding the question of free will, if you think it depends on us having some kind of ultimate agency, on us somehow pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps from the "swamps of nothingness", well then sure, you are going to have a big problem. As you pointed out, none of us did that. On a very basic level, how could we decide the way we want to be prior to us being at all? In order to have a desire, we must exist, at least on some basic level. The reason that basic seed is one way, and not another, is fully outside of our control. And if from that seed, by some process of determinism or random chance, the rest of who we are is generated, where exactly do "I" come into the equation, where is my will here? That is the basic argument against free will.

Well, the way I use the phrase "free will", it actually doesn't really rely on us having some kind of ultimate agency. It doesn't really matter much if the universe it determined or not either. The criteria for determining if someone has free will doesn't include "authored oneself into existence". When I'm trying to decide if I, or if someone else has or had free will, what I care about is the simple stuff. Were they coerced into doing this thing? Was it a subconscious reflex, or did they desire to do it? Were there mental capacities functioning?

Often times people say to me in response to this, something like, "that isn't the kind of free will the average person thinks they have, you are just redefining the term to keep up to date with science!". Well, I don't think so. First of all, no one has ever shown me data of what the "average person" thinks of free will. But, I would be happy to place a very large bet that it isn't going to be some abstract philosophical description of libertarian free will. I would think it would be something more along the lines of my reasoning "did he do it because he wanted to, then yeah he had free will". Plus, I don't think the average person has a concise definition. These concepts are complex and messy, most people are probably going to have conflicting opinions about them - I sure do!

So, if we do have this kind of compatibilist free will that I think we do, is it under threat by machines shaping and figuring out our emotions? No, not really. We are still here, and still just as free as we were before. The mistake is to think we have some kind of fundamental essence, completely separate from and outside of our environment. To think our genes could exist in a vacuum. We have always been shaped, influenced, and molded by factors outside of our control, from our genes, to our parents, to our friends and countries, to world and the universe itself. We are the culmination of all those things, and always have been. The question isn't so much if we are being shaped, but in what direction we are being shaped. If we don't like the direction (unfortunately this dislike must also be due all the things that led us to be the way that we are and therefore dislike the things we do) then we might have a problem.

Mmm, if I had a point I definitely forgot what it was.

 

[timtofly]

Your "direct answer" has no reproducible empirical evidence whatsoever and should be rejected as a matter of course along with every similarly-arbitrarily chosen random explanation w/o evidence. If space worms sounds silly as an explanation for it, so does "god". No exceptions.

But if either of these had a tangible impact on brain function, there are real world consequences that are measurable. So we'd know for certain if we ever manage to fully map the brain's functionality.



If the previous quote is anything to go by, your position is not an exception to this line.



Similar rationale was used to explain cell biology in the past, before humanity knew what cells were.

I have heard all that. There is still not an answer whereby a bunch of firing neurons can translate a state of useful information, and offer up a response, without programming. If that were the case then we could do it ourselves. Just add electricity. The answer is nothing exist, so nothing did it? The programmed answer stopped making sense, the first time I heard it. If some programmer states they did it, even if I have no proof, I will except it, while some believe it never happened. Perhaps one day they will find the proof. Making up false equivalencies as an answer, because one refuses the answer will rule out a lot of predictions. There is a difference though between a specific claim and a random prediction based on guess work. I already am aware the answer is not acceptable.

No one has ruled out cause and effect, they just ignore the cause.

 

[Estebonrober]

Your "direct answer" has no reproducible empirical evidence whatsoever and should be rejected as a matter of course along with every similarly-arbitrarily chosen random explanation w/o evidence. If space worms sounds silly as an explanation for it, so does "god". No exceptions.

Quantum fluctuations did it! The universe is alive with probability.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have heard all that. There is still not an answer whereby a bunch of firing neurons can translate a state of useful information, and offer up a response, without programming. If that were the case then we could do it ourselves. Just add electricity.

That's quite the assumption to make.

Making up false equivalencies as an answer, because one refuses the answer will rule out a lot of predictions.

Making up the answer and treating the question as "solved for now" also rules out predictions, in addition to not being useful.

Quantum fluctuations did it! The universe is alive with probability.

With that level of explanation "magic did it" is equally useful . If we're under all quantum fluctuations all the time, they won't be useful as an explanation for something in particular just by saying this.

 

[Estebonrober]

With that level of explanation "magic did it" is equally useful . If we're under all quantum fluctuations all the time, they won't be useful as an explanation for something in particular just by saying this.

Yea I'm not arguing using it as empirical in nature at all.