The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous • Hacker News Board

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#51

Post by HEmanZ » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:41 AM UTC

npunt wrote: post #32

This could have been a lot better. Good premise but the author seems to want to make some relatively unsupported points rather than digging into some real interesting questions within the premise. The piece missing to me was that they basically ignore psychology. They allude to people in SV saying 'of course we don't have free will' but kinda miss the reason why people say that: because we can prove that in certain c…

Kind of a side point but “free will” means so many different things to so many different people, that conversations about it are pretty useless unless you have a lot of shared understanding about how it’s defined. The author seems to assume some unified understanding of the concept that just isn’t true.

E.g: when my evangelical Christian relatives ask if I “believe in free will” the answer is “definitely not”. When a friend who I know is sincere and thoughtful asks, the answer is “yes, but it’s complicated”. When a professor of philosophy asks, the answer is “what kind of question is that?”

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#52

Post by fsckboy » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:42 AM UTC

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #29

"Without free will, there can be no real love." What? This seems totally backwards. Author thinks that real love comes from free conscious decisiomaking? Like freely choosing which model of car to buy? I almost laughed out loud when I got to the subhead "A Childish Conversation". Some points are okay, but overall this is just not a well argued piece. Strikes me as just conveying numerous fairly boring grievances.

real love without free will is like two magnets attracting, i.e. nothing to glorify.

I'm not saying that I or OP have solved any thorny free will philosophical problem, but the first step is recognizing the problem. If you believe two magnets attracting is what love is, that's fine, but promise me you'll tell that to your spouse in your vows and on every anniversary and make sure your kids don't start to imagine that you are anything but a choiceless automaton in your feelings toward them. Please don't use chatGPT to write their birthday cards, chatGPT is liable to convey feelings.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#53

Post by Der_Einzige » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:43 AM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #10

labster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern physics has turned pretty hard against determinism and towards a probabilistic view.

That's just a convenient way to model something that isn't truly understood. That doesn't rule out determinism.

Bells theorem implies fundamental randomness at the heart of the universe.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#54

Post by Der_Einzige » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:43 AM UTC

stametseater wrote: post #20

labster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern physics has turned pretty hard against determinism and towards a probabilistic view.

The probabilistic indeterminacy of quantum physics is scarcely a refuge for free will. You may as well say a computer has free will because you gave it a Geiger counter.

It's definitely evidence against determinism, even if it's not evidence for free will.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#55

Post by brutusborn » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:47 AM UTC

stametseater wrote: post #40

brutusborn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand what you are saying but I don’t think that’s a good analogy (good chance I’m misinterpreting though) The Geiger counter is measuring a phenomena that is random, but producing a ‘click’ once that random phenomena occurs is fundamentally deterministic. People who believe indeterminacy supports free will do so because they believe their will gets to ‘select’ a certain path, so the ‘randomness’ comes…

I'm saying that quantum physics basically gives you an RNG, and you cannot build meaningful free will in the sense that people believe in by adding an RNG to an otherwise deterministic toolbox. People who do as you describe are appealing not to quantum physics itself but rather to the mystic of quantum physics.. quantum woo. 'Quantum' is a word they throw around to give a veneer of science to their assertions, but th…

I agree that people take a little knowledge and run with it (myself included). But doesn’t the mere existence of random processes in quantum theory suggest that there is a route for non-deterministic action (I.e. free will). So although quantum randomness cannot currently be linked to consciousness, there’s no fundamental idea in quantum theory that precludes humans affecting the “randomness” via some yet unidentified mechanism.

To simplify, the fundamental question of human free will is “why does it feel like we can freely make decisions?” And quantum theory can provide an ‘out’ that it feels this way because our decisions change the results of otherwise seemingly stochastic processes. If the universe isn’t choosing the outcome deterministically, maybe our consciousness is.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#56

Post by gotoeleven » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:47 AM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #27

Barrin92 wrote: post #13

> In the Jewish and Christian traditions, free will has been foundational This is not correct in the case of Christianity, I can't comment on Judaism because I'm not familiar enough with it. In the Catholic tradition the importance and nature of free will varies a lot depending on the period, in Protestantism there's a significant emphasis on predestination. Starting with debates between Erasmus and Luther, but most…

It’s somewhat true of Judaism: the duty to obey god presumes the ability to disobey, without which there’s no meaningful sense in which a duty can exist. In other words: duties cannot be involuntary, and so the mitzvah requires free will. However, as you’ve noted: this wasn’t integrated into all (or even most) Christian doctrines, and so the author’s Judeo-Christian-style argument doesn’t really hold water. It reads…

[flagged]

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#57

Post by simonh » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:59 AM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #15

> If there’s no free will, every solution must be a top-down one. If people aren’t free to choose, then “people don’t change”—they can’t change. Neither of these claims is justified or even explained by the author.

I came to comment on the same core claim. Clearly people do change, we see it happen in our own lives. People undergo religious conversion, change their political views, decide to become vegetarian, give up a life of crime. Giving up a belief in philosophical free will doesn’t negate any of that. The physicalist view is that we are physical systems, and obviously such systems are entirely mutable.

Determinism means I as a physical being choose my actions based on my knowledge, experience, preferences and other mental attributes. It means there is a direct causal link between my state and my choice. That’s responsibility.

However it also implies that I am not entirely responsible for who I am. There are influences such as my genetics, hormonal balance, childhood environment, etc that affect my choices which are beyond my control. For me, what this implies is a humanistic approach to responsibility. It means humans are mutable, in practically applicable ways.

In terms of justice it has lead me to a much more rehabilitative rather that retributional view on the role of incarceration. If people are fixable, if they can be helped, we should help them.

The article is almost wilfully, deliberately obtuse on these issues. It’s basically the same argument as the old sore that without a belief in gods moral authority, there would be nothing to stop us from attacking, raping and stealing from each other. It’s literally only fear of god stopping us from falling into anarchy. In this case it’s only a belief in philosophical free will stopping us from, I don’t know, all acting like mindless zombies or something. It’s absurd.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#58

Post by Nevermark » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 5:59 AM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #39

traject_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is "reactionary" inherently wrong or "progressive" inherently correct? Why can't people use more clear language rather than relying on Whig history to make their points. If what they are saying is morally wrong according to the truth (and that might be so), clearly state why that is the case rather than obscuring with terms like "progressive", "social justice" or "reactionary". “We are fond of talking about 'libe…

"Why is progress bad?" is not a take I'd have expected to see on HN considering the wealth of techno-utopianism happily and repeatedly expressed here.

I think the point is when talking about any specific issue X, arguments for or against X need to be specific too, to have any validity.

As a generality, we all want "progress". Nothing controversial about that.

That "cutting red tape" is progress, is not a controversial viewpoint. Bad regulations impede better results, and decrease the freedom of some people.

But "adding accountability" is also generally considered progress. Critical regulations avoid serious harms, and increase the level of trust in society, which increases people's freedom.

As generalities they can both be "true".

But in every specific instance, they are contradictory. You can't conflate "removing a regulation" with "progress by cutting red tape" and "adding a regulation" to "progress by adding accountability", because in specific cases these are contradictory actions.

So general arguments for progress are beside the point. The question is, in specific cases, does having regulation X result in a better situation than not having regulation X.

--

Likewise, "reactionary" is a general term. Reactionary things as a generality are considered extreme and poorly thought out.

But in specific cases, labeling something X "reactionary", and therefore "bad", isn't helpful. Arguments for whether X is good or bad need to be specific to X. Not based on a generality.

--

Of course, in normal discourse we often use over-generalized talk as short hand for viewpoints, and expect others to fill in the specifics in their minds. Which is valid, but sacrifices clarity for brevity, and often contributes to poor individual thinking and raises barriers of confused communication to resolving conflicts.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#59

Post by cypherpunks01 » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 6:04 AM UTC

shswkna wrote: post #48

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #29

"Without free will, there can be no real love." What? This seems totally backwards. Author thinks that real love comes from free conscious decisiomaking? Like freely choosing which model of car to buy? I almost laughed out loud when I got to the subhead "A Childish Conversation". Some points are okay, but overall this is just not a well argued piece. Strikes me as just conveying numerous fairly boring grievances.

There is merit in trying to understand where the author is coming from (which I am choosing to do), as opposed to critiquing the piece from the framework of contemporary society (which is also a valid approach). > "Without free will, there can be no real love." This reveals something about the author and his possible life experiences. When it comes to love between humans, what does love actually mean? We ”fall” in lo…

Thanks for the perspective, you make some good points on the evolution and changes of love that can become more of a free choice with time.

Re: The Erosion of Free Will: Why Society's Loss of Belief in Freedom Is Dangerous

#60

Post by cypherpunks01 » Sat, Apr 08, 2023, 6:06 AM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #52

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #29

"Without free will, there can be no real love." What? This seems totally backwards. Author thinks that real love comes from free conscious decisiomaking? Like freely choosing which model of car to buy? I almost laughed out loud when I got to the subhead "A Childish Conversation". Some points are okay, but overall this is just not a well argued piece. Strikes me as just conveying numerous fairly boring grievances.

real love without free will is like two magnets attracting, i.e. nothing to glorify. I'm not saying that I or OP have solved any thorny free will philosophical problem, but the first step is recognizing the problem. If you believe two magnets attracting is what love is, that's fine, but promise me you'll tell that to your spouse in your vows and on every anniversary and make sure your kids don't start to imagine that…

Promise I will henceforth cease to write their bday cards using GPT : )