How do Humans make decisions and feel good about them?
For #1, as has been discussed many times on the Dope, lots of evidence points to the conclusion that FW may be illusory but the sense of it is an inherent part of our consciousness. (Now: go define Consciousness ;))
For #2, we have come to understand that Humans ground decisions in all sorts of irrational ways. We tend to favor what’s Familiar more that Change. If a number is spoken about some random topic before a person is asked an estimating question, that number influences their response.
In this case, I do not find it surprising to hear that if you blind-prep someone to be of the mindset “you have no Free Will” somehow, their responses to test questions will tend to be more negative. It’s how we’re wired. But that’s a completely different topic vs does FW actually exist.
The OP’s various variations on how exposure to philosophy, and in specific the possibility that FW may be an illusion, ruined him psychologically, and in general lack of engagement in the meat of any discussions often just throwing out more "some people say"s makes these threads fun to gently mock.
But sure: I believe that FW is a necessary illusion and that the very sense of “I” requires my functional belief in it, my experience of the illusion, even if I intellectually accept it is an illusion. That’s how perceptual illusions work: I can know that the black spots are not really there, or that the two lines are the same size, or whathaveyou, but my I cannot change my perception, my experience, of it … it’s hardwired despite my intellectual ability to understand that it is not really there.
The entity experiencing itself making choices, perceiving FW (even the choice to intellectually state they they know FW does not exist), is what “I” is.
If you are thinking about whether free will exists or not - you have too much time on your hands. And, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Go find out what you are interested in and go do that. If thinking about whether or not free will exists is what you are interested in then you came to the right place but you are wasting your time because YOU WILL NEVER KNOW.
If you are deeply concerned about whether free will exists or not - you have too much time on your hands and are possibly depressed. And, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Go to a doctor regarding your possible depression and then find out what you are interested in and go do that.
If you are crying in a dark corner because you don’t know about whether free will exists or not - you are possibly depressed and should go to a doctor. Once you get better then find out what you are interested in and go do that.
A valid point. If a person is not exposed to the debate, they will not give it any thought – just as the average non-believer spends almost no part of their life pondering the non-existence of mythological entities.
I disagree. It would break down social order as there would be people justifying “bad” actions as they didn’t really have a choice. Not to mention preliminary experiments show increased depression and lack of creativity with dispelling the illusion.
People do this now. Most people have a tendency to look for external explanations for their bad behavior. And the usual retort is “WE ALL MAKE CHOICES! IF YOU WERE A GOOD PERSON, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THAT BAD CHOICE! STOP COMING UP WITH EXCUSES!!”
Imagine a world where the retort was “You probably didn’t have a choice, but if you want to live with the rest of us, you will need to reprogram yourself by taking this class, popping this pill, undergoing this therapy, and/or reading this book. However you want to go about it, the bad behavior must stop now.”
We’ve pretty much always always worked under the “STOP MAKING BAD CHOICES” paradigm. So we have no way of knowing if this is the best paradigm, though we act like it is. For all we know, the “YOU NEED TO BE REPROGRAMMED” paradigm has superior outcomes.
It’s not that free will does or does not exist; it’s that the very concept of free will is never adequately defined so the proposition is meaningless.
What we call a “choice” is weighing up available options, and based on past experience, and our predilections, making an informed choice.
What other kind of choice can there be? If there’s some random element, does that mean I’m more “free”?
If there’s such a thing as “souls” how do they help? Are souls blank slates or do we start life with different kinds of soul?
Answering the OP though, the “knowledge” of the non-fact that there’s no free will would mostly have a negative effect, I think. People often confuse Determinism and Fatalism, so they would think any feeling of choice they have is an illusion.
Echoing the other discussion (geez, do we really need two of 'em?) that’s easy! Souls are magic! You can explain anything with magic! Souls aren’t part of our universe, and thus contribute information from “the infinite,” without information-theory requirements. No entropy for souls!
Of course, they’re also impossible to demonstrate by experiment, so they’re a really bad scientific model…
Those parts of your answer require some version of free will as well. That is the problem that I have with the argument. A large percentage of people respond with answers that claim that they don’t believe in free will but indirectly state just the opposite. The other problem, as noted, is that there are 3 different definitions for free will for every 2 people. Some people seem to think it means you should be able to walk on water if you really wanted to while others think it means pure determinism down to the subatomic level. There is no way to reconcile those views so the term itself becomes meaningless.
My answer is much more simple. Consciousness and free will are closely linked. There is no one in the world that understands consciousness at all. Therefore, we don’t know much about free will either. Anyone that claims they do is a fool.
Well I agree. I’m an atheist and think there’s as much evidence for souls as for the luminiferous aether (i.e. the opposite of evidence).
What I was getting at is that souls supposedly “solve” the issue of free will just…because.
But if someone who believes in souls, were to even try to imagine a way that souls might solve the supposed problem of free will, they’ll see even magic doesn’t seem to help, because it’s something of a self-contradictory concept.
It’s why it’s such a silly philosophical question IMO: saying “There’s no free will” is really a fact about the concept of free will, not our universe.
In fact, there are important real-world implications from the understanding that contra-causal free will is nonsense. If there is no free will, then there is no justification for purely retributive justice. If somebody is guilty of evil acts, it makes no more sense to punish them just to hurt them than we would seek retribution against somebody with a brain tumor whose deplorable actions were shown to be attributable to the tumor.
Our justice system (and much religion) is founded upon the flawed concept of free will. In practice, most of our justice system still works fine, because the distinction between punishment for retribution or for deterrence or for the purpose of sequestration from society is unimportant. But in some circumstances, it does matter.
Again, your response implies the existence of some type of free will. It’s just that people’s definitions of it vary wildly. Until someone can define consciousness and free will, the whole debate is just intellectual masturbation. I think that almost everyone would agree that you shouldn’t hold an Alzheimers patient to the same standards for say, sexual harassment, as you would a corporate executive but some people argue far beyond that. Some people are basically arguing for determinism down to the finest level and that argument is still ongoing. I am not arguing one way or the other. I am agnostic on the issue. I just think that the people that are proclaiming free will doesn’t exist are overconfident and putting the cart before the horse.
No, it doesn’t. As we’ve discussed before, your logical process is “the implications of the absence of free will are too weird and counterintuitive, so it must exist”. And that doesn’t follow.
If criminals are just puppets, dancing on the strings of their environments, one could argue that the logical response is to create an environment that compels them to obey the law. And if that violates their civil rights, well, it’s for the greater good. And since the oppressors have no free will either, why worry about it?
I don’t believe in free will, but I still speak of myself making choices because the alternative is expressing myself with crazy speech that makes me look crazy. The truth is that I do make a choice, when I define “I” as everything about me, both conscious and unconscious. The other truth is that I can’t really know why I make the choices I do. But that doesn’t mean I can’t speculate why just so I can participate in a conversation.
More to the point (from my perspective at any rate), if civil libertarians are just puppets, dancing on the strings of their environments, one could argue that the stuff that they spew out is inside their heads for reasons attributable to an array of historical stimuli, and not because they make ethical selections inside their heads and drew conclusions as mental choices, embracing principles because they freely recognized and appreciated them as having intrinsic value.
Which means we can completely discount them as having any meaning. If those civil libertarians had grown up with the experiences of Benito Mussolini, they’d be enthusiastic fascists instead, with equal irrelevance. Nothing anyone believes about anything matters, it’s all just the detritus of causal happenstance, as easily explained away as the actions of Joe the Thief whose acts of theft were caused by his circumstances and the events in his life and his social milieu and so on.
I’m just getting at that telling people such a thing would essentially destroy what it means to be human. People seeing each other as “machines” doesn’t do a lot of good for their psychology.
Oh, I’m not advocating determinism. I’m just pointing out that if the ruling class were to embrace determinism, the results might not be good for the peasants.
