Oh, plenty of people live like they have no free will. Welfare queens, people down at the courthouse, CEO’s… 
It rather obviously is not. I hereby deny free will. How do you logically infer that I could have just done otherwise? Let’s be clear here - we’re not talking about freedom in the sense of freedom from coercion. Rather, that when I just wrote that, my brain “could have” done something different in that precise configuration with those precise sensory inputs. What’s the physical basis for asserting that a computational engine in the same exact configuration with a precisely identical set of inputs could have produced a different output? There are deterministic elements (reasons for making decisions, cause and effect), and perhaps random elements. Logically, what else is there? What exactly is free will?
The strong illusion of free will and conscious deliberation is the way our minds evolved to operate, presumably because the outputs of the computation in our brain are better this way. The human visual system also involves illusions created by the brain, it doesn’t just operate like a camera. The realization that free will is an illusion does not imply a practical need to fight that illusion in my day-to-day decision-making any more than my knowledge of the illusions inherent in the visual system implies a need to use my eyes differently.
The United States is actually a greater country now, and truer to the ideals under which it was founded, than it has ever been. (Which is not to say things are perfect, far from it.)
If they do not have a medical exception, unvaccinated children should not be permitted to attend public schools.
I’d go further: vaccination should simply be mandatory.
In principle, nobody thinks that parents’ rights over a child are absolute. It’s only a question of where you draw the line between parental rights and the rights of the child. In circumstances where the parents’ healthcare preferences are clearly against the interests of the child, the state should intervene. In my opinion, the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of vaccination means that it passes that test. The fact there is a significant vocal minority opposed to vaccination (at various points along the spectrum from poorly informed to conspiracy theorist) does not imply that we should shy away from such a difficult decision in balancing parental rights against the rights of the child; on the contrary, it makes it more urgent that we should do so.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
In other words, it’s more now like it was before than it ever has been.
I said truer to its ideals. I.e., in the past, the country failed worse at meeting those ideals, including early in our nation’s history.
My unpopular opinions? I’d rather listen to Taylor Swift than Miles Davis. Continous-flow games like basketball, hockey, lacrosse and especially soccer, are more boring than progress-to-a-goal games like American football, baseball, tennis and cricket. Wine is sour grape juice and most alcohol tastes nasty.
Let the flaming begin.
The majority of federal employees are honest and hardworking - elected officials not included.
Most of them are honest and hardworking as well, actually.
That America has clearly splintered into two nations and we are no longer countrymen.
Most of the problems in the U.S. public school systems could be solved with stricter discipline, starting in grade 1.
Having to take algebra 2 or its equivalent to graduate high school is absurd.
-
Evolution is false. (Natural selection/survival is real, though.)
-
China and Russia are “professional victim” countries who are, in fact, the oppressors of other nations, not the oppressed.
-
We are living in an emperor’s new clothes society where people can’t speak the truth anymore.
-
The firebombing of Japan was a war crime.
-
Most people are hypocrites in some way or other.
-
90% of movies are of abysmal quality.
I really like the band Maroon 5.
I can’t really explain it to myself, either.
[QUOTE=Derleth]
The idea that more people are getting offended more easily is a stupid notion born of two things: One, it’s now possible for people who were previously kept in a state of terrified silence to speak out against petty insults which once went unchallenged, and, two, it’s now socially possible to offend the kinds of people who rant about how people these days are too easily offended.
In short, if you’re shocked and amazed at how much of your repertoire is now considered beyond the pale, it’s because you’re being forced out of a protective bubble you didn’t even realize existed until someone punctured it. Don’t expect anyone to care that you don’t like this new arrangement.
[/QUOTE]
Beautifully stated. I’m on board with Der Trihs – free will is probably not a thing. I struggle to conceive of how it logically could be a thing. Yet I love to pretend it’s a thing. We all do. Hell, one of my favorite songs is Freewill. Even the most liberal among us get up on our ‘‘personal responsibility’’ high horse from time to time.
The real question for me is, if there is no free will, does it even matter? It apparently has zero affect on how we live our lives either way we believe.
Interestingly (and in line with the religion, thing, a bit) they have done some neurological research on people in religious euphoric states and it appears that a significant component of experiences like speaking in tongues or charismatic religion is a feeling that one has no free will, at least in that moment. I’ve actually had these experiences myself and can vouch that getting to that state requires an utter submission of will to your perceived higher power and feels like you are being taken over physically by another entity.
But… brains are freaking weird, man. Not even close to the weirdest thing they do.
If you’re so worried about getting dragged into the street and shot for your opinion, why are you posting it here? On the internet you can see hundreds of people state their stupid, obnoxious, offensive opinions 24/7 and usually they have an echo chamber to amplify the sound of their stupidity. People can say anything in this culture, and do. The real conflict is people want to be able to say anything without it being called out for the total bullshit it is. We have MORE freedom to speak than ever before. But to speak without social consequences? That’s never been a thing. Ever.
Care to elaborate? It sounds like you have a more thoughtful take on this than just goddidit.
I’m also interested in what you mean by this one. Do you mean people won’t admit things that are obviously true because it’s taboo (like what, for example)? Because it seems like there’s no shortage of people speaking their opinions.
[/QUOTE]
I tend to agree that a realization of the absence of free will has almost no implications in practise.
But it seems to me that it has one strong implication, in criminal justice. For that reason, I brought it up a couple of days ago in the thread about paroling Leslie Van Houten.
If people could not have done otherwise, it is not ethical to punish people for pure retribution or revenge, i.e. just to “hurt them back”. It still makes perfect sense to punish people for deterrence, because seeing that there are consequences to bad acts is an input into other people’s decision-making in the future. And it may even be that an appearance of ruthless retribution may be required for effective deterrence. But punishing someone for pure retribution is no more ethically defensible than torturing a cat because the cat tortured a mouse.
People who are products of public education, whether secondary or college, should pay higher taxes, as an act of paying back. Their publically-financed education is at least in part responsible for their success.
To the supposed free-will fallacy - anyone that disbelieves in “free will” will have to get back to me after they pick up their Nobel prize on what consciousness is and how it works. The terms aren’t synonymous but they are closely linked. If you can’t explain consciousness, it is completely ignorant and arrogant to say that you can refute the idea of “free will”.
Ironically, most of the people that make those types of arguments act like they believe in free will for themselves, just not anyone else. It is also hard to figure out what they are referring to at all. It could mean anything from biological or sociological predispositions to complete determinism (which has known problems of its own especially on a quantum scale). The claim is that they deny there is no known mechanism for free will to exist. That is true but there is also no known explanation for consciousness or quantum mechanics either. Until you can fully explain both of those, you can’t claim that free will doesn’t exist.
That isn’t theoretical either. I can build you a simple quantum device that “decides” what you eat for dinner, what clothes you wear or any other decision you choose using off the shelf components. Who or what is making those decisions? Nobody knows and they are completely unpredictable even with perfect knowledge. When you can explain that, then we can talk about free will being an illusion. Until then, it is just a half-assed idea with lots of potential holes.