Able-bodied and non-elderly adults should have employment to the extent it’s possible. Parents (mostly mothers) dropping out of the work force to watch children is bad for society and the children.
[ Just noting that my ellipsis above denotes the middle part of your quoted comment that I have answered separately below ]
Consciousness and QM are real phenomena, but unexplained. Free will is not in that category. The argument against free will is not empirical, and it is not that there is no known mechanism. It is that “free will” is not an observed phenomenon, and moreover not a coherently defined concept. Nobody need be concerned about finding a mechanism for free will any more than they need be concerned with a mechanism for homeopathic cures. Neither one of those things actually happen. We don’t need explanations for things that are not observed to happen.
The usual notion of free will is that one “could have done otherwise” with the brain in precisely the same configuration and with precisely the same inputs. This is a purely abstract notion, it is not an observed phenomenon. All we see is people making the actual decisions that they make. There is no evidence whatsoever that they could have done otherwise. It is pure conjecture - there is simply no observed phenomenon to explain.
And it is a nonsensical conjecture. There are deterministic process (cause and effect, things happening for reasons), and there are randomly indeterminate processes. Since the notion “could have done otherwise” clearly does not mean rolling dice, it’s not a coherent concept. If you think it is – please define it carefully. And describe an actual observation that shows “free will” occurring. I’m not asking for a mechanism, I’m asking for an observation, any observation.
The argument against free will has absolutely nothing to do with biological (by which I assume you mean genetic) determinism. Nor does it have anything to do with any kind of fatalism. And you seem to have some sense that there’s something vaguely sinister going on like a motive to excuse bad behavior or something - again nothing like this at all.
Moreover I certainly do not believe that I alone have free will while others don’t, nor am I aware of anyone who claims that. That’s ridiculous - it’s not solipsism.
I continue to act as though I have free will, of course. That’s just how our brains work. We evolved with a strong illusion of free will and of conscious deliberation in decison-making, presumably because the computation that our brains carry out generates better decisions that way. If you’ll excuse the irony (actually it’s really more a pun than irony), I’m not sure that I have any choice in the matter - even if I wanted to try to try using my brain stripped of the illusion of free will, I don’t know how I’d go about it.
You mean that you can make a random number generator? Nobody’s definition of free will is random indeterminacy. Everyone agrees that random indeterminacy in QM as a real phenomenon, and unexplained. So what? That isn’t free will. Free will is not an observation, it is an abstract conjecture, and an incoherent one. There is simply nothing to explain. It is an evolved illusion.
I agree with this. Able adults should not live off a spouse or partner’s earnings. Along with that I would institute mandatory parental leave for all and on-site child care.
If it is wrong to take revenge on someone because they couldn’t help themselves, how is it wrong to take revenge? I can’t help myself either.
And saying we should punish in deterrence and not in revenge implies that we have some choice. If we don’t, then saying we should do one or the other is meaningless.
We cannot, in other words, change the inputs to peoples’ future decision-making.
You are arguing in favor of the impossible - that we should do what we can’t do, namely choose the ethical over the un-ethical. By definition, we have no choice.
Regards,
Shodan
Philosophy is the most basic science.
The Hippocratic oath is a mistake.
People have no inherent, ethical, responsibility to help each other, only to not harm each other. Love is a product of convenience, but still worth pursuing.
Day to day events are meaningless and the news will just upset you, but again, worth paying attention to as it will enrich your worldly enjoyment.
As per Riemann, people like the idea of free will but it does not stand under basic observation. I’d take it one step further to see the basic configurations of neurons and axioms at a particular time as incapable of making any decision different from the one they made.
Finally, one I’ve never understood why it isn’t the case: Financial education should start in middle school.
Most of the problems of America, especially the problems of black people in America, are due to the rise in divorce and single motherhood. Bigotry, whether against blacks or gays or anyone else, is a trivial factor.
We aren’t going to do anything about global warming. Nuclear power is the only realistic solution, and we aren’t going to implement nuclear power.
Nearly all police shootings in the US are justified. Most of them are unavoidable. Police hassle black people disproportionately because black people commit street crimes disproportionately, and resist arrest disproportionately.
Most of the mainstream media in the US are biased to the left, and this affects their coverage.
Regards,
Shodan
Unpopular opinion: Human rights do not exist. There have been attempts to formulate and codify human rights over the years, but none of these is actually agreed upon nor implemented universally. Even the human rights charters published by various organizations are nothing more than wishful thinking and recommendations. They do not describe an objective truth or reality.
There exists no cosmic force that will enforce human rights, so ultimately any “right” a person has is granted by whatever authority is in charge and only continues to exist as long as the authorities choose to tolerate it. The idea that a person has “rights” that exist outside of our codified legal rights is stupid nonsense.
Quantum mechanics isn’t random. It is probabilistic. And that does indeed describe free will. The opposite is determinism–that everything could in theory be determined given knowledge of a past state.
What’s incoherent is the idea that free will doesn’t exist. You had to have the free will to make that statement. You are a conscious being. And consciousness can’t be an illusion as that presupposes an entity to be fooled who is conscious.
There this weird idea that concepts that we defined to cover what we are observing are illusions. They can’t be. Because whatever we think of as “free will” is “free will,” and whatever we think of as “consciousness” is “consciousness.” It’s as logically incoherent as saying “This statement is a lie.”
And, yes, I’m pretty sure this belief is unpopular. I’ve never encountered it from anyone else. It’s something I came up with. I–a conscious being with free will.
I’m being to see the disadvantages of free will…
My unpopular opinion: that it’s easier to smell bad if you don’t shave your armpits. I’m not saying all people with armpit hair stink, just that it’s easier to not smell bad if you shave it.
Also, thanks to this board, I’ve learned that this is merely an opinion and not fact.
Another of my unpopular opinions: People should be allowed to wear sweatpants. 
The absence of free will does not invalidate our metrics for what are good or bad actions, any more than it make green things the same as red things. That’s simply not a valid logical inference. Whether or not I have free will in murdering someone, it is still wrong.
Nor does the lack of free will negate cause and effect. The lack of free will does not mean that people will take a certain set of actions whatever the inputs to their brain. Given a different set of inputs, they may make a different decision.
Your problem seems to be the common false conclusion that if there’s no free will that implies fatalism, we may as well just sit in a puddle of piss and stop using our brains altogether, because everything is predestined. That simply doesn’t follow. So far as I’m concerned, my brain evolved to work with an illusion of free will, because it makes better decisions that I way. I shrug my shoulders and continue using my brain just as before, trying to make good decisions rather than bad ones, and interacting with other people doing the same.
I grant that it’s existentially kind of weird that all of this is just computation without free will, but surely the right way to think about this is to first think about what’s true, and then think about the weird implications; not to claim that it can’t be so because the implications are too weird.
I have yet to here any coherent definition free will, or any observable that demonstrates that there is any such phenomenon. The notion that a brain “could have done otherwise” in precisely the same configuration with precisely the same inputs (except through random indeterminacy due to QM effects) is logically incoherent.
Right vs. wrong is a meaningless distinction. Whatever happens was going to happen. Whatever doesn’t happen could never be.
That’s what I was saying. We cannot change the inputs. We do not have that option. Therefore, we can never posit a different set of inputs - it contradicts you by definition.
Of course it follows. And there isn’t any “just as well” - you are going to sit in a puddle of piss, or not sit there, no matter what. No one can decide otherwise, and neither can you. You don’t have any choice. Whether you use your brain or not, it is not going to change anything.
You aren’t using your brain trying to make good decisions. Because you aren’t making any decisions. If you could make a decision, you would have free will. Since you don’t, you aren’t doing anything real.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics might allow both free will and fate to be true – you can make any choice you want, but you are ultimately fated to make every choice.
No, QM is random. That’s not an alternative to being probabilistic, it’s an intrisic part of what “probabilistic” means. See random variable.
If you think free will is well described as a probabilistic process, consider this simple model:
*The options for dessert are jello or chocolate pudding. I slightly prefer jello, but I want to make life interesting. I assign jello to the numbers 1,2,3 & 4 on a dice; and chocolate to the numbers 5 & 6. I roll the dice, and follow the outcome.
*
The first problem here is that I made a decision to assign the probability distribution in a certain way. How did I make that decision? Isn’t that just equivalent to making a decision in the usual way without dice?
The second problem is that using the dice roll to add random indeterminacy does not conform to anyone’s concept of the “alternate hypothetical outcomes under precisely identical conditions” supposedly generated by free will. Free will isn’t random chance.
Again, to be clear, “no free will” determinism does not deny random indeterminacy. It does not claim that past states can deterministically predict future states. That would not be consistent with QM (well, depending what you define “state” to mean.)
My brain is a computational engine that was in a certain configuration at the time, and given that configuration and the specific inputs at the time, it generated that output. How do you infer that this computation was impossible without “free will”.
And how on earth do you infer that conscious beings cannot fool themselves?
No, the core point of the argument against free will is that nobody can define the concept coherently. Rather than gloss over that problem, your first challenge is to give that coherent definition for the thing that you claim exists.
The absence of free will does not mean that decisions do not happen.
A decision is simply computation. Sensory input, complex data processing algorithm, action or data output.
ETA: And I’m still waiting for a coherent definition of “free will”. Something other than, “it must exist, otherwise things seem a little weird”.
Pickles are disgusting and should be banned
Christianity, on the whole, is a top 3 religion when it comes to tolerance/love/kindness etc. but a few bad apples spoiled the bunch. Which leads to ridicule, which leads to unpopular opinion 3 that I’ve touched on before…
…Christianity is the only religion you can openly oppress with zero public repercussions
Those who pay attention to national politics are the same as people who pay attention to the weather. You sound smart when you talk about it, it takes a specialized knowledge to know it, but nothing you do effects it even though you think it does
99% of all people who call for equal rights for (insert demographic here) don’t want equal rights, they want their chosen demographic to be number one
Do you think this was always true, or just today?
Yes, it does. You aren’t deciding anything, because only one outcome is possible. You can’t decide if 2 + 2 = 4. In the same way, you can’t decide whether to take revenge or not. You can’t choose to do what is ethical or not. You can’t choose to change the inputs into anyone’s else’s brain. Those who created the inputs into your brain had no choice about doing that either.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a series called Guardians of the Flame. The basic concept is that these modern people introduce democracy to a medieval kingdom. Quite good but don’t expect the idea to ever catch on in high fantasy.
I have given a clear description of what I think decision means:
You disagree that this constitutes a decision.
So, please describe what you think constitutes a decision. Take care to define what you mean by “free will” and, specify its role in the process.