You can’t judge a sitcom when you only remove the laughs. You also have to re-edit it tighter, more like a single-camera comedy would. Admittedly that would reduce a 22 min episode* to 15 minutes, but that’s not the point.
*TBBT hasn’t had a 22 minute episode in years. They often come in at 18 mins.
I think this is an oversimplication of the issue. Granted, I know nothing about quantum theory, I’m basing this off my knowledge of human psychology. There is such a thing as choice architecture. You can manipulate a human’s behavior pretty easily by manipulating their environment. There are certain environments in which people are more likely to take certain actions than others, hell, even the manner in how we present information impacts whether people are likely to change their behavior. For having such ‘‘free will’’ we are awfully predictable creatures. There are always outliers but not as many as most would like to think.
Does that mean we can’t be held responsible for our actions? On the contrary, armed with this knowledge of how human behavior is shaped by environmental factors we have a responsibility to use it in the interest of creating the common good. I truly believe a mastery of choice architecture is one of the greatest hopes we have for human progress. But the sort of paradox there is that in order to truly master our environments we have to acknowledge they have at least some mastery over us.
[QUOTE=Enola Straight]
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is causing the Motion Picture Industry to jump the shark.
[/QUOTE]
Please elaborate! Also, did you change your username, or are you a different person?
I has a sad because I don’t get to play. 
I’ve been Enola Straight since 2001, and since Marvel Studios have been releasing blockbuster after blockbuster, how can they possibly be topped?
Hard to argue with that one. One thing’s for damned sure they’re putting Fox and DC to shame.
Would that be causing it to Jump the Shark though?
Just because we’re watching something historic and amazing doesn’t mean the rest of the pack can’t come back from it. NBA didn’t jump after Jordan, MLB didn’t jump in the 50s etc. etc.
If we have a choice whether to do this or not, we have free will, at least to some extent. If Riemann is correct, we have no choice. The oversimplification, in other words, is his, not mine.
Regards,
Shodan
Jeremy Brett’s portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is a pile of cack. If my TV had smell-o-vision a single episode would impregnate my house with the smell of ham so badly that it would be unsaleable for the next 1000 years.
Thank you. A Barbadian co-worker and former cricketer explained the game to me once, and I realized that it was essentially the same game as baseball. The only fundamental difference being that in cricket, the batsman is dominant; in baseball, it’s the pitcher. I’ve watched some cricket (a test match, New Zealand v. Pakistan) and it’s a cool game.
I stand by my statement on soccer, though.
A couple of comments:
I agree that choice architecture is fascinating - and it probably has far more bearing on practical real-world social issues than the “no free will” argument. But the “no free will” argument is orthogonal to choice architecture. The “no free will” argument is not an empirical argument. It does not say that “free will” is a way our brains might work, whereas in practice they don’t. “No free will” would hold even if choice architecture research hypothetically showed that human behavior were uncorrelated to immediate environmental cues, and that behavior were more a function of highly variable internal mental states.
The “no free will” argument is that the concept is simply incoherent, in the not even wrong category. The notion that precisely identical causal inputs to a brain in precisely the same internal configuration can produce a different output (except through random indeterminacy) is incoherent. It cannot exist even in principle in any conceivable world - because it is not a coherent principle. Even if we postulate supernatural phenomena - an immaterial mind, or soul - then the interaction with the physical world must still follow either some rules of cause and effect, or be random, or be probabilistic (following a combination of deterministic and random processes). What else is there?
As for Shodan’s comment, I don’t accept that “no free will” can reasonably be taken to mean that we do not make decisions. Although there is no observable event that corresponds to "free will’, there clearly is an observable phenomenon of “deciding” - when there are multiple options that a similar brain with similar inputs might plausibly select. Of course, there is only one possible outcome for out own particular brain in the specific internal configuration and with the particular inputs in a given specific circumstance. But we can call the complex computational process that our brains execute to reach the specific output a “decision” - inevitable as it may be. In principle, this is no different than a thermostat deciding to turn on the heat - just vastly more complex, and with the added phenomenon of consciousness. What we have done here is to elucidate how the commonly observed phenomenon of a “decision” really works. It makes little sense to reserve the term “decision” for something other than real decision-making, to reserve it for something incoherent than never actually happens, and that could never happen in any conceivable universe.
For example, if Spice Weasel were to contemplate carefully, and decide to pursue the study of choice architecture in order to reform the criminal justice and criminal rehabilitation system – then the effects would certainly be profound and far-reaching. The fact that Spice Weasel’s internally perceived “free will” in that decision was an internal mental illusion, and that the mechanics of the decision are best described as complex computation in his brain, does not eliminate the tangible cause-and-effect driven results of that decision and the impact on other people’s future decision-making. “No free will” does not logically destroy our metrics for that which is worthwhile, good & desirable. It may generates a existential confusion and a sense that things are a little weird, but it does not make sitting in a puddle of pee and giving up just as good as doing something worthwhile, even if our “free choice” in the matter is an internal mental illusion. Just as we have elucidated what a decision really is, perhaps we have elucidated that virtue may not quite accord with our prior intuition; but it can mean nothing else. Thus, we may as well continue making our decisions under the illusion of free will that evolution has given us, because that just seems to produce better results, reflexively “inevitable” and existentially confusing as all of this may be.
That all makes perfect sense to me. People find the concept that there is no free will very threatening but I can’t work out how it could be any other way. We’re either governed by the laws of cause and effect or we’re not. Even a random outcome would mean we were still governed by something, yes? Even if that something is random, it’s predictable that it will be random. Do I follow your argument correctly?
We even have some evidence that we have no control over what we view as right and wrong. Even sociopaths, who lack empathy, have a unique, internal sense of right and wrong, they just don’t care. In a neurotypical human, the moral decision-making process (’‘decision’’ defined in this case by Riemann) usually follows this pattern, in this order:
Sure, it invalidates all meaning theoretically. That’s pretty huge if free will is a major part of your spiritual construct. But pragmatically I’m not sure it makes much difference.
I’ve had so many people argue that this fatalistic view is harmful but I can see no evidence of that based on my own life and the fact I don’t believe in free will but go on behaving just as if I do, feel morally culpable for my poor decisions, strive to make the world a better place, etc.
The only way this question matters, really, is if we can harness it somehow to improve the world.
Yes, this is an important point. Although the practical implications of “no free will” per se seem few, it’s notable that it throws a major spanner in the works for most religions. In my view, a much larger spanner than evolution or scientific cosmology. It’s a more generalized statement of the objection: what kind of a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent monster would create me with the nature I have, knowing what I would do, then torture me in hell for eternity for doing it? “Mumble mumble free will, mysterious ways…” is obviously not a satisfactory answer to that question.
The questions that “no free will” raises for more thoughtful spiritual worldviews are also profound, although the answers are less obvious.
Looking at it the other way around: our brains evolved to give us a strong internal illusion of free will, presumably because that’s important in producing better decisions, including perhaps better intuitive social behavior & social cohesion among cooperating groups of humans (“better” in the evolutionary sense of fitness). So it’s surely no coincidence that this (illusory) sense of free will was incorporated as a core element of many formalized religions.
It’s no small wonder ‘‘no free will’’ in an unpopular opinion. I’ve gotten shit just for talking about choice architecture, and I think that’s a positive thing.
People will go to great lengths to convince themselves they are in control of their own destiny. I think that’s also the source of the ‘‘blame the victim’’ tendency. When presented with the most horrific examples of human behavior, we struggle to construct reasons it happened and things we might have done to prevent it had we been in the victim’s shoes. This is much more palatable than the truth, that horrific things happen to people who don’t deserve it, every day, all over the world, and that we could easily be that person, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it.
I am envious of these mental protective factors and sometimes wish I had more of them.
Pretty much - it’s an empirical question just how much of the output of our brains follows cause-and-effect, and how much is random, but neither determinism nor random indeterminism comport with the usual notion of “free will”.
But there is a common misconception (although I don’t think you share it) about what “no free will” means that comes to mind when you say “governed by”:
“Free will” is essentially the same irresolvable paradox as the infinitely-regressing homunculus. We have a strong illusion that there is an independent “me” inside our heads that somehow transcends cause and effect. But this transcendence does not bear logical scrutiny - it must be an illusion, part of the phenomenon of consciousness, if you like an emergent property of the way our brains are wired. We really haven’t got the faintest idea how consciousness works, but that’s not grounds to infer that it might have incoherent properties such as free will.
So I think it’s important to be clear that “no free will” does not mean that there is a transcendent homunculus “me” that is somehow strait-jacketed by the output of some more basal part of our brains. That misconception is why, in part, some people have an angry or frightened reaction. The computational engine of my brain is me, and the independent transcendent homunculus is altogether illusory.
You’re probably already aware, but there’s good evidence (originally Benjamin Libet in the 1980’s, much other research since) that our brains operate this way:
(1) make a decision
[detectable pause]
(2) construction an illusion that we consciously made the decision
But although the above is thought-provoking on the nature of consciousness and the homunculus illusion, it’s far from clear exactly what it means; and again, I think it’s orthogonal to the “no free will” argument.
“Entitled” is a meaningless complaint that can be leveled at any and all behavior that the speaker doesn’t like.
No level of government should ever play any role in any of the following:
[ul]
[li]Controlling or influencing what people eat or how much they exercise, for their own good.[/li][li]Banning most private people and businesses from discriminating on the basis of race or anything else. (But discrimination by the government should be highly illegal, and also discrimination should be illegal for vital services such as hospitals.) [/li][li]Interfering in the relationship between employers and employees. Employers and employees should be free to negotiate a deal that does or doesn’t involve any level of salary, health care, time off, etc… [/li][li]Determining what age people can use alcohol or tobacco at.[/li][li]Punishing parents because their children were unsupervised.[/li][li]Running a lottery.[/li][li]Trying to make any place or organization more diverse.[/li][/ul]
Marvel Comics movies are unbelievably stupid and it’s shameful for anyone above the age of 13 to be interested in them.
To re-iterate, just think of the caliber of the Superheroes, and who they could conceivably challenge: not win, mind you…just challenge. 
Captain America could take on Batman, James Bond, Ozymandias, Paul Atreides.
Iron Man could take on Steve Austin, Robocop, and the Terminator.
Thor could take on Alien Queen, the Predator, and Pumpkinhead.
Hulk could take on KING KONG and GODZILLA!
BTW, Wolverine could take on Norman Bates, Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, and Leatherface…simultaneously.
How is Hollywood going to create new heroes and villains that could possibly compete with such a high bar?
Thanks for the great convo. I never considered that the illusion of free will might have an evolutionary advantage.
[QUOTE=Enola Straight]
How is Hollywood going to create new heroes and villains that could possibly compete with such a high bar?
[/QUOTE]
From a storytelling perspective, the world doesn’t have to be at stake for it to feel like it. Take Ant-Man for example. I realize it wasn’t a cinematic masterpiece but Ant-Man is a good example of a small time hero you root for.
Or look at Daredevil. Super high drama about a guy effectively fighting crime in one area of one city.
If you create a story with a believable and sympathetic hero and a villain with enough complexity, it doesn’t have to be about saving the world.
I am of the unpopular opinion that the board rule requiring every.single.thread to contain snarkyness about Clinton/Trump/Republicans/Democrat/Liberals/Conservatives is absolutely stupid and should be immediately repealed.
What? You say there is no such board rule? Coulda fooled me…
I don’t really know what you’re talking about, but I enjoyed the way you expressed it. 