[Bill]

(05-29-2013 02:10 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Before I respond let me see if I can get a better understanding of what you are saying: so are you saying that we make our decisions purely based on whether we feel pain or pleasure and therefore it undermines our free will?

No.

It was one point where you said that determinists don´t live as they belief. You said they should not be allowed to make value judgements. I wanted to show that a value judgement is acceptable to a determinist belief system.

[Wutang]

When I say judgement, I was thinking beyond just analytic judgement of whether "x is a y". To use a forum example, on this forum we judge beta orbiters, women who divorce rape their husbands as being deficient in some way and we express contempt and outrages towards them. Not only are we are making the analytic judgement that beta orbitors = losers we are also making a value judgement that they are in some sort of way deficient and worthy of being spited. I'm saying that the latter would be unjustified in the case of determinism being true. Same with anyone who is a murderer, a mass rapist, Stalin, etc. The correct sort of way mental state that a determinist should have to these sort of situations should not be rage or disdain. Instead it should be the same as people have towards natural disasters.

[Bill]

Strange example.

The pleasure and pain system lead to moral judgements. That means for some to be player for some to be beta.

[Wadsworth]

Free will is the type of concept that probably requires a definition. It isn't free in the sense that you can punch a cop in the face and except noone to bother you, but once you figure out where the immutable boundaries are in your existence and how to navigate them, yeah I'd say you do have a remarkable amount of free will. It's thus through education and developing wisdom that one attains his greatest measure of free will.

Take women for example. They can pretty much legally destroy you in this culture. You can't change this boundary, due mostly to the unbridled stupidity of the blue pill masses, but you can learn how to navigate it. The blue pillers don't know how to navigate it, or perhaps they don't care. They're plugged in to a set of cultural assumptions. Not only do they apparently listen to what women claim they want, but they're unaware of all the legal ramifications involved. They have less free will because they have less wisdom. They're engaging boundaries they don't understand the full ramifications of.

Once you become more aware of what women respond to and exactly where the legal risks are, you become increasingly capable of wisely navigating some of these unhealthy boundaries if you choose to engage them at all.

Wisdom is where your greatest measure of free will originates from in my opinion.

[xsplat]

(05-29-2013 02:33 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

When I say judgement, I was thinking beyond just analytic judgement of whether "x is a y". To use a forum example, on this forum we judge beta orbiters, women who divorce rape their husbands as being deficient in some way and we express contempt and outrages towards them. Not only are we are making the analytic judgement that beta orbitors = losers we are also making a value judgement that they are in some sort of way deficient and worthy of being spited. I'm saying that the latter would be unjustified in the case of determinism being true. Same with anyone who is a murderer, a mass rapist, Stalin, etc. The correct sort of way mental state that a determinist should have to these sort of situations should not be rage or disdain. Instead it should be the same as people have towards natural disasters.

This makes good sense but doesn't take into account that rage and disdain towards others can motivate them to change, therefore making our rage and disdain an effective response, that is likely to be chosen for by evolution.

We feel rage and disdain not because there is in reality free will, but because this puts social pressure on others to conform.

And this bring up the point that I feel is most salient regarding free will. Respecting it in others, or just outright manipulating them for our benefit, with no respect whatsoever towards their free will.

Let's get practical. Put addictive drugs in your sex lube or not?

[RichieP]

(05-29-2013 02:33 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

When I say judgement, I was thinking beyond just analytic judgement of whether "x is a y". To use a forum example, on this forum we judge beta orbiters, women who divorce rape their husbands as being deficient in some way and we express contempt and outrages towards them. Not only are we are making the analytic judgement that beta orbitors = losers we are also making a value judgement that they are in some sort of way deficient and worthy of being spited. I'm saying that the latter would be unjustified in the case of determinism being true. Same with anyone who is a murderer, a mass rapist, Stalin, etc. The correct sort of way mental state that a determinist should have to these sort of situations should not be rage or disdain. Instead it should be the same as people have towards natural disasters.

The thing is, rage and disdain are healthy emotion responses that serve a purpose. Healthy rage is about protection; it's summoning aggressive energy to deal with threats. Healthy disdain is about influencing people to behave in line with the greater good.

So these can be natural and healthy responses to people behaving in fucked up ways. At the same time, is capital punishment right for someone who's brain wiring is so fucked up that sooner or later, they were always going to do something heinous?

There's a whole field around this called "neuroethics". There's good evidence that very disturbed people just have brains that "sooner or later, were just going to make them commit violent crime", as a result of certain combinations of nature and nurture.

Does that mean they shouldn't be punished? Not really, because even if they were always going to break bad, we still live in a society where murder, violence etc is unsustainable/unacceptable, and the people affected are owed justice.

To me that means limiting their freedom (prison), and the signal that sends ("our society does not condone your behavior") and some degree of rehab is probably in the ballpark of the "right" response.

I do think you're kind of right though - ultimately, on the physical level, it is much like a natural disaster (in terms of their brain wiring from genetics + early experience that turned them into killers).

BTW, to me this isn't about free will - it's about people's emotional health and what that entails for the responsibility for their own actions; i.e. whether they can make certain kinds of choices (e.g. compassion/empathy/self-inhibition). Some people are obviously more able to do that than others.

Determinism isn't the right framework here, because it doesn't say anything ethically - all it says is "everything that was going to happen was always going to happen that way, and everything will happen a certain way in the future". That prescription includes your rage/disdain (or not) to whatever happens - it's not like you're somehow outside determinism looking in.

[Homo_Sapien]

Determinism in no way limits us to complete abjection in the face of callousness or disrespect. We can objectively criticise the behaviour and the beliefs that lead to these types of actions, so that in the future, these actions may be avoided by those who understand the criticism. However, you are right to say we cannot condemn the people.

A lot of what is said on this forum is circle-jerking and unfair woman-bashing. The same thing goes on in feminist communities about people like us.

We should be discussing the ideas that lead people to act irrationally or unfairly, not saying 'hur dur look at this stupid fat post-wall feminist pig'. Or at least make it funny.

[xsplat]

RichieP - Great post - very big picture thinking that puts all the puzzle pieces together coherently.

[ghostdog]

(04-16-2013 02:03 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Years ago, a friend of mine who got a PhD in philosophy (and then went to law school and was so depressed by being a lawyer he drank himself to death) told me Schopenhauer had one main idea.

Namely, you have free will to exercise your choices, but you have no free will in the choices you have.

Simple as that.

Agree with this.

There is also resistance when you use free will to go directly against biological imperative. You can choose what to eat when you're starved, and you could choose to stop eating, but with more difficulty because your desire to survive and reproduce controls most of you. You would have the same bodily resistance if you tried being completely celibate (no masturbation).

I sometimes doubt obesity being a choice. Is it not in the same vein as drug addiction? When your dopamine systems are manipulated to crave one synthesized high, you don't have much of a choice in pursuing it or not. Recovering from an addiction means snapping out of that circular pattern, realizing you're being fooled by your brain, and going back to aiming for optimal health and reproduction like you're naturally supposed to. Addiction offers interesting insight into free will.

My biggest problem with the modern world is the illusion of totally independent choice separate from nature. Even if you're pursuing a passion of some sort like playing an instrument, the drive behind wanting to get better at it is the drive to attract a mate. That's why women don't have many interests, as they aren't really needed.

[cardguy]

I like the Schopenhauer idea.

You don't get to choose your choices.

But you do get to make them.

[Arado]

At what IQ level do we lose free will? After all, you wouldn't say a rat has free will, right? Well then what about a dog? An orangutan or dolphin? A really stupid human?

Couldn't there be different gradations of free will?

[ghostdog]

(05-30-2013 10:57 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

At what IQ level do we lose free will? After all, you wouldn't say a rat has free will, right? Well then what about a dog? An orangutan or dolphin? A really stupid human?

Couldn't there be different gradations of free will?

<70 IQ is classified as mental retardation. There are behavioral and social skill tests needed to make that verdict too.

I imagine previous species of man just thought less and felt more. Humans are capable of just continuing in primal mode for stretches of time and having thoughts only about survival. I'm aware when I do it.

[Homo_Sapien]

(05-30-2013 10:57 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

At what IQ level do we lose free will? After all, you wouldn't say a rat has free will, right? Well then what about a dog? An orangutan or dolphin? A really stupid human?

Couldn't there be different gradations of free will?

I'm guessing you meant to say gain instead of lose?

If so, at no point do we gain free will.

To paraphrase Sam Harris, it has been demonstrated under lab conditions that a person's conscious decision comes after unconscious processes that can be detected and measured. There is a time lag (as much as 5 seconds in some cases) between the moment you think you decided to do something, and the moment your brain decided. This causes a problem for free will because it would allow someone to predict your actions while you think you are still deciding.

Little experiment that he uses that I encourage you to participate in:

Pick any film now.

Notice what your conscious process of selection is like.

Now pick another film.

You should realize that there is absolutely no evidence for free will from this experiment.

1. You are entirely limited to films that you are aware of. No freedom there.

2. Now think of all the other films you are aware of but did not choose. Were you really free to choose a film that did not occur to you to choose?

3. Notice that it isn't you who actually makes the decision on what film to choose. The thought simply occurred to you. Perhaps because it was the most recent film you saw, or your favorite/most watched film or whatever. All you are doing is witnessing these decisions. After you read the line that asked you to pick a film, the names of films just started appearing in your mind. You didn't know which film(s) they would be until they appeared in your consciousness.

When we actually recognize how thoughts and intentions arise, the notion of free will dissipates. This is true for every thought you've had and every decision you've made.

Every part of our brains and bodies are subject to the laws of nature. This means that in order for free will to exist, it has to be supernatural.

Do you believe in the supernatural generally?

[browserbowser]

[quote='Dulceácido' pid='421991' dateline='1366138844']
There is no such thing as free will. You have the choice to make decisions, but whatever your ultimate action turns out to be, is exactly what you have decided to do--even if you decide not to do it to spite yourself.

[quote]

This. Biologist Anthony Cashmore holds that free will is a relic of Cartesian mind/body duality.

Basically, your decision was a given based on your genetics and all previous decisions made up to that point.

John Searle doesn't outright disbelieve free will, but his book "Freedom and Neurobiology" has some interesting insights into the topic.

[Arado]

(05-31-2013 06:44 AM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 10:57 AM)ao85 Wrote:  

At what IQ level do we lose free will? After all, you wouldn't say a rat has free will, right? Well then what about a dog? An orangutan or dolphin? A really stupid human?

Couldn't there be different gradations of free will?

I'm guessing you meant to say gain instead of lose?

If so, at no point do we gain free will.

To paraphrase Sam Harris, it has been demonstrated under lab conditions that a person's conscious decision comes after unconscious processes that can be detected and measured. There is a time lag (as much as 5 seconds in some cases) between the moment you think you decided to do something, and the moment your brain decided. This causes a problem for free will because it would allow someone to predict your actions while you think you are still deciding.

Little experiment that he uses that I encourage you to participate in:

Pick any film now.

Notice what your conscious process of selection is like.

Now pick another film.

You should realize that there is absolutely no evidence for free will from this experiment.

1. You are entirely limited to films that you are aware of. No freedom there.

2. Now think of all the other films you are aware of but did not choose. Were you really free to choose a film that did not occur to you to choose?

3. Notice that it isn't you who actually makes the decision on what film to choose. The thought simply occurred to you. Perhaps because it was the most recent film you saw, or your favorite/most watched film or whatever. All you are doing is witnessing these decisions. After you read the line that asked you to pick a film, the names of films just started appearing in your mind. You didn't know which film(s) they would be until they appeared in your consciousness.

When we actually recognize how thoughts and intentions arise, the notion of free will dissipates. This is true for every thought you've had and every decision you've made.

Every part of our brains and bodies are subject to the laws of nature. This means that in order for free will to exist, it has to be supernatural.

Do you believe in the supernatural generally?

Not at all - your post illustrated my point - that if we believed in free will, we would have to demonstrate a point when it stops. Since (because of the ambiguities of species intelligence etc) it's impossible to draw that line, it's more likely that free will doesn't even exist in the first place.

Love the experiment you cited. Mind blowing.

[cardguy]

It is an interesting experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscienc...experiment

I first came across it in 'Freedom Evolves' by Daniel Dennett. The book argues we do have Free Will. So one assumes that Dennett has a way of taking into account the above experiment. I can't remember the exact details of Dennett's response. But here is a link to the wikipedia page giving an overview of Dennett's thinkg on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evo...xperiments

[cardguy]

I have always taken the following quote to be an elegant summation of my own views on the subject of Free Will.

Ernst Mayr, in his book "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" (page 288), quotes Sewall Wright as follows:

Quote:

"The Darwinian process of continued interplay of a random and a selective process is not intermediate between pure chance and pure determinism, but in its consequences utterly different from either."

[Kaizen]

Over the years Ive slowly come to believe theres no free will. Of course I live like there is , but I would choose 'no free will' on a multiple choice test.

You either have complete control or no control. the latter makes more sense.

If you have free will, what will you be doing tomorrow at 2pm? one year from now? No one has any idea.

If you want to make God laugh, tell him your 'plans'

[Wutang]

I do recall the pick a movie experiment that Harris brought up in his lecture.

While it's true that when you think of a movie that you don't choose the specific movies that pops up in your mind, you are still making a choice to even bother thinking of a movie in the first place. You could just easily choose not to go along with the experiment.

That said, I do acknowledge that the choice to either think of a movie or not when asked to could have already been pre-determined to happen. I've been kind of playing the devil's advocate in defending free will but I do think there has been very strong arguments put forth against it. My position is that I still tilt towards thinking that we do have some degree of free will but I'm still willing to hear out what people have to say in opposition to this.

The points brought up in this thread have been floating around in my head the last few days. More specifically, I've been thinking especially of how it applies to the mission of the many of the guys that post here - mainly our ability for self-improvement and to overcome limiting beliefs. There are cases here of many people who radically altered their thinking and world view after making the choice to - ie. "taking the red pill". Perhaps many of the decisions we make are made unconsciously, but we do seem to have the ability to make changes to our mind so that it generates decisions that are more in line with what we want - creating a positive feedback loop. A guy who's doing the first 100 approaches in the Roosh program in the beginning is going to have massive AA and his unconscious mind is going to be trying to dissuade him from doing the approaches, but if he keeps going through with it then eventually those signals will get weaker and weaker.

[jroseland]

I think questioning the existence of free will is a great sign that you have it