For those who may be interested in this topic:
Does eroding belief in free will really cause cheating?
Yet another experiment showing that conscious “decisions” are made unconsciously, and in advance
Interesting topic. It reminds of the self-objectification paradox.
Those who refrain from believing in free will take it as an excuse to not be held responsible for their actions.
The second study doesn’t quite deny free will. Rather it reveals that free will is a product of intuitive attitudes. Even then, it only provided weak predictability (55-70%).
You have better odds of trusting the weatherman.
Actually yes, free will being an illusion is exculpatory. However, it is only exculpatory as long as we base the justice system on such a silly notion. We should imprison people or “punish” criminals because everyone is better off that way and because we want to deter certain behaviors, not because people really are self-caused.
If you think that’s weak predictability you should read the article again.
Interesting
The first article ends with this: “This is all independent of whether one can philosophically forge a compatibilist notion of free will. To me that endeavor is futile and incoherent, though others disagree. Nevertheless, such an endeavor should derive from philosophical motivations alone rather from some supposed effect of incompatibilism on society.” What kind of determinist is it that isn’t concerned with effects!?
I think you misunderstood that paragraph. He’s basically saying that people should be intellectually honest as opposed to claiming that free will exists not because they really think so but because they are afraid of what will happen if people suddenly lacked belief in free will.
Yet a determinist who believes the evidence shows that a belief in free will produces a desirable effect ought to champion the idea of free will, no? Because he is a determinist.
In an informational universe ‘free will’ is as abstract as anything else, information works in cycles and patterns. There is no definitive resolution to the matter because one thing relates to another in said manner. In the first moment of universe and in any moment thereafter we are left with that very same problem. As i see it we cannot resolve this in linear fashion, but i do understand that we have to accept we are not entirely masters of our domain. I see no problem with understanding the whole thing as sets of relationships, and in that why should we have total control? Why should anything?
The philosophical issue here is one of absolutes; if anyone can define a single absolute then please let me know?! Free will nor determinism are absolute. We just don’t live in that reality.
This belongs in the Hall of Questions. Or else make a new forum called, “Hall of Citations”.
I am a river to my people.
For starters, he does not believe that.
Also, causality exists whether determinism is true or false. Some people seem to have a hard time understanding that randomness implies causality as well. So already your question makes no sense.
In fact, that is probably why most people pin determinism against free will. They don’t really understand randomness.
On top of that, one might think that lying to the general populous may have a much more adverse effect than telling them that free will is an illusion. (Again, Coyne doesn’t actually believe that a lack of belief in free will would hurt society)
This assumes that free will is the only condition that allows the effect, that dishonesty has no effect and that a determinist ought satisfy every desire. The consequences of this suggestion would likely outweigh the benefits.
I think it was Nietszche who said that a thought arrives “as it wants”, rather than when we want it to.
The subconscious does produce the conscious.
It goes something like this : Unconscious [matter and energy] - this matter and energy forms little machines which are cells, through cells and dna we get the body, which has a sort of intelligence to it but it is its own type of mind with limitations, the body produces, through organs, the subconscious parts of the brain, and those then produce the conscious mind. Matter and energy doesn’t choose to create cells, instead cells are programmed to consume matter and energy and grow and reproduce, then the cells don’t choose to make the brain, they just follow the DNA, then the brain follows its own design and stimulus and process. Nothing free about it. We still make choices, and can feel “free”, but that doesn’t mean we are our own source.
What are the consequences, in your opinion?
Who doesn’t believe what? I can’t tell what your first sentence is referring to, exactly.
I’m not so sure it’s a lie by the way. I mean, if free will doesn’t mean free of cause and effect, then determinism and free will can be reconciled - no lie. If belief in “free will”, whatever that means to people, causes certain effects, then any determinist should take that seriously. If they don’t, they’re not a very serious determinist.
Jerry Coyne, the author of the blog.
I didn’t say that free will did not mean free of cause and effect. I said that randomness implies causality, something that most people fail to understand.
That makes very little sense. EVERYONE cares about the consequences of their actions, not just determinists.
Dan~
That’s an great way to say it! …but i would add that ‘wants’ is a desire, and there are desires on both sides of the equation.
Jeezus Krist,
These experiments have not given any evidence to determinism or indeterminism or free will or compatalism, or even dualism or not dualism. (1) Determinism is unfalsifiable, which by default means not determinism is also unfalsifiable. (2) Causality is also unfalsifiable, which means not causality is also unfalsifiable. (3) Assuming that they are falsifiable, they have all already been falsified. (4) Sight of reactions of brain do not equate to sight of peoples conscious decisions (relates to (2)) as well. Good experimental study, but doesn’t say anything about those metaphysical issues trying to sneak in in a falsifiable situation.
Exactly false.
What ? Since when ?
Right, except you are missing 3 points here:
So far, my understanding of Volchok’s determinism goes something like this:
Both determined and random will is not free-will.
“Free will” is commonly associated with the idea that because of our will and choice, we are a certain way.
This idea of free will was around before we knew we had DNA.
Now it also goes along with the idea of equality. Basically, we are all born equal, but some of us are crappy because we made the wrong choices, not because we were born with a problem. This is all false.
Now my interpretation, is that we are trying to find the source of our own existential condition.
If we can’t simply choose to be gay, or strait, or sinful, or religious, if that is not about choice, [and it isn’t], then christian thinking, and christian morality is wrong. But no, that can’t be. We’re still living in a very christian society. Christianity used-to run everything. In many ways it still does.