romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Do you really want Hawking on your side. He's not so credible when it comes to these kinds of subjects.

What is your evidence that Hawking is not credible?

OK try Galen Strawson

For a second there you had me worried I thought you were going to sic Kurt Vonnegut on me.

Call me when GS can walk that talk:

GS: In the end, and in a sense: yes. Obviously it’s wildly hard to accept. For some people I think it’s impossible to accept, given their temperament (they might not be able to make sense of their lives anymore). As I said, I can’t really accept it myself—I can’t live it all the time.

And that's the problem. How do we really go about living with this explanation? I'm back to wanting to hear more from the people who are raising their children by teaching them that they have no free will. How does this play out in reality? It seems to me that even with the best intentions of how you'd like it to play out, it could play out in the opposite way. For some, it might be just the excuse they need to give into various temptations. Telling people they don't have free will may give them more free will.

felltoearth wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:

How do you know that perception (mental impression) is right. Maybe "the committee" just wants you to think it's right. Who knows what "the committee" is hiding from you, or what you would think if they weren't hiding it.

Cartoon nihilism and paranoia from you now? If you can't have absolute reason and free free will you can't face the world at all?

I'm just saying that if you think people are being deluded into thinking they have free will it seems like the next step is to wonder what else they are being deluded about.

How about things they have no rational basis to believe in?

We should definitely work on stamping out those irrational bits of knowledge.

John Platko wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

John Platko wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Cartoon nihilism and paranoia from you now? If you can't have absolute reason and free free will you can't face the world at all?

I'm just saying that if you think people are being deluded into thinking they have free will it seems like the next step is to wonder what else they are being deluded about.

How about things they have no rational basis to believe in?

We should definitely work on stamping out those irrational bits of knowledge.

What do you mean "we", Kemo Sabe?

John Platko wrote:Call me when GS can walk that talk:

Call me when JP can experience his constructors creating knowledge.

John Platko wrote:And that's the problem. How do we really go about living with this explanation? I'm back to wanting to hear more from the people who are raising their children by teaching them that they have no free will. How does this play out in reality? It seems to me that even with the best intentions of how you'd like it to play out, it could play out in the opposite way. For some, it might be just the excuse they need to give into various temptations. Telling people they don't have free will may give them more free will.

How is it a problem, again? You can teach your children that other people are going to hold them responsible for their actions whether or not you, your children, or any/all of those other people have a 'rationale' for the existence of free will that doesn't take a whole lifetime to elaborate. This is all by the way. I suspect it's far too late for you or your children, the results of which you've so long since absorbed, which is why you're haunting the internet feeling around for a remote-controlled do-over.

The only reason, then, to adopt a belief in free will is to make sense of the way other people are going to give you responsibility for your actions. Yeah, if you can't make sense of it, perhaps the top of your head is going to peel off at an embarrassing moment.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:Call me when GS can walk that talk:

Call me when JP can experience his constructors creating knowledge.

But seriously, besides having a political agenda entangled in his views, GS admits that living with the idea that you have no free will is problematic.

If you want this mode of explanation to replace the mode we have you have to flesh out how we go about living in a world where we believe we are not really making our own free choices but are just carrying out what is preordained in the initial conditions and laws of motion.

To believe that is to unhinge us from the underpinnings of civilization. Once we do that, exactly what do we hitch our wagons to?

And I'm still looking for ideas on how folks think we should go about gaining more influence on the mysterious unconscious activity that is making at least some or our choices.

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:Call me when GS can walk that talk:

Call me when JP can experience his constructors creating knowledge.

But seriously, besides having a political agenda entangled in his views, GS admits that living with the idea that you have no free will is problematic.

If you want this mode of explanation to replace the mode we have you have to flesh out how we go about living in a world where we believe we are not really making our own free choices but are just carrying out what is preordained in the initial conditions and laws of motion.

To believe that is to unhinge us from the underpinnings of civilization. Once we do that, exactly what do we hitch our wagons to?

And I'm still looking for ideas on how folks think we should go about gaining more influence on the mysterious unconscious activity that is making at least some or our choices.

Still not getting the gist, John? The way other people hold you responsible for your actions is what limits those actions. You want to talk up free will as a head-top-peeling-antidote by allowing people free will to make insignificant decisions. Be my guest.

Ah, you're back. I took your advice and spent a bit of quality time with Luboš Motl's ideas - it was a hoot. Did you actually read what he said about free will? I'll give the summary:
from

On the other hand, despite the non-existent exposure of physics students to this stuff, I am confident that it is objectively stupid to deny her own consciousness or her own free will (which are different things but some people deny both).

It is stupid to say that one's free will can't be distinguished from the will imposed on you by others because all of us really directly "feel" the difference. It's also stupid to say that particles don't have free will without a tiny glimpse of a rational evidence. (The truth is demonstrably the opposite, particles do have free will.) Also, it's stupid to say that people aren't free to push certain buttons when 2 external particles outside their bodies happen to be a in a certain state. (This "superdeterminism" would be a brutal violation locality as well as the ultimate conspiracy theory.)

It's just plain idiocy for someone to say that one's decision isn't free just because it has a random aspect – it's free exactly because it has it. It's totally hypocritical to call for equations and use the authority of physics – while rejecting every single important principle that physics has discovered and believing that the Universe may be described by some non-relativistic, fundamentally non-quantum, superdeterministic theory (and certain people promote these adjectives explicitly).

It's unbelievable for one individual to accumulate all these stupidities at the same moment. But Ms Hossenfelder has managed to get this 0.00% score in correctness about these conceptual issues, anyway.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:And that's the problem. How do we really go about living with this explanation? I'm back to wanting to hear more from the people who are raising their children by teaching them that they have no free will. How does this play out in reality? It seems to me that even with the best intentions of how you'd like it to play out, it could play out in the opposite way. For some, it might be just the excuse they need to give into various temptations. Telling people they don't have free will may give them more free will.

How is it a problem, again? You can teach your children that other people are going to hold them responsible for their actions whether or not you, your children, or any/all of those other people have a 'rationale' for the existence of free will that doesn't take a whole lifetime to elaborate. This is all by the way. I suspect it's far too late for you or your children, the results of which you've so long since absorbed, which is why you're haunting the internet feeling around for a remote-controlled do-over.

The only reason, then, to adopt a belief in free will is to make sense of the way other people are going to give you responsibility for your actions. Yeah, if you can't make sense of it, perhaps the top of your head is going to peel off at an embarrassing moment.

Do you actually know anyone who teaches their children that they are not responsible for their actions and merely warns them that some people out their will hold them responsible for their actions? That's the sort of thing that Dennett calls irresponsible.

And while you're contributing to the thread, we're (well at least I am) looking for ways to influence the unconscious processes that have been scientifically demonstrated to be making some of our decisions. Any ideas on how to go about that?

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:Call me when GS can walk that talk:

Call me when JP can experience his constructors creating knowledge.

But seriously, besides having a political agenda entangled in his views, GS admits that living with the idea that you have no free will is problematic.

If you want this mode of explanation to replace the mode we have you have to flesh out how we go about living in a world where we believe we are not really making our own free choices but are just carrying out what is preordained in the initial conditions and laws of motion.

To believe that is to unhinge us from the underpinnings of civilization. Once we do that, exactly what do we hitch our wagons to?

And I'm still looking for ideas on how folks think we should go about gaining more influence on the mysterious unconscious activity that is making at least some or our choices.

Still not getting the gist, John? The way other people hold you responsible for your actions is what limits those actions. You want to talk up free will as a head-top-peeling-antidote by allowing people free will to make insignificant decisions. Be my guest.

What happens when a group of no free willers get together? Do groups of no free willers get together?

John Platko wrote: But seriously, besides having a political agenda entangled in his views, GS admits that living with the idea that you have no free will is problematic.

There is no more of a political agenda attached to his views than there are yours John.

Problematic, only in the sense we live in a society that is inculcated in a belief in free will. We are not free from god given varieties, even I suspect most atheists have a belief in at least a compatibilist version of free will.

Again speaking from personal experience, since loosing my belief in free will for pretty much 99 % of my existence not only do I do not need it nor do I feel I need it. My experience John! For the other one percent of the time when I might feel guilty or prideful I can reason these feelings are a result of evolutionary biochemistry and understand I could not feel otherwise in the situation.

John Platko wrote:If you want this mode of explanation to replace the mode we have you have to flesh out how we go about living in a world where we believe we are not really making our own free choices but are just carrying out what is preordained in the initial conditions and laws of motion.

Preordained? Listen to yourself. Which of us Archi, Graham, Zoon or I have claimed preordained? I certainly have not claimed that any will I have or choice I have is preordained. Our wills are made based on the aggregate quantum phenomena of existence. Just bear in mind this is the same aggregate of quantum phenomena that would create constructors, knowledge and information in Platkoland.

John Platko wrote:To believe that is to unhinge us from the underpinnings of civilization. Once we do that, exactly what do we hitch our wagons to?

Unhinge from civilization? Again you have not been paying attention John. Archi, Graham and I see this diametrically opposed to your interpretation. Recognizing that there is no free will highlights our connection to civilization and indeed, if I may wax poetically, the rest of the universe. Zoon seems to be concerned about how free will believers might react. Despite Vohs and and Schooler's poorly formulated study it does not appear to be the disaster Dennett and you imply.

John Platko wrote:And I'm still looking for ideas on how folks think we should go about gaining more influence on the mysterious unconscious activity that is making at least some or our choices.

What would be the purpose of having more influence on the unconscious? Why not the other way around? Perhaps if that were the case we could have a better transfer of information and knowledge to each others supposed consciousnesses.

John Platko wrote:
Do you actually know anyone who teaches their children that they are not responsible for their actions and merely warns them that some crazy people out their will hold them responsible for their actions? That's the sort of thing that Dennett calls irresponsible.

We do see what happens in society when people confuse proximate responsibility with moral responsibility.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote: But seriously, besides having a political agenda entangled in his views, GS admits that living with the idea that you have no free will is problematic.

There is no more of a political agenda attached to his views than there are yours John.

What political agenda do I have? I don't recall stating a political agenda. I just don't see how this explanation of "no free will" plays out in a responsible way.

Problematic, only in the sense we live in a society that is inculcated in a belief in free will. We are not free from god given varieties, even I suspect most atheists have a belief in at least a compatibilist version of free will.

And why is that. Here's how GS puts it:

GS: There’s a Very Large Question here, as Winnie the Pooh would say. There’s a question about the pathology of philosophy, or more generally about the weird psychological mechanisms that underwrite commitment to treasured beliefs—religious, theoretical or whatever—in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. But to be honest, I can’t really accept it myself, and not because I’m a philosopher. As a philosopher I think the impossibility of free will and ultimate moral responsibility can be proved with complete certainty. It’s just that I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really? As for the scientists, they may accept it in their white coats, but I’m sure they’re just like the rest of us when they’re out in the world—convinced of the reality of radical free will.

Again speaking from personal experience, since loosing my belief in free will for pretty much 99 % of my existence not only do I do not need it nor do I feel I need it. My experience John!

Ahhh an anecdote - I love anecdotes. But some here will no be so kind.

For the other one percent of the time when I might feel guilty or prideful I can reason these feelings are a result of evolutionary biochemistry and understand I could not feel otherwise in the situation.

Yes, "no free will" is the skeleton key of excuses. I could become fond of it myself.

John Platko wrote:If you want this mode of explanation to replace the mode we have you have to flesh out how we go about living in a world where we believe we are not really making our own free choices but are just carrying out what is preordained in the initial conditions and laws of motion.

Preordained? Listen to yourself. Which of us Archi, Graham, Zoon or I have claimed preordained? I certainly have not claimed that any will I have or choice I have is preordained. Our wills are made based on the aggregate quantum phenomena of existence. Just bear in mind this is the same aggregate of quantum phenomena that would create constructors, knowledge and information in Platkoland.

Yes, but was all that set up by the initial conditions(t0+) and the laws of motion? That seems pretty preordained to me.

John Platko wrote:To believe that is to unhinge us from the underpinnings of civilization. Once we do that, exactly what do we hitch our wagons to?

Unhinge from civilization? Again you have not been paying attention John. Archi, Graham and I see this diametrically opposed to your interpretation. Recognizing that there is no free will highlights our connection to civilization and indeed, if I may wax poetically, the rest of the universe. Zoon seems to be concerned about how free will believers might react. Despite Vohs and and Schooler's poorly formulated study it does not appear to be the disaster Dennett and you imply.

I said unhinge us from the underpinning of civilization (at least one of them) - that we make choices that we are responsible for. And we can't know what a disaster it may or may not be because we don't have any experience which such a notion on a large scale. Every group that uses such a similar notion, the Catholic Church for example, fudges a bit and still gives people some free will. At least GS admitted to fudging. Show me some evidence of people actually taking this idea seriously and living this way.

John Platko wrote:And I'm still looking for ideas on how folks think we should go about gaining more influence on the mysterious unconscious activity that is making at least some or our choices.

What would be the purpose of having more influence on the unconscious? Why not the other way around? Perhaps if that were the case we could have a better transfer of information and knowledge to each others supposed consciousnesses.

Please elaborate.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Do you actually know anyone who teaches their children that they are not responsible for their actions and merely warns them that some crazy people out their will hold them responsible for their actions? That's the sort of thing that Dennett calls irresponsible.

We do see what happens in society when people confuse proximate responsibility with moral responsibility.

What happens?

John Platko wrote:I said unhinge us from the underpinning of civilization (at least one of them) - that we make choices that we are responsible for.

Isn't the "underpinning of civilisation" more that people do hold each other accountable, and that has causative affects on everyone, than any grandiose metaphysics? If you want to complain that humans aren't perfectly rational you won't get a lot of sympathy from me. Deal with it. People get emotional, they lash out, other people have to bear that in mind. Nobody needs metaphysical for that. The boring old "no obvious gun to your head" variety of focussing attention where action will have effect is more than adequate. Toning down the FWB might help focus attention on more constructive things and less emotional overreaction.

John Platko wrote:
What political agenda do I have? I don't recall stating a political agenda. I just don't see how this explanation of "no free will" plays out in a responsible way.

Please reread what I wrote.

John Platko wrote:
Yes, "no free will" is the skeleton key of excuses. I could become fond of it myself.

Only for those that do not understand the concept of no free will.

Having no free will is not a get out of jail free card. Strawson even explained it to some degree for you.

John Platko wrote:Yes, but was all that set up by the initial conditions(t0+) and the laws of motion? That seems pretty preordained to me.

Then you have a different understanding of quantum phenomena than I do. Laws of motion?

John Platko wrote:I said unhinge us from the underpinning of civilization (at least one of them) - that we make choices that we are responsible for. And we can't know what a disaster it may or may not be because we don't have any experience which such a notion on a large scale. Every group that uses such a similar notion, the Catholic Church for example, fudges a bit and still gives people some free will. At least GS admitted to fudging. Show me some evidence of people actually taking this idea seriously and living this way.

Yes we remain proximately responsible. It is not that difficult a concept.
Popularity of a belief is not necessarily an accurate predictor of reality.

Do you agree with Strawson's first proposition?

Galen wrote: (1) You do what you do—in the circumstances in which you find yourself—because of the way you are.

GrahamH wrote:

John Platko wrote:I said unhinge us from the underpinning of civilization (at least one of them) - that we make choices that we are responsible for.

Isn't the "underpinning of civilisation" more that people do hold each other accountable, and that has causative affects on everyone, than any grandiose metaphysics? If you want to complain that humans aren't perfectly rational you won't get a lot of sympathy from me. Deal with it. People get emotional, they lash out, other people have to bear that in mind. Nobody needs metaphysical for that. The boring old "no obvious gun to your head" variety of focussing attention where action will have effect is more than adequate. Toning down the FWB might help focus attention on more constructive things and less emotional overreaction.

Toning down? From what? How many people really believe we are completely free of past experiences?

I think the focus should be on toning up - figuring out how to get more free will.

romansh wrote:

John Platko wrote:
What political agenda do I have? I don't recall stating a political agenda. I just don't see how this explanation of "no free will" plays out in a responsible way.

Please reread what I wrote.

John Platko wrote:
Yes, "no free will" is the skeleton key of excuses. I could become fond of it myself.

Only for those that do not understand the concept of no free will.

Having no free will is not a get out of jail free card. Strawson even explained it to some degree for you.

Maybe Strawson would have been more believable if he didn't struggle living no free will day to day.

John Platko wrote:Yes, but was all that set up by the initial conditions(t0+) and the laws of motion? That seems pretty preordained to me.

Then you have a different understanding of quantum phenomena than I do. Laws of motion?

John Platko wrote:I said unhinge us from the underpinning of civilization (at least one of them) - that we make choices that we are responsible for. And we can't know what a disaster it may or may not be because we don't have any experience which such a notion on a large scale. Every group that uses such a similar notion, the Catholic Church for example, fudges a bit and still gives people some free will. At least GS admitted to fudging. Show me some evidence of people actually taking this idea seriously and living this way.

Yes we remain proximately responsible. It is not that difficult a concept.
Popularity of a belief is not necessarily an accurate predictor of reality.

Do you agree with Strawson's first proposition?

Galen wrote: (1) You do what you do—in the circumstances in which you find yourself—because of the way you are.

It seems to me, that the way I am, presents me with several choices, and then I choose what to do. And if I don't like those choices, or what I did, or even what I wanted to do, I have other choices that can change me. And I find this to be a useful model. Perhaps imperfect but useful.

I do what I do because of the way I am sounds deepety to me. I'm not even sure what problem it's trying to solve. We already have the concept of mitigated responsibility. I don't feel responsible for exactly who I am for many reasons but how much of that are you and Cito really responsible for?

John Platko wrote:Do you actually know anyone who teaches their children that they are not responsible for their actions and merely warns them that some people out their will hold them responsible for their actions?

See, you actually contend there's a difference. I don't know if you really believe it, or are just trolling in earnest, now. At any rate, you imply you're convinced that people will hold you responsible for what you teach your children. Including your children. Do you care? I doubt it. More fun to troll, I guess.

John Platko wrote: I am) looking for ways to influence the unconscious processes that have been scientifically demonstrated to be making some of our decisions. Any ideas on how to go about that?

Oh, yeah, John. You're looking for control. My advice to God-botherers? Let go and let God.

John Platko wrote:
It seems to me, that the way I am, presents me with several choices, and then I choose what to do. And if I don't like those choices, or what I did, or even what I wanted to do, I have other choices that can change me. And I find this to be a useful model. Perhaps imperfect but useful.

Looking for control, are we? Who beat that into you? That's just a crude way of informing you that other people will hold you responsible for your actions.

John Platko wrote:
I think the focus should be on toning up - figuring out how to get more free will.

Ah, the Protestant work ethic. What the fuck kind of Catholic are you, anyway?

John Platko wrote: I'm not even sure what problem it's trying to solve.

This I believe. You have demonstrated this repeatedly throughout this free will thread.

Thank you

John Platko wrote:
What happens when a group of no free willers get together? Do groups of no free willers get together?

What happens when you stop obsessing about labels, John? Is there an awkward lull in the conversation at your end?