Meet the nonsensical free will justification, born of fear, and inspiring the “Noble Lie.” Studies show that 70-90% of philosophers are Compatibilists, but a scant few delve into why.
Free will is "... the core structure propping up systems that reward and punish, like religion and capitalism".
I believe that we have free will on the (maybe) superficial evidence that without it ethics, morality, empathy, etc., are meaningless.
But you argue that "...rejecting compatibilism and free will doesn’t make society fall apart; it builds a stronger foundation for understanding and shaping the behaviors we care about."
That is interesting, because I am more interested in the outcome of an action than in the causes that precipitated it.
So I want "... to come to terms with what Spinoza, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer... knew..." because I want the "... 'cosmic realism' of an enlightened Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein" to guide our efforts to change to a better world society.
Whether or not this desire is the outcome of determinism or free will is immaterial. What matters is that enough people share it to overcome 'the powers that be' who want to continue with society on its current trajectory.
Thanks, Janos. I share your instrumentalist leanings, we should do what’s going to lead to wellbeing. That’s a big topic — what constitutes wellbeing. I have some thoughts on that and for me, having less cognitive dissonance and being aware of how things work (like Spinoza suggests) is a critical part of wellbeing, for me anyway.
Even if we needed a belief in free will to undergird meaning, morality, etc., that doesn’t make it any less of an illusion, and from a purely philosophical rigor standpoint I see some inherent value in just the metaphysical observation alone. But I also think we don’t need belief in free will to have the kind of societal wellbeing we’re after. I strongly feel it gets in the way, which is why I focus on it. Please check out the short but illuminating video by Gregg Caruso that I linked to in my post and please get back to me after you watch.
This is a fair take, but I’d mind the wording so it’s doesn’t slip into fatalism. I think denying we make choices is too strong. I don’t think anyone disputes that make choices based on our dispositions and histories. The questions are how free are those choices are and are we responsible for them? Denying choice is something a bit more extreme than denying free will, and based on the rest of your writing I don’t think you’re intending that statement. Sam Harris puts this well in his mandarin example.
I agree with you of course. Choice is a real thing. My claim is that “we” are not choosing such that it warrants basic desert moral responsibility attributed to “us.” Choice is a phenomena akin to auto-select and is procedural, a slow and complex response to stimuli, but one that follows natural law.
It is failed to express this thanks for letting me know. Where in my wording do you think I can clean it up?
“Sure, you may feel like you’re making choices but…” the tone and wording seem to imply that our choices are somehow illusory or that our counter-factual weighing of options is epiphenomenal.
Based on current research, auto-select is a correct analogy for many choices. An unknown number of our choices are reflexive and automatic processes based on our historical preferences, but there are others that require deliberation and the weighing of counterfactuals.
Scientists tend to call this deliberate process something along the lines of system 2 as opposed auto-select would be system 1. You probably already know this, but the language isn't clearly capturing this distinction and the role of deliberation.
TLDR: I think the sentence needs a qualifier or modifier. Something like as “it feels like you’re making an *unconstrained* choice.”
*Note the original System 1 and 2 research is based on Kahneman's book and is outdated, but the terms are still commonly used in neuroscience and cog-sci, although they sometimes go by different names.
Thanks for the feedback. Lovely to find someone interested in this topic. Didn’t know about system 1 and 2 but I tend to think deliberation is a difference in degree but still ultimately brain stuff, neurons doing what they had to do. I usually argue as a hard determinist / hard incompatibilist but it’s true that “choice” should be clearly defined before making sweeping statements about them. LFW choice is different than Compatibilist choice, etc.
Magical unicorn fairly dust, obviously. The causa sui part that decides things neither randomly nor deterministically while standing outside the causal chain. Or course, I don’t believe in any of that. Neurons firing and physics being physics — that’s how responses to stimuli work regardless of whether is a spinal reflex or a long contemplative pondering plausible other options prior to doing the destined one.
Sort of. A destined option is backsliding into fatalism, it’s a tricky distinction. But a destined option would something invariant to deliberation or selected action rather the determined choice arising from the elements that lead up to the deliberation. Destiny also implies a plan or design with some sort of objective meaning.
Free will is "... the core structure propping up systems that reward and punish, like religion and capitalism".
I believe that we have free will on the (maybe) superficial evidence that without it ethics, morality, empathy, etc., are meaningless.
But you argue that "...rejecting compatibilism and free will doesn’t make society fall apart; it builds a stronger foundation for understanding and shaping the behaviors we care about."
That is interesting, because I am more interested in the outcome of an action than in the causes that precipitated it.
So I want "... to come to terms with what Spinoza, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer... knew..." because I want the "... 'cosmic realism' of an enlightened Carl Sagan or Albert Einstein" to guide our efforts to change to a better world society.
Whether or not this desire is the outcome of determinism or free will is immaterial. What matters is that enough people share it to overcome 'the powers that be' who want to continue with society on its current trajectory.
Thanks, Galan, for tabling this issue.
Over to you... how about those ideas?
Thanks, Janos. I share your instrumentalist leanings, we should do what’s going to lead to wellbeing. That’s a big topic — what constitutes wellbeing. I have some thoughts on that and for me, having less cognitive dissonance and being aware of how things work (like Spinoza suggests) is a critical part of wellbeing, for me anyway.
Even if we needed a belief in free will to undergird meaning, morality, etc., that doesn’t make it any less of an illusion, and from a purely philosophical rigor standpoint I see some inherent value in just the metaphysical observation alone. But I also think we don’t need belief in free will to have the kind of societal wellbeing we’re after. I strongly feel it gets in the way, which is why I focus on it. Please check out the short but illuminating video by Gregg Caruso that I linked to in my post and please get back to me after you watch.
This is a fair take, but I’d mind the wording so it’s doesn’t slip into fatalism. I think denying we make choices is too strong. I don’t think anyone disputes that make choices based on our dispositions and histories. The questions are how free are those choices are and are we responsible for them? Denying choice is something a bit more extreme than denying free will, and based on the rest of your writing I don’t think you’re intending that statement. Sam Harris puts this well in his mandarin example.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/free-will-and-free-will
I agree with you of course. Choice is a real thing. My claim is that “we” are not choosing such that it warrants basic desert moral responsibility attributed to “us.” Choice is a phenomena akin to auto-select and is procedural, a slow and complex response to stimuli, but one that follows natural law.
It is failed to express this thanks for letting me know. Where in my wording do you think I can clean it up?
“Sure, you may feel like you’re making choices but…” the tone and wording seem to imply that our choices are somehow illusory or that our counter-factual weighing of options is epiphenomenal.
Based on current research, auto-select is a correct analogy for many choices. An unknown number of our choices are reflexive and automatic processes based on our historical preferences, but there are others that require deliberation and the weighing of counterfactuals.
Scientists tend to call this deliberate process something along the lines of system 2 as opposed auto-select would be system 1. You probably already know this, but the language isn't clearly capturing this distinction and the role of deliberation.
TLDR: I think the sentence needs a qualifier or modifier. Something like as “it feels like you’re making an *unconstrained* choice.”
*Note the original System 1 and 2 research is based on Kahneman's book and is outdated, but the terms are still commonly used in neuroscience and cog-sci, although they sometimes go by different names.
Thanks for the feedback. Lovely to find someone interested in this topic. Didn’t know about system 1 and 2 but I tend to think deliberation is a difference in degree but still ultimately brain stuff, neurons doing what they had to do. I usually argue as a hard determinist / hard incompatibilist but it’s true that “choice” should be clearly defined before making sweeping statements about them. LFW choice is different than Compatibilist choice, etc.
What would there be besides Brain stuff?
Magical unicorn fairly dust, obviously. The causa sui part that decides things neither randomly nor deterministically while standing outside the causal chain. Or course, I don’t believe in any of that. Neurons firing and physics being physics — that’s how responses to stimuli work regardless of whether is a spinal reflex or a long contemplative pondering plausible other options prior to doing the destined one.
Sort of. A destined option is backsliding into fatalism, it’s a tricky distinction. But a destined option would something invariant to deliberation or selected action rather the determined choice arising from the elements that lead up to the deliberation. Destiny also implies a plan or design with some sort of objective meaning.