Free will is an illusion....?

off-topic conversation unrelated to Jane's Addiction
Message
Author
User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#221 Post by Hype » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:19 am

Matz wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:24 am
Hype wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:27 pm
If there's no free will, then there seems to be no responsibility, and indeed no point in trying to do anything. Meaning in life is very important.
I don't see why having no free will and finding meaning in the things you do can't go hand in hand.
I also think that since neuroscience is the science of the brain, that's where we should look for explanations of the mechanisms by which beings with brains function.
I think neuroscience is the "science" of guessing. We know nothing about the brain, the stuff we "know" can't be proven. I don't think we'll ever understand it. Anyone see any breakthroughs when it comes to Alzheimers, Parkinson, psychiatric illnesses etc? No. There has been none, we don't know how to treat any of that stuff. Forget it, it's too difficult.
These are good thoughts.

I agree with your first point. Of course most of us actually do have meaning in our lives. That's why we care about things and do things and keep going and undergo suffering and so forth. For many people, religion (or family tradition, or family more generally) is the main source of purpose. For others it might be knowledge (science), or art, or humanitarian work. There are probably as many sources of meaning as there are people (maybe more). There are also people who lose (or have never had) hope and purpose. Many of these people are at risk of suicide or doing very dangerous or bad things. Some people are born into incredibly wretched circumstances, and many of them find hope and a way to continue, but some don't. We might think of those who are susceptible to terrorism or violent religiosity as particularly nihilistic people -- they latch onto extreme views as a source of meaning, perhaps because ordinary sources of meaning aren't cutting it, or aren't available.

So, I don't think the question of whether lack of free will and meaning are compatible in the broadest sense is that interesting. The answer seems to be obviously yes. But some philosophers (including Dan Dennett, as I wrote years ago), are worried about what would happen if we tell most people that they don't have free will. There seems to be something important about seeing your life as your own, and as determined by the choices you make in a way that is in some sense "of your own making" and "up to you", rather than already determined by the physics of the universe. This is what Nietzsche writes about in a lot of his work on nihilism: if God is dead, then Christian morality should go with it too, and then we're left with no source of purpose and no clear overwhelming reason to check our behaviour. His answer is the existentialist one: make our own meaning, make our own morality, etc., so that we don't wallow in self-absorbed nihilism. But I think this can't quite work. This view relies (as Sartre argues) on seeing one's self as free to make oneself. If we have no free will, then we are not absolutely free to make ourselves. The extent to which we can find meaning and purpose in life depends on how our lives have gone, and who we are, and what our brains are like. Some people are attracted to tradition and religion and family, or sports, or art, or intellectual pursuits. But it's not clear that everyone can do this.

The harder problems seem to me to arise when we think about how to change people's minds about what matters most. Moral and political views are very important, even for people who don't consider themselves political. Socially, huge amounts of harm are done when people find meaning in hateful ideology or destructive impulses. Governments, NGOs, priests, parents, teachers, social workers, etc., are all concerned with trying to prevent and solve social ills, and aid victims of bad actions. If there is no free will, then it starts to look very difficult to actually change anything, since if something changes, it had to change, and if it doesn't change, it couldn't, regardless of what we want. What we need to try to understand is what to do with benevolent desires in a deterministic world, where we might see how things will necessarily go (and either see that we will succeed, or see that we can't succeed), or can't see how things will go (and so be unable to know for sure how they will go). The latter seems to be the best hope for doing things we think are important, regardless of how the universe is determined to go. But this would mean it's better to be ignorant about the future? That can't be right. It can't be that ignorance about the future is the source of motivation for people to try to do good things in the world. Surely the better we understand things, the better chance we have of making them go best. This seems right, and yet in many cases the better we understand a situation, the more we realize that there is nothing we can do. And what should we do then? Nothing? Doesn't this seem nihilistic?

**************************
On the question of neuroscience: I agree that there is very little well understood about the human brain. But it's not true that we don't understand anything about it, and it's not true that we're just guessing. Just because there haven't been any "breakthroughs" in certain specific neurological conditions, by your estimation, doesn't mean we don't understand aspects of those conditions very well. We know, for instance, that L-dopa helps Parkinson's patients retain some mobility, for some time, but unfortunately L-dopa doesn't work forever. The lack of a better treatment doesn't mean we're just guessing, it just means that it's really difficult. It's interesting that your last sentence suggests the inverse of your first one: in the first, you admit that free will doesn't necessarily mean we can't have meaning in life; in the second, you seem to suggest that our seemingly intractable ignorance about the brain makes it pointless to continue to try to understand it -- in your words: 'it's too difficult'. But is that right? Why?

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#222 Post by Matz » Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:25 am

Hype wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:19 am
Matz wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:24 am
Hype wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:27 pm
If there's no free will, then there seems to be no responsibility, and indeed no point in trying to do anything. Meaning in life is very important.
I don't see why having no free will and finding meaning in the things you do can't go hand in hand.
I also think that since neuroscience is the science of the brain, that's where we should look for explanations of the mechanisms by which beings with brains function.
I think neuroscience is the "science" of guessing. We know nothing about the brain, the stuff we "know" can't be proven. I don't think we'll ever understand it. Anyone see any breakthroughs when it comes to Alzheimers, Parkinson, psychiatric illnesses etc? No. There has been none, we don't know how to treat any of that stuff. Forget it, it's too difficult.
These are good thoughts.

I agree with your first point. Of course most of us actually do have meaning in our lives. That's why we care about things and do things and keep going and undergo suffering and so forth. For many people, religion (or family tradition, or family more generally) is the main source of purpose. For others it might be knowledge (science), or art, or humanitarian work. There are probably as many sources of meaning as there are people (maybe more). There are also people who lose (or have never had) hope and purpose. Many of these people are at risk of suicide or doing very dangerous or bad things. Some people are born into incredibly wretched circumstances, and many of them find hope and a way to continue, but some don't. We might think of those who are susceptible to terrorism or violent religiosity as particularly nihilistic people -- they latch onto extreme views as a source of meaning, perhaps because ordinary sources of meaning aren't cutting it, or aren't available.

So, I don't think the question of whether lack of free will and meaning are compatible in the broadest sense is that interesting. The answer seems to be obviously yes. But some philosophers (including Dan Dennett, as I wrote years ago), are worried about what would happen if we tell most people that they don't have free will. There seems to be something important about seeing your life as your own, and as determined by the choices you make in a way that is in some sense "of your own making" and "up to you", rather than already determined by the physics of the universe. This is what Nietzsche writes about in a lot of his work on nihilism: if God is dead, then Christian morality should go with it too, and then we're left with no source of purpose and no clear overwhelming reason to check our behaviour. His answer is the existentialist one: make our own meaning, make our own morality, etc., so that we don't wallow in self-absorbed nihilism. But I think this can't quite work. This view relies (as Sartre argues) on seeing one's self as free to make oneself. If we have no free will, then we are not absolutely free to make ourselves. The extent to which we can find meaning and purpose in life depends on how our lives have gone, and who we are, and what our brains are like. Some people are attracted to tradition and religion and family, or sports, or art, or intellectual pursuits. But it's not clear that everyone can do this.

The harder problems seem to me to arise when we think about how to change people's minds about what matters most. Moral and political views are very important, even for people who don't consider themselves political. Socially, huge amounts of harm are done when people find meaning in hateful ideology or destructive impulses. Governments, NGOs, priests, parents, teachers, social workers, etc., are all concerned with trying to prevent and solve social ills, and aid victims of bad actions. If there is no free will, then it starts to look very difficult to actually change anything, since if something changes, it had to change, and if it doesn't change, it couldn't, regardless of what we want. What we need to try to understand is what to do with benevolent desires in a deterministic world, where we might see how things will necessarily go (and either see that we will succeed, or see that we can't succeed), or can't see how things will go (and so be unable to know for sure how they will go). The latter seems to be the best hope for doing things we think are important, regardless of how the universe is determined to go. But this would mean it's better to be ignorant about the future? That can't be right. It can't be that ignorance about the future is the source of motivation for people to try to do good things in the world. Surely the better we understand things, the better chance we have of making them go best. This seems right, and yet in many cases the better we understand a situation, the more we realize that there is nothing we can do. And what should we do then? Nothing? Doesn't this seem nihilistic?
Yes, it seems nihilistic.

**************************

On the question of neuroscience: I agree that there is very little well understood about the human brain. But it's not true that we don't understand anything about it, and it's not true that we're just guessing. Just because there haven't been any "breakthroughs" in certain specific neurological conditions, by your estimation, doesn't mean we don't understand aspects of those conditions very well. We know, for instance, that L-dopa helps Parkinson's patients retain some mobility, for some time, but unfortunately L-dopa doesn't work forever. The lack of a better treatment doesn't mean we're just guessing, it just means that it's really difficult. It's interesting that your last sentence suggests the inverse of your first one: in the first, you admit that free will doesn't necessarily mean we can't have meaning in life; in the second, you seem to suggest that our seemingly intractable ignorance about the brain makes it pointless to continue to try to understand it -- in your words: 'it's too difficult'. But is that right? Why?

I was taking things to the extreme when I wrote that I think we should shut down the research. We shouldn't shut down the research completely, somebody should try to understand the brain otherwise we're certainly not going to get anywhere of course, but I'm glad its' not me. I think neuroscience is mainly guess work, these scientists think they know way, way more than they actually do. Maybe its a good thing if we never get anywhere close to understanding the brain, because if we did understand it really well, it would of course open several very scary cans of worms but at the same time it would suck if we're never going to be able to treat the before-mentioned diseases.

But being a neuroscientist must be a very frustrating job because how do you ever begin to understand just the basics? You can't see a thought, or a memory or an illness like depression, so what do you do? Look at MRI scans all day long? ”Our test person is smiling and says he's happy, and look! The part of the brain next to the amygdala is active. That's probably the center for happiness”. Come on, that's not science.

The L-dopa could be just a placebo effect like you, probably, see with lots of people taking antidepressants. Unless over 90% of the people taking it get better, then there's probably something to it.

But when all that's said I don't see a conflict when I write that I think that having no free will and having meaning in ones life can go hand in hand and write that neuroscientists should shut down research (like I said, it shouldn't be taken completely literally) because they probably waste their time. If I think a person is doing something stupid it's ok for me to point it out and think that we can have no free will and have meaning in our lives at the same time.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#223 Post by mockbee » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:22 pm

Matz wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:25 am

But when all that's said I don't see a conflict when I write that I think that having no free will and having meaning in ones life can go hand in hand and write that neuroscientists should shut down research (like I said, it shouldn't be taken completely literally) because they probably waste their time. If I think a person is doing something stupid it's ok for me to point it out and think that we can have no free will and have meaning in our lives at the same time.
Matz, you can think whatever you want, but it is "a conflict."

I think you are completely disregarding the elemental function of striving. Without the intent to strive, there is nothing. :noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#224 Post by Hype » Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:13 pm

It's a bit of a side-track, but I don't have time to indulge the bigger issues at the moment:
The L-dopa could be just a placebo effect like you, probably, see with lots of people taking antidepressants. Unless over 90% of the people taking it get better, then there's probably something to it.
Your point has a general plausibility because of how causal attributions work in medicine, but in this case it's absolutely false. The mechanism of action for the molecule is well understood, and its clinical effect is profound. I also want to suggest being a bit more careful making off the cuff statistical claims like your last sentence. That's not how clinical significance is determined, and it would be a bit absurd if it were, since "get better" is not even necessarily the point of a drug, and is a vague description. Medical research of this sort generally requires clear concepts like measurable reduction of some level of some protein or hormone or whatever.

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#225 Post by Matz » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:52 pm

mockbee wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:22 pm
Matz wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:25 am

But when all that's said I don't see a conflict when I write that I think that having no free will and having meaning in ones life can go hand in hand and write that neuroscientists should shut down research (like I said, it shouldn't be taken completely literally) because they probably waste their time. If I think a person is doing something stupid it's ok for me to point it out and think that we can have no free will and have meaning in our lives at the same time.
Matz, you can think whatever you want, but it is "a conflict."

I think you are completely disregarding the elemental function of striving. Without the intent to strive, there is nothing. :noclue:
You're probably right. I'm out of my depth here, the only philosophy book I own is Philosophy for dummies, and I haven't even read all of it, you two better handle this free will stuff. I'll go back to commenting on Dave's hair and stuff

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#226 Post by Hype » Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:15 am

Wait, don't go! You don't need a PhD to have good ideas about these questions!

I think I basically agree that of course you can reasonably tell someone they're doing something stupid even if there's no free will. Sometimes lettting someone know that they're fucking up can help them not do that anymore, and if you're compelled to let them know, you'll do it, even if it doesn't do any good. No problem. :nod:

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#227 Post by mockbee » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:13 am

Yes.

Matz, you made me think. That is good. I think we regulate each other, and that is important. Just because someone has a strong opinion about something doesnt mean they're right. It goes both ways. I think always it goes both ways. Of course, there are times when someone is MORE right, but there is always something to be learned, and everyone can/should be challenged.

I actually agree with you about being very skeptical about neuroscience. ESPECIALLY, when it comes to Psychiatry and manipulating brain chemistry. I have been prescribed anti-depressants in the past, and they did me no good, in fact they were quite harmful. Maybe I had a bad doc, who knows, but I found that cognitive therapy with no drugs, not even natural suppliments, worked best for me. Now I know this is the case for many, many other people and I have a strong opinion that anti-depressants are WAY over prescribed for a multitude of reasons. Just look at Purdue Pharma.......yikes. Similar has to be true for Pfizer and and all the other big ones. Profit is number one, at the expense of people. However, they do a world of good for some people at well. A balance.

I'm just trying to say.. Skepticism is good. Its very good. Just be sure to leave the door slightly open for compromising some opinions. My impression is that you, Matz, either have the door wide open or bolted shut.....I am guilty of that sometimes too, and have to work on it.

:wave:

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7838
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#228 Post by SR » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:23 am

For sure, keep it coming Matz...Hype is right; you don't need a PhD to weigh in. In fact, I have been arguing for years that academics live to impress other very smart academics to the exclusion of their serviceable utility in everyday life. I actually think its a massive disservice to culture and societal progress. This anti science and anti intellectual ("elite" bullshit) groundswell of trump supporters fawning over this dotard is pretty clear evidence of this.

But, you're still wrong on Froosh on SA :wave:

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#229 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:31 am

I've just been reading this thread again with great interest.

Hype, what do you say to someone who states that godless morality doesn't exist? Is there any good reading on this that doesn't require 30 years of philosophical study?

And what do you make of this?


User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#230 Post by Hype » Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:15 am

Bandit72 wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:31 am
I've just been reading this thread again with great interest.

Hype, what do you say to someone who states that godless morality doesn't exist? Is there any good reading on this that doesn't require 30 years of philosophical study?

And what do you make of this?

I don't think moral values literally exist. But I think it's important that living things value things, themselves, each other, projects... and so on.

Have you watched "The Good Place"? One character, Chidi, is a moral philosopher, who actually references some real good stuff (Scanlon's work among other things). You could watch that, and maybe even read Scanlon's book. This one might be good, too: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/im ... 2AE5967E0A

As for that video... eh... it's okay, I guess. A bit dry... and probably a bit too confident / oversimplified. If it makes you think, then that's good. I think there are real deep problems here that have real practical consequences. But I don't have much in the way of answers... :dunce:

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#231 Post by Bandit72 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:42 am

Thanks! Will look into those this weekend.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Free will is an illusion....?

#232 Post by Bandit72 » Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:46 am

I am writing a paper for hopeful eventual publication that actually deals with the claim that 'everything is explicable' (or 'every thing can be given an explanation for why it is or is not the case'), so this stuff is sort of already in the front of my mind anyway. The connection between causes, explanations, and human action is imho one of the most important things lawyers, judges, politicians, police, psychiatrists, parents, etc., should be thinking about.
Did this ever get published? I'd like to read.

Post Reply