Free Will

[FuckYoCouch]

New experiments show that disbelief in free will decreases helping behaviours and increases aggression.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/01/do-you-believe-in-free-will.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

People have similiar arguments about religious belief, but it's still incorrect. Why should someone believe a falsehood simply for convinence?

[ZeroNowhere]

New experiments show that disbelief in free will decreases helping behaviours and increases aggression.
I don't think it's even possible to show that.


The criminal justice system is built on the idea that people can choose whether to obey the law or not, therefore people who don't obey should be punished.
Yes, that is why the criminal 'justice' system is broken, and not enough people want a scientific justice system based on reducing crime rather than, say, "EVIL BASTARD I HOPE YOU ROT!!!!"


But a disbelief in free will is not only repugnant, it's also dangerous for society. If we don't have free will, a perverse kind of anarchism emerges, one which seems to encourage us to act any way we choose.
I don't mind anarchism, do you?


After all if we don't have free will then we're not to blame for anything we do.
That is correct. This has not encouraged me to go around killing people yet, however.


Compatibilists emphasise this idea that we have free will because we could have chosen to do otherwise, even if we didn't.
This is why 'compatibilists' are generally jokes. Either that or they use 'free will' to mean that we could have done otherwise, if we were different people at the time... Which is somewhat strange.


It doesn't solve the dilemma of determinism but at least it provides a stick with which to fend it off.
A stick as incorporeal as the 'soul', perhaps?

Anyways, biased researchers and rather silly tests don't really bode well for credibility. For example, I don't believe in a 'soul', and I'm still not especially aggressive or unhelpful. Either way, to quote De Leon, "Socialism moves with its feet firmly planted in the ground and its head not lost in the clouds; it takes science by the hand, asks her to lead and goes whithersoever she points. It does not take science by the hand, saying: “I shall follow you to the end of the road if it please me.” No! It takes her by the hand and says: “Whithersoever thou leadest, thither am I bound to go.” The Socialists, consequently, move as intelligent men; we do not mutiny because, instead of having wings, we have arms, and cannot fly as we would wish." In other words... So?

Also, if a belief in free will is evolutionary determined... Isn't that determinist? In which case we can't believe in free will, because the argument for it is determinist, but this makes us unnaturally angry and unhelpful, and therefore...

[FuckYoCouch]

I don't think it's even possible to show that.


Yes, that is why the criminal 'justice' system is broken, and not enough people want a scientific justice system based on reducing crime rather than, say, "EVIL BASTARD I HOPE YOU ROT!!!!"


I don't mind anarchism, do you?


That is correct. This has not encouraged me to go around killing people yet, however.


This is why 'compatibilists' are generally jokes. Either that or they use 'free will' to mean that we could have done otherwise, if we were different people at the time... Which is somewhat strange.


A stick as incorporeal as the 'soul', perhaps?

Anyways, biased researchers and rather silly tests don't really bode well for credibility. For example, I don't believe in a 'soul', and I'm still not especially aggressive or unhelpful. Either way, to quote De Leon, "Socialism moves with its feet firmly planted in the ground and its head not lost in the clouds; it takes science by the hand, asks her to lead and goes whithersoever she points. It does not take science by the hand, saying: “I shall follow you to the end of the road if it please me.” No! It takes her by the hand and says: “Whithersoever thou leadest, thither am I bound to go.” The Socialists, consequently, move as intelligent men; we do not mutiny because, instead of having wings, we have arms, and cannot fly as we would wish." In other words... So?

Also, if a belief in free will is evolutionary determined... Isn't that determinist? In which case we can't believe in free will, because the argument for it is determinist, but this makes us unnaturally angry and unhelpful, and therefore...


the only real comment i have on your post, is i think what the article was saying about anarchy and acting in any way, is that the moral part of a Nihilist life goes out the window, and they don't have a reason to do anything. even act Civil, or follow laws of the commune even, making them a non functioning part of even a Communist society. maybe? :-\

[Decolonize The Left]

New experiments show that disbelief in free will decreases helping behaviours and increases aggression.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/01/do-you-believe-in-free-will.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

Simply an absurd article because:
1) The whole free will debate is faulty.
and
2) This is the equivalent to the old "atheists don't have a morality" nonsense.

- August

[ZeroNowhere]

I just looked back at the methodology of the experiment, and it seems that, apparently:
1) Putting people into groups and making them read different things, with no choice in the matter (one could just as easily imagine this kind of thing happening due to coincidence), means that they shift their viewpoint on the 'free will' thing.
2) Their viewpoint on the 'free will' thing means that they will be more or less helpful, and more or less aggressive.
3) People who believe in 'free will' should refrain from citing this.
4) Determinism could mean that we actually get some good new thrash bands.

[Diagoras]

It is nonsense to claim that determinists are somehow less likely to help others, and something this article fails to adequately evince, if it would even be possible. I am a determinist. All that means is that I recognize that the neural firings in my brain, influenced directly by my environment and subjective experiences, act according to the laws of physics and chemistry, and not according to magic or Jesus juices. My awareness of myself is a product of cognitive complexity and brain development, and my actions are complex reactions and culminations of interacting stimuli. My recognition of the FACT of determinism does not hamper my felt desire to help others and correct perceived injustices. As far as the criminal justice system, it is ridiculous to have a punitive system of "justice" based upon religious assumptions when we know that they are false, and when these assumptions obviously have not worked to reduce evil or halt "crime" (in fact, usually increases it through recidivism of non-violent prisoners put into violent institutions... but, of course, one would have to accept the application of the laws of physics for humans for this to make sense).

[political_animal]

It is nonsense to claim that determinists are somehow less likely to help others, and something this article fails to adequately evince, if it would even be possible. I am a determinist. All that means is that I recognize that the neural firings in my brain, influenced directly by my environment and subjective experiences, act according to the laws of physics and chemistry, and not according to magic or Jesus juices. My awareness of myself is a product of cognitive complexity and brain development, and my actions are complex reactions and culminations of interacting stimuli. My recognition of the FACT of determinism does not hamper my felt desire to help others and correct perceived injustices. As far as the criminal justice system, it is ridiculous to have a punitive system of "justice" based upon religious assumptions when we know that they are false, and when these assumptions abviously have not worked to reduce evil or halt "crime" (in fact, usually increases it through recidivism of non-violent prisoners put into violent institutions... but, of course, one would have to accept the application of the laws of physics for humans for this to make sense).

Couldn't have put it better myself. :thumbup: I have always argued with my friends that if we could build a computer big enough, we could trace all of the decisions/experiences/feelings etc. and thus could predict the next step (would have to be one big fuck off computer though!). This doesn't mean that life is determined by some obscure being in the sky, merely that our own 'life past' determines our 'life future' in respect of how we perceive things and react to them.

[Diagoras]

Couldn't have put it better myself. :thumbup: I have always argued with my friends that if we could build a computer big enough, we could trace all of the decisions/experiences/feelings etc. and thus could predict the next step (would have to be one big fuck off computer though!). This doesn't mean that life is determined by some obscure being in the sky, merely that our own 'life past' determines our 'life future' in respect of how we perceive things and react to them.


Well, it may still be impossible to predict events and individual "choices" precisely, even assuming the ability to process all of the data with a tremendously powerful computer or network of computers, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (randomness at the quantum level). But still, randomness in quantum physics is no more "free will" than simple causality, and determinism still holds :cool:.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

and determinism still holds :cool:.

Strictly speaking that probabilistic, not deterministic. But it's still "there is no such thing as free will.".

Free will is fundamentally logically impossible, something is either completely predictable(deterministic), random based on different factors(probabilistic), or completely random.

There is no meaningful difference freewill creates from those three possibilities. Freewill is just an expression of common sense dualism in the end, since minds are extremely complex we divide them from easily predictable forms of matter.

[Cumannach]

Good points all. I know I'm gonna be hungry this time tomorrow if I don't eat. Do I not have free will? I know what I'll be thinking; "I'm starving." Have I no mind control?

[apathy maybe]

Symmetrically, if the criminal (or 't Hooft) has no free will, then neither does the judge (or Nobel committee). In a world without free will crime steal leads to jail, and brilliant physics still leads to Stockholm.
Which is a point that I've made before.

I've also made the point that this is a pointless discussion. We don't have free will, but it doesn't matter.