1041
Small talk is an essential skill
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
1041 points (93.8% liked)
People Twitter
5304 readers
1927 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The meaning of free will is exactly what people are discussing when they talk about whether or not it exists. What does and what doesn't count as free will is what's up for discussion.
I think free will as a concept is kinda stupid I've yet to talk to anyone who can actually give it a solid definition that isn't something like "it means we can do what we want"
Either your decision is based on your personality, meaning it's not free it's a set calculation based on genetics and accumulated experience or it's completely random meaning it's not will at all
Free will as a philosophical concept has less to do with "I can do what I want" and more to do with "I have control over my actions/thoughts." This gets into all sorts of interesting corners, such as:
And so on. There are some interesting discussions there at the edges, like at what point AI gains free will. That can have very real moral implications (i.e. when does AI get personhood?), so it's not just idle chat.
Oh for sure it's a good thing to talk about, that's just my viewpoint on it
If you just start talking to some random person about it, then you're unlikely to get a high-quality conversation; because most of the stuff people will say about it is inane or obvious or obviously wrong, etc. But there are definitely interesting discussions and thoughts that can be had about it. I've had countless garbage conversations about, and a handful of good ones. Probably my favoutite take is from Daniel Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves". He is very careful to build up a strong picture of what is it that we're talking about and what the 'obvious' problems are, before then carefully and systematically showing those things aren't really problems with what we were talking about anyway. Before reading that book, I was hard line in the camp of "obviously free will doesn't exist; that's a scientific fact"; but after reading it... well, I'd now say "it depends exactly what you mean, but probably the free will you're talking about does exist.".
I think conversation with anyone about that kind of thing is good as long as they're willing to engaged. If they have thought about it you get a different viewpoint, if they haven't you give them something to think about
I don't really take a stance either way on the free will thing because I think it's a made up concept whose existence entirely depends on your own definition of the word
Unless you believe in some kind of immutable soul that's separate from the physical body and brain that is in charge of decisions somehow I suppose
Can your free will be restricted in any way? Someone in prison has less agency than you or I, if that means his free will is restricted then we have more free will than he does. Therefore it exists.
I would say his free will is not restricted
His decision making options are restricted but those decisions are just as much a product of his past as the ones we make out of prison, he's still acting entirely based on external and internal forces
I'll put it this way, if you were to make an exact copy of our universe at this moment and watch both of them play out, he'd almost certainly make the exact same decision both times, same applies to someone out of prison
My point isn't that people don't practically have agency in the decisions they make, because they obviously do. We just don't know all the forces that influence that decision and it's not useful to think about that, so we call it free will
What is free will if not decision making? I understand people who say free will doesn't exist as saying we don't actually make decisions, it's all decided for us by some other factor.
The ability to predict things does not negate free will. If I put a ball on a hill it will roll down because it has no free will, and I am able to predict that. If I offer you $20 or a punch in the face I am able to predict that you will choose the $20, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist because you could choose the punch in the face.
I am 100% sure any ball will roll down the hill 100% of the time. I am only 99.99% sure that any person will choose the $20 100% of the time, because humans have more free will than a ball.
This is certainly one interpretation and the one I generally use but it's still an an abstraction based on sentiment
Chatgpt can make decisions based on past "knowledge" and external stimuli, but we don't consider it to have free will
You could say that's only because it can't do anything without human input but we can't do anything without input from our senses