Hacker News Reader

You can't really define Free Will as something different and then claim it exists. Free Will has an agreed upon definition.

Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation.

Free Will is completely absent in a enormous number of circumstances. Are you free to stop understanding English? Are you free to not be persuaded by a logical argument you comprehend? When presented with a donut while on a diet are you free to determine your level of will power to resist?

Free will conditioned on chaos theory is just jargon and ventures into "not even wrong" territory. If free will is sensitive to initial conditions then actors evolving in time are not free to choose their trajectories.

If your happiness is conditioned on incorrect beliefs about your essential nature and capacities then you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong.

Your response may not be as productive as you intended, it sounds a little dismissive.

>>Free Will has an agreed upon definition

It may have definitions, but used in isolation it's actually ambiguous as hell. Even between science and philosophy the discussions can be pretty divergent.

>>you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong

Quite wrong I would say. Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us, and hopefully for those around us.

If a person can lead a happier life and do the most good for others only by not accepting a scientific principle then I would not discourage them from that.

In fact, if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it.

Some of us are just made in a way we can only worship at the alter of objective truth no matter what the cost or the pain. I don't think there's any way to change that, but I certainly don't want anyone to join the club at the expense of the most important goal we have.

>if I could somehow unbelieve some science and be guaranteed my family would be happier I might consider it

I don't see how this can be defended. It commits you potentially dangerous and unethical behavior.

Suppose you were to unbelieve, "africans are humans." By not holding this belief you might be quite able to happily own and mistreat slaves.

This example is extreme, but the point I'm making still stands. If ones happiness is contingent on holding false beliefs then what value is the happiness. How can self-deception through pleasure seeking mental states be elevated in opposition to engaging with objective reality?

Seeking pleasure certainly does not ensure ethical behavior and in many cases explicitly conflicts with acting ethically.

>Our common goal is to interpret our existence in a way that provides the best life possible for us

I'm very wary of interpretation motivated for pleasure as opposed to clarity and truth.

Your stance is completely true. In theory.

In practice the situation is very different, because noone knows (or has any way of knowing) what objective reality is, and whether one's beliefs are "false" or not. Yes, we do have the scientific method and some ways of trying to figure things out, but ultimately it's a question of choice of right mindset. The right framework. An experiment might get some data within a framework. It cannot give you a framework.

With the belief "africans are humans" example, we might all agree on that. However on the beliefs like "if it feels hard to learn this skill, it just means I'm not cut out for this" versus "I can learn anything, universe is friendly and will ultimately give me what I need, I'll keep trying to learn this" - something like that will give you hard time if you're doing solely by scientific method and if you think that you can even know whether the belief is truthful to some "objective reality" or not. Both of the stances can be shown to be "truth" or "false", and they they will yield so different results in the personal life of a human that chooses to acquire them. Is believing one of them is self-deception? Maybe it's believing the other that is self-deception?

>> I'm very wary of interpretation motivated for pleasure as opposed to clarity and truth.

And it's very interesting how that has been working out for you? In most people that I've studied it does not lead to a particularly happy life. (Not just stable, but happy.)

I think the core issue here is that in the internal world of humans' souls, there is no such thing as "clarity and truth". It does not work that way. Something like pleasure (but concepts of love, compassion, greatfulness, and others can give even better results) are just better suited. Because in the areas where they are used (the happiness and enlightenment) those things are just easier to find. Concepts of "truths" on the other hand are notoriously elusive and in many ways simply non-existant. What is your life, a tragedy of stoicism? A pointless nihilistic movie? An enlightened miracle? Which one is the "truth"?

Ignorance is not a commitment to unethical behavior. Ignorance has certainly been used to justify evil but it's arguable how much of that justification was merely a means to an end.

For thousands of years there have been people who choose good and people who choose evil. I believe quite a bit of the people who have chosen evil did so while knowing at some level it was wrong, regardless of how much scientific knowledge the had.

There is a lot of discussion about definitions of Free Will. If you define which one of them you are operating upon, then perhaps we can continue discussion. So far I'm not sure what you're trying to debate :/.

I am assuming your full definition is not "Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation.", because that definition has a lot of problems: How do you define "same" situation? In our life there are no two cases which can be called "same situation". There are no 2 same humans, there are no 2 same time instants, there are no two same life situations, etc.? So what is the point of having this definition? At the very least, it's very non-scientific?

On the contrary, I find that seeing myself as only a chemical machine is a very freeing experience that leads to greater happiness and contentment.

I find it strange that you can talk about concepts of 'you' being 'factually' correct or incorrect when there are very few established facts about consciousness or self - it all seems like mostly open philosophical debate from what I've seen.

I don't think you are necessarily in disagreement with him.

The fact we are machines doesn't mean the circuits to video game analogy is incorrect, in fact I think it's apt.

If physics is about understanding the fundamental nature of matter and energy then why do we study chemistry? Because they are different abstractions that yield different insights.

So the point is thinking about consciousness may be more useful that thinking about chemicals even if we understand some of the low level mechanics.

Yes, "factual" was not the best word choice. "Factual" in that context was something like "having obvious empirical and experiential basis".

I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However:

>>"Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality.

It is a scientific concept! I agree it's not always about science, and the concept has different implications depending on context. But it has it's place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approache...

>>can very well fit with all of the science that is known

Let's be clear here. There is no scientific consensus that free will exists, however you want to define it. Aliens landing in my backyard last night could also fit with all of the science that is known. So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless.

>>[good video by Jordan Peterson reconciling science and religion]

I may take a look if I can build up the courage to be disappointed, but it seems strange to try and reconcile the natural with the supernatural.

What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans.

>> So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. My claim was referring to the following: many "science" people have a hard time developing their spiritual side, because of what they learn about the scientific models of the universe. Lacking proper guidance to place those models in proper places in their mind, they often end up believing (even subconsciously) that believing in "science" collides with with having a spiritual experience. I was pointing out that there are very good ways to combine the two. But yes you have a point and I get it.

>> What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans. There is nothing wrong with anything ;). But seriously, I think that reconciling some parts of those just leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of life. Not only being able to see either a particle or a wave, but even the deeper underlying phenomena combining the both.