Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:48 pm**

The gut reaction is: Of course, I am free to do anything I want, why is it even a question?

The argument against free will goes something like this:

You and all the actions you take are a product of your heredity and environment, neither of which are under your control. You may think you are making a conscious choice to say, pick up or not pick up a glass of water. But, non-free will proponents argue, the decision was already made before you took the action. The concept that you are the architect of your actions is an illusion. You cannot create yourself, so there is no such thing as a self-made man.

This line of reasoning also means no one is ultimately responsible for their own actions. Criminals can be locked up to keep them from hurting others, but punishment is meaningless.

Even such proponents concede that it is virtually impossible to live your life without the illusion of free will, but it does not in fact exist, and the literature on this is quite extensive. It is definitely counter intuitive, and somewhat repugnant to think we are all just automatons going through the motions.

You are allowed to "choose" to change your vote.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:41 pm**

So what you are saying is posting this really wasn't your choice?

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:28 pm**

I'm trying to figure out how it fits under R&P.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:47 pm**

There's a religious aspect to the question. If there is no free will, then the universe is a predetermined clockwork. And there is some scientific evidence that free will is an illusion: The nerve impulses are already underway before you consciously decide to pick up that glass of water.

This question also impinges on the nature of the future, and by implication the feasibility of time travel: unless the future is already set, we cannot travel there. Free will would require an infinitude of parallel universes, each of them a possible future. If the future is as frozen as the past, then there can be no free will.

I voted Maybe because thinking about the nature of time makes my brain hurt. I want to believe in free will. I don't like the idea of predetermination. But I honestly don't know.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:05 pm**

I have to assume that there is. The actual answerable is unknowable, which leaves us with two choices: Assume that there is not, or assume that there is.

If we assume that there is not, then the concept of responsibility becomes irrelevant. Society, law, and achievement become irrelevant.

If we assume that there is, then the world becomes a better place.

I choose the latter.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:20 pm**

The more I read about parasites and the microbiome, no.

Posted: **Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:15 pm**

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:47 pm There's a religious aspect to the question. If there is no free will, then the universe is a predetermined clockwork.

This. I debated posting in EBG, but figured if the conversation got into this area, it would be moved to R&P anyway.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:07 am**

Free will is the result of some of those QED equations rattling around in your neurons and synapses collapsing on the less-probable outcome.

Sort of like the last presidential election in the US. There, now it's R&P.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:50 am**

I'm not sure how you can even reconcile a belief in cause and effect with a belief in free will; they contradict each other. How can a decision even have choices? You're going to choose what your brain wants to choose, and your brain's desires are based entirely upon your DNA and your past experiences. Those past experiences were determined by other past experiences, which were determined by other past experiences still, and so on until the first bits of matter were conceived from the primordial energy from whence it all came.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:51 pm**

Can someone tell me which way to vote?

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:05 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:51 pm Can someone tell me which way to vote?

Yes, but it will cost you.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:48 pm**

The universe has dictated that I believe in free will.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:50 pm**

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:51 pm Can someone tell me which way to vote?

Someone already has.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:00 pm**

Nope, either the universe is causal or not. Free will is an illusion. What's interesting to me, is that the colony of singular cells that make up me were able to evolve in such a way that they can create an illusion of free will and morality to increase their own Survival. The universe is a weird place.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:31 pm**

At a minimum, we clearly have the illusion of free will. Does it matter beyond that?

You cannot tell whether your actions are an unavoidable chemical response or not, so why does it matter?

I also don’t think that it’s A or B. We are clearly able to make decisions within a band that is probably set by a combination of DNA and experience.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:52 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:31 pm
I also don’t think that it’s A or B. We are clearly able to make decisions within a band that is probably set by a combination of DNA and experience.

Sure. I'm feeling a mite peckish. I can choose to eat a snack, or not.

Maybe my body is making that decision for me and only letting me think that I chose. Fine, I can choose between a handful of potato chips, a few nuts, or some crackers.

Maybe my body is specifically craving chips on a subconscious level. Fine. I can choose between Utz and Cape Cod, regular or ruffle, plain or flavored. Those choices were determined by what the store had in stock, what was on sale last week, and what coupons I had. Once you get down to the level of shoveling some chips into my maw, though, it's hard to argue that Utz was preordained.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:35 pm**

Kraken wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:31 pm
I also don’t think that it’s A or B. We are clearly able to make decisions within a band that is probably set by a combination of DNA and experience.
Sure. I'm feeling a mite peckish. I can choose to eat a snack, or not.

Maybe my body is making that decision for me and only letting me think that I chose. Fine, I can choose between a handful of potato chips, a few nuts, or some crackers.

Maybe my body is specifically craving chips on a subconscious level. Fine. I can choose between Utz and Cape Cod, regular or ruffle, plain or flavored. Those choices were determined by what the store had in stock, what was on sale last week, and what coupons I had. Once you get down to the level of shoveling some chips into my maw, though, it's hard to argue that Utz was preordained.

I think RM is right, it doesn't matter and isn't worth worrying about, but if everything is just really complicated physics, you could no more change what's going happen than cast a fireball.
It's either physics or magic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm**

This thread ends in Wachowski, doesn't it?

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:55 pm**

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:35 pm
Kraken wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:31 pm
I also don’t think that it’s A or B. We are clearly able to make decisions within a band that is probably set by a combination of DNA and experience.
Sure. I'm feeling a mite peckish. I can choose to eat a snack, or not.

Maybe my body is making that decision for me and only letting me think that I chose. Fine, I can choose between a handful of potato chips, a few nuts, or some crackers.

Maybe my body is specifically craving chips on a subconscious level. Fine. I can choose between Utz and Cape Cod, regular or ruffle, plain or flavored. Those choices were determined by what the store had in stock, what was on sale last week, and what coupons I had. Once you get down to the level of shoveling some chips into my maw, though, it's hard to argue that Utz was preordained.
I think RM is right, it doesn't matter and isn't worth worrying about, but if everything is just really complicated physics, you could no more change what's going happen than cast a fireball.
It's either physics or magic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Consciousness is the wild card. Without knowing what consciousness is, science can't answer that.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:35 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm This thread ends in Wachowski, doesn't it?

Baked noodles can be delicious. Especially when you cook them with love.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:38 pm**

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:55 pm
Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:35 pm
Kraken wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:31 pm
I also don’t think that it’s A or B. We are clearly able to make decisions within a band that is probably set by a combination of DNA and experience.
Sure. I'm feeling a mite peckish. I can choose to eat a snack, or not.

Maybe my body is making that decision for me and only letting me think that I chose. Fine, I can choose between a handful of potato chips, a few nuts, or some crackers.

Maybe my body is specifically craving chips on a subconscious level. Fine. I can choose between Utz and Cape Cod, regular or ruffle, plain or flavored. Those choices were determined by what the store had in stock, what was on sale last week, and what coupons I had. Once you get down to the level of shoveling some chips into my maw, though, it's hard to argue that Utz was preordained.
I think RM is right, it doesn't matter and isn't worth worrying about, but if everything is just really complicated physics, you could no more change what's going happen than cast a fireball.
It's either physics or magic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Consciousness is the wild card. Without knowing what consciousness is, science can't answer that.

Which brings me back to my question from a long time ago, how/why am *I* me?

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:42 pm**

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:55 pmConsciousness is the wild card. Without knowing what consciousness is, science can't answer that.

Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare that seeing is believing!

Also, go read this book - if they'll let you.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:45 pm**

Trent Steel wrote: Which brings me back to my question from a long time ago, how/why am *I* me?

The pod cast: stuff to blow your mind had a really great two part discussion of the bicameral mind. And while it sounded like the theory is generally considered wrong as a whole, parts have had longevity.

Basically, consciousness is a byproduct of increasingly complex society and language skills, and didn't develop until only shortly prior to the golden age of Greece. Prior to that ,instead of thoughts of self, the voice in our head was considered the voices of the gods, literally.
Fascinating stuff.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:16 pm**

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:42 pm let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:22 pm**

Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:45 pm
Trent Steel wrote: Which brings me back to my question from a long time ago, how/why am *I* me?
The pod cast: stuff to blow your mind had a really great two part discussion of the bicameral mind. And while it sounded like the theory is generally considered wrong as a whole, parts have had longevity.

Basically, consciousness is a byproduct of increasingly complex society and language skills, and didn't develop until only shortly prior to the golden age of Greece. Prior to that ,instead of thoughts of self, the voice in our head was considered the voices of the gods, literally.
Fascinating stuff.

I've never followed this debate closely, but I thought the broad consensus was that Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was pretty much just unsubstantiated speculation.

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:29 pm**

Holman wrote:
Combustible Lemur wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:45 pm
Trent Steel wrote: Which brings me back to my question from a long time ago, how/why am *I* me?
The pod cast: stuff to blow your mind had a really great two part discussion of the bicameral mind. And while it sounded like the theory is generally considered wrong as a whole, parts have had longevity.

Basically, consciousness is a byproduct of increasingly complex society and language skills, and didn't develop until only shortly prior to the golden age of Greece. Prior to that ,instead of thoughts of self, the voice in our head was considered the voices of the gods, literally.
Fascinating stuff.
I've never followed this debate closely, but I thought the broad consensus was that Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was pretty much just unsubstantiated speculation.

Probably, the podcast just explored the idea and spent a good time at the beginning disclaiming any actual support as a true theory.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:30 pm**

It got a big boost from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, but that's just fan stuff.

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:12 am**

I clicked "yes" but I do not know if I chose to click "yes" or that was just what I was meant to click.

You guys are making my head hurt. I shouldn't be thinking this hard on a Monday morning.

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:24 am**

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:31 pm At a minimum, we clearly have the illusion of free will. Does it matter beyond that?

Agreed.

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:35 am**

Since we can't know and since common sense strongly supports the belief in free will, what's gained by presuming we don't have it?

Even more, I can think of all kinds of bad results that likely follow from an ideology rejecting free will. Since we believe ourselves free to believe in free will and to prevent those results, we ought to do so.

It's kind of Pascally.

Posted: **Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:49 am**

I'm not sure, but I do believe in

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:01 pm**

Rush wrote:I will choose a path that's clear.
I will choose free will.

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:47 pm**

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:35 am Since we can't know and since common sense strongly supports the belief in free will, what's gained by presuming we don't have it?

Even more, I can think of all kinds of bad results that likely follow from an ideology rejecting free will. Since we believe ourselves free to believe in free will and to prevent those results, we ought to do so.

It's kind of Pascally.

You Pascally Wabbit! I take it you are referring to Pascal's Wager, which essentially says it is rational to believe in God, since it costs you nothing, but if you reject belief you are risking eternal damnation.

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:55 pm**

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:47 pm
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:35 am Since we can't know and since common sense strongly supports the belief in free will, what's gained by presuming we don't have it?

Even more, I can think of all kinds of bad results that likely follow from an ideology rejecting free will. Since we believe ourselves free to believe in free will and to prevent those results, we ought to do so.

It's kind of Pascally.
You Pascally Wabbit! I take it you are referring to Pascal's Wager, which essentially says it is rational to believe in God, since it costs you nothing, but if you reject belief you are risking eternal damnation.

Belief in God isn't free, since it is coupled to an implicit requirement for you to conform to a framework of behavioral constraints in order to avoid that pesky eternal damnation.

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:59 pm**

Max Peck wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:55 pm
Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:47 pm
Holman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:35 am Since we can't know and since common sense strongly supports the belief in free will, what's gained by presuming we don't have it?

Even more, I can think of all kinds of bad results that likely follow from an ideology rejecting free will. Since we believe ourselves free to believe in free will and to prevent those results, we ought to do so.

It's kind of Pascally.
You Pascally Wabbit! I take it you are referring to Pascal's Wager, which essentially says it is rational to believe in God, since it costs you nothing, but if you reject belief you are risking eternal damnation.
Belief in God isn't free, since it is coupled to an implicit requirement for you to conform to a framework of behavioral constraints in order to avoid that pesky eternal damnation.

The purest form of Pascal's wager is belief in a relaxed and tolerant God who will save you for your belief, expecting little more than what you already accept as the contours of living rightly.

This might actually be the definition of most Western religious/spiritual sensibility in the modern age.

Posted: **Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:53 pm**

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:47 pmYou Pascally Wabbit! I take it you are referring to Pascal's Wager, which essentially says it is rational to believe in God, since it costs you nothing, but if you reject belief you are risking eternal damnation.

Is it really belief if you're just hedging your bets to save your ass though?

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:41 am**

I'd have to say that would be the most insulting form of 'devotion' if I were a deity.

If the devotion is all that matters, even if it's lip service, then it's just a numbers racket. All the different gods, all lined up, and bragging about the size of their flocks.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:53 am**

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:41 am I'd have to say that would be the most insulting form of 'devotion' if I were a deity.

If the devotion is all that matters, even if it's lip service, then it's just a numbers racket. All the different gods, all lined up, and bragging about the size of their flocks.

I've never studied it, but I've read in passing that Pascal is largely misunderstood in that the "wager" was never intended to be a sufficient justification for belief.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:16 pm**

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:41 am I'd have to say that would be the most insulting form of 'devotion' if I were a deity.

If the devotion is all that matters, even if it's lip service, then it's just a numbers racket. All the different gods, all lined up, and bragging about the size of their flocks.

David Eddings made a living on that premise.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:47 pm**

Yes, because donald Trump is actually president of the usa.

Octopus Overlords

Do you believe in free will?

Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?

Re: Do you believe in free will?