From c14445f83d5590ce55351e3d2d102bcf1946819a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vaibhav Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:30:24 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] Minor changes to free will article --- _posts/2019-06-18-free-will.md | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/_posts/2019-06-18-free-will.md b/_posts/2019-06-18-free-will.md index 0655d7e..96721b9 100644 --- a/_posts/2019-06-18-free-will.md +++ b/_posts/2019-06-18-free-will.md @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ An omniscient being is defined as an entity that knows everything there is to kn A seemingly obvious fallacy here is the assumption of such an omniscient being, but closer inspection proves otherwise. The information necessary to determine the future would still exist- irrespective of the existence of this being- and hence the world would remain deterministic, the only difference being the absence of an entity that can access this information. -However, there is the possibility of another tenuous flaw in the above line of reasoning. Another underlying assumption here is the existence of a complete description of how the universe functions. That is, the assumption that the continuum of states of the universe follows a certain set of laws which we call scientific principles, the search for which is the motivation of scientism and scientific research. However it is imperative to keep in mind that at the end of the day, every model we construct to explain the world around us will always be false. It is debatable to claim that we can know everything about a particular system when we ourselves are parts of it ( to develop an intuition, ponder on this - can an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity create a stone it cannot lift itself? That is, if we are the part of a physical system, governed by the laws that constitute its preamble, can we actually unravel every piece of information within that system?) . But some models are useful. Newtonian mechanics permit acceleration of systems to superluminal speeds, which is known to be impossible, but it does serve to predict cosmic motion to a beautiful extent. +However, there is the possibility of another tenuous flaw in the above line of reasoning. Another underlying assumption here is the existence of a complete description of how the universe functions. That is, the assumption that the continuum of states of the universe follows a certain set of laws which we call scientific principles, the search for which is the motivation of scientism and scientific research. However it is imperative to keep in mind that at the end of the day, every model we construct to explain the world around us will always be false. It is debatable to claim that we can know everything about a particular system when we ourselves are parts of it ( to develop an intuition, ponder on this - **can an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity create a stone it cannot lift itself?** That is, if we are the part of a physical system, governed by the laws that constitute its preamble, can we actually unravel every piece of information within that system?) . But some models are useful. Newtonian mechanics permit acceleration of systems to superluminal speeds, which is known to be impossible, but it does serve to predict cosmic motion to a beautiful extent. One such model is the non-intuitive behemoth called quantum mechanics. @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ The aforementioned philosophical stance on reality never fell into good favour w His vexation is decidedly not subtle. He agreed that we could not know the present in its entirety. However, he emphasised on the we. He believed that the extrapolation of the fact that we encounter indeterminacy everywhere in physics, to the generalisation that reality is inherently indeterministic, was too much of a stretch. The [hidden variable theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden-variable_theory){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[3], as it was called, took shape along this view - the claim that fundamentally everything ran smoothly along the tramlines set by deterministic one-to-one models that were tragically out of the reach of human comprehension (he went so far as to call some quantum phenomena ‘spooky’) at the moment. Essentially, there might be some fixed variables which lead to the probabilities of a system as claimed by quantum mechanics, which are hidden from us and what we only observe is the resulting probabilistic and unpredictable observations. His friends, Podolsky, and Rosen smiled in agreement. It was difficult to stand up to the goliath of the scientific world, and the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics remained nebulous for an excruciatingly long time. -Three tumultuous decades of passionate debates, discussions, fistfights and armchair rants passed before a resolution started to emerge and culminated in groundbreaking experiments and inequalities (beginning with John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem) that have [settled](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[4] the matter to a certain extent (though critics of these proofs still persist) . Any physical system is indeed determined by a probabilistic wave function. Einstein’s qualms with the quantum theory seemed to have been satiated. +Three tumultuous decades of passionate debates, discussions, fistfights and armchair rants passed before a resolution started to emerge and culminated in groundbreaking experiments and inequalities (beginning with John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem) that have [settled](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[4] the matter to a certain extent (though critics of these proofs still persist). **Any physical system is indeed *determined* by a probabilistic wave function.** Einstein’s qualms with the quantum theory seemed to have been satiated. But this still doesn’t mean that we have figured out the true nature of the world. @@ -68,13 +68,13 @@ If X’s inclination to go with B and the subsequent decision to go with B are r On the other hand, if the relation between X’s inclination and decision is indeterministic, then the chip in her head can not predetermine what her decision would be, it is only after her choice, that the chip will be activated, which would then be external coercion, and X would have encountered different options before being forced to go with one. Thus, X is morally responsible for what she chose, but encountered multiple options in the process of doing so.This again defeats Frankfurt’s argument.He had to prove moral culpability in absence of other options. -[Frankfurt’s Cases are not easy to comprehend in one read.](http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/frankfurt_cases.html){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[5] +**[Frankfurt’s Cases are not easy to comprehend in one read.](http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/frankfurt_cases.html){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[5]** ### The Significance Of This Debate It is fair, at this point, to ask the need for this unnecessary hurling of ponderous words and facts, when Average Joe blissfully smokes away his days, living under the illusion of free will. -The implications of the existence of free will or determinism are far-reaching and have been discussed for centuries. Free will is closely related with the concepts of moral culpability, responsibility, sin, praise, punishment etcetera. The problem is simple enough : if the world is deterministic, then nobody is responsible for anything they do - whatever happened could not have been changed, and the universe is merely following its predestined and immutable path. How then can we praise someone who does good for society, or equivalently punish someone who harms it? If someone microwaves their pet squirrel in a drunken haze, is he culpable for the painful squeals of the innocent rodent? He couldn’t have done otherwise in his stupor, but then he could’ve chosen not to drink to begin with. But isn’t his decision to inebriate himself determined by a complex rigamarole of social factors beyond his control that shaped his personality and hence his choices?. It is here that we encounter the principle of alternate possibilities again. A deterministic world would then render the concepts of praise and sin utterly meaningless. +The implications of the existence of free will or determinism are far-reaching and have been discussed for centuries. Free will is closely related with the concepts of moral culpability, responsibility, sin, praise, punishment etcetera. The problem is simple enough : **if the world is deterministic, then nobody is responsible for anything they do - whatever happened could not have been changed, and the universe is merely following its predestined and immutable path.** How then can we praise someone who does good for society, or equivalently punish someone who harms it? If someone microwaves their pet squirrel in a drunken haze, is he culpable for the painful squeals of the innocent rodent? He couldn’t have done otherwise in his stupor, but then he could’ve chosen not to drink to begin with. But isn’t his decision to inebriate himself determined by a complex rigamarole of social factors beyond his control that shaped his personality and hence his choices?. It is here that we encounter the principle of alternate possibilities again. A deterministic world would then render the concepts of praise and sin utterly meaningless. ### Why Though, Do Notions Of Praise And Sin Exist? @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ A common answer to this question is the idea of positive and negative reinforcem However, we do not ordinarily praise or blame other people because - as a result of engaging in careful deliberation - we have reached the conclusion that it would be in our best interests to do so. Rather, we praise or blame persons as natural and reactive expressions of visceral responses to what we see people do. It is, hence, safe to assert that we do not ordinarily pre-decide on the usefulness of a compliment or a word expressed out of chagrin. -A critique of a world of objectivity sheds more light on the consequences of accepting a deterministic universe .We would still incarcerate murderers and thieves, and we would still sing praises for acts of bravery and philanthropy. But these actions and words would have a different, hollower meaning than they have for us now. Our praises would not be expressions of admiration or esteem; our criticisms would not be expressions of indignation or resentment. Rather, they would be morsels of positive and negative reinforcement meted out in the hopes of altering the character of others in ways best suited to our needs. An act of heroism or of virtue would not inspire us to aim for higher and nobler ideals, nor would it evoke in us a reverence or admiration for its agent. At best we would think it is fortunate that people occasionally do perform acts like these. We would consider how nice it must be for the beneficiaries and decide to encourage similar behaviour. We would not revulse from acts of injustice or cruelty as insults to the human spirit, nor be moved by such acts to reflect with sorrow or bewilderment on the tide of events that can bring persons to stoop so low. Driven by objectivity, we would recognize that the human tendency to perform such heinous acts is undesirable, a problem to be dealt with, like any other, as rationally and efficiently as possible. It seems then, that in order to embrace determinism, we would not have to do away with the concepts of praise and blame themselves - we would have to alter the attitudes and judgments these practices typically express. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to realise how this transcends into transforming every human relation into a form that seems far removed from the instinctive arena that makes us feel ‘human’ and which pervades in status quo. +A critique of a world of objectivity sheds more light on the consequences of accepting a deterministic universe .We would still incarcerate murderers and thieves, and we would still sing praises for acts of bravery and philanthropy. But these actions and words would have a different, hollower meaning than they have for us now. Our praises would not be expressions of admiration or esteem; our criticisms would not be expressions of indignation or resentment. Rather, they would be morsels of positive and negative reinforcement meted out in the hopes of altering the character of others in ways best suited to our needs. An act of heroism or of virtue would not inspire us to aim for higher and nobler ideals, nor would it evoke in us a reverence or admiration for its agent. At best we would think it is fortunate that people occasionally do perform acts like these. We would consider how nice it must be for the beneficiaries and decide to encourage similar behaviour. We would not revulse from acts of injustice or cruelty as insults to the human spirit, nor be moved by such acts to reflect with sorrow or bewilderment on the tide of events that can bring persons to stoop so low. Driven by objectivity, we would recognize that the human tendency to perform such heinous acts is undesirable, a problem to be dealt with, like any other, as rationally and efficiently as possible. **It seems then, that in order to embrace determinism, we would not have to do away with the concepts of praise and blame themselves - we would have to alter the attitudes and judgments these practices typically express.** It doesn’t take a lot of effort to realise how this transcends into transforming every human relation into a form that seems far removed from the instinctive arena that makes us feel ‘human’ and which pervades in status quo. Whether that’s a world we want to live in or not is debatable. This notion becomes concrete when we begin to search for answers to the following question. @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ Whether that’s a world we want to live in or not is debatable. This notion bec A [fascinating social experiment](https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/91974.pdf){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[6] was conducted within this paradigm by Kathleen D. Vohs and Jonathan W. Schooler. A group of people (Group A) were made to read anti-free will texts and another Group B were handed pro-free will texts. After this conditioning, the two groups were asked to give a test with the possibility of cheating to score higher and the amount of pilfering was quantified. As observed in the outcome, participants cheated more frequently on a simple arithmetic task after reading an essay that refuted the notion of free will than after reading a neutral one. This correlation persisted in another experiment, in which cheating involved active efforts from the participant. These findings suggested that the loss of accountability by believing in determinism had a marked impact on the actions of these individuals. Determinists were also observed to be [less punitive](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14765562){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[7] to deviant conduct than staunch proponents of free-will, though some studies claim otherwise. -In another study, Vohs and colleagues measured the extent to which a group of day laborers believed in free will, then examined their performance on the job by looking at their supervisor’s ratings.Those who believed more strongly that they were in control of their own actions showed up on time for work more frequently and were rated by supervisors as more capable. In fact, belief in free will turned out to be a better predictor of job performance than established measures such as self-professed work ethic. +In another study, Vohs and colleagues measured the extent to which a group of day laborers believed in free will, then examined their performance on the job by looking at their supervisor’s ratings.Those who believed more strongly that they were in control of their own actions showed up on time for work more frequently and were rated by supervisors as more capable. **In fact, belief in free will turned out to be a better predictor of job performance than established measures such as self-professed work ethic.** Determining culpability for crimes is yet another major arena where the extent of free will involved is brought into the picture. The number of court cases, for example, that use evidence from neuroscience has more than [doubled](http://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/tag/nita-farahany/){: style="text-decoration:underline"}[8] in the past decade—mostly in the context of defendants arguing that their brain made them do it. And many people are absorbing this message in other contexts, too - at least judging by the number of books and articles purporting to explain “your brain on” everything from music to magic. Determinism, to one degree or another, is gaining popular currency. The skeptics are in ascendance. @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ Perhaps the truth of it will never be known to us. It is possible that quantum m Knowing that everything one does has already been determined can be scary and reassuring at the same time. Having complete free will is no less terrifying - one is then responsible for all of one’s failures and dysfunctions. In this madness however, a silent observer lurks just out of sight. And there is peace to be found in that stranger. -And that silent stranger, [is the absence of any meaning,to anything.](http://watchout.iitr.ac.in/2018/04/whither-do-we-go){: style="text-decoration:underline"} +And that silent stranger, **[is the absence of any meaning,to anything.](http://watchout.iitr.ac.in/2018/04/whither-do-we-go){: style="text-decoration:underline"}** #### References: