Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote: And how would someone ever know if their free will was real free will, or just simulated free will....and the next question would be why it matters.

I guess why it matters depends on the perspective of the person.  I know people who take this view and use it as an excuse to justify their destructive tendencies.  "I can't control the way I am, this was destined to happen this way."  In some ways I suppose they might be right, but that doesn't remove the very real feeling repercussions that are heading their way

MediumTex wrote: And how would someone ever know if their free will was real free will, or just simulated free will....and the next question would be why it matters.

I suppose they could suspect it's not real if they believe the Daniel Dennett passage.

Why does it matter? Indeed. I don't think we're built to cope with that. We can resist the urge to pull a girl's pigtails, but knowing or believing that we're not in control-- it just does not compute. So it doesn't matter. It's fun to explore, though, in Susan(?) Blackmore's The Meme Machine. Great book. I wrote to the author once and she actually wrote me back. Of course, it was out of her hands. ;-)

MediumTex wrote:

dualstow wrote:

dualstow wrote: There is an interesting chapter in Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that decisions are made for us before we make them, but that the illusion that we made the decision persists. I'll just sweep that under the rug and get on with my life...

MediumTex wrote: All I really want is the feeling of free will.

You say tomato...

No, I totally agree. And I think we do have that, and finding out about determinism doesn't put a dent in it anymore than the Dead Sea Scrolls could put a dent in Christianity.

And how would someone ever know if their free will was real free will, or just simulated free will....and the next question would be why it matters.

Well, it seems like it would change the way that we think about questions of moral culpability. It would have implications in the way in which we deal with criminals and think about the death penalty. Also, it would change our perspective and perhaps the way that we deal with people whose behavior we disagree with and how we approach trying to change their thinking and actions.

doodle wrote: Well, it seems like it would change the way that we think about questions of moral culpability. It would have implications in the way in which we deal with criminals and think about the death penalty. Also, it would change our perspective and perhaps the way that we deal with people whose behavior we disagree with and how we approach trying to change their thinking and actions.

I did mention that above, but I don't think it should change anything. I mean sure, we talk about the incarceration problem and how we might treat drug addiction as a health care issue and not just a criminal issue. But, why should determinism have anything to do with that. If someone murdered my friend, I might be able to think of him as an unwitting actor, a vehicle of determinism, for five minutes. And then I'd go back to wishing terrible things for him again.

I could try to convince myself that I and the victim also don't really exist (c.f. Meme Machine), but I'm no zen master. Basing policy on it? Crazy. And futile.

But I suppose we'll be confronted with this anyway when AI's start to act like people.

doodle wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

dualstow wrote: You say tomato...

No, I totally agree. And I think we do have that, and finding out about determinism doesn't put a dent in it anymore than the Dead Sea Scrolls could put a dent in Christianity.

And how would someone ever know if their free will was real free will, or just simulated free will....and the next question would be why it matters.

Well, it seems like it would change the way that we think about questions of moral culpability. It would have implications in the way in which we deal with criminals and think about the death penalty. Also, it would change our perspective and perhaps the way that we deal with people whose behavior we disagree with and how we approach trying to change their thinking and actions.

One could argue that the degree to which our society grows to accept overly emotional or unfavorable behaviors will create more tribal motivation to be a PoS. However, one person's excuse to be a dip shit is another person's pressure release valve.

doodle wrote: Well, it seems like it would change the way that we think about questions of moral culpability. It would have implications in the way in which we deal with criminals and think about the death penalty. Also, it would change our perspective and perhaps the way that we deal with people whose behavior we disagree with and how we approach trying to change their thinking and actions.

That sounds like the very slippery slope of relative moralism.

moda0306 wrote: One could argue that the degree to which our society grows to accept overly emotional or unfavorable behaviors will create more tribal motivation to be a PoS.

You mean like occupy wall street?  The Big Lie?

Benko wrote:

moda0306 wrote: One could argue that the degree to which our society grows to accept overly emotional or unfavorable behaviors will create more tribal motivation to be a PoS.

You mean like occupy wall street?  The Big Lie?

I'm not sure if you're trying to equate the two, but OWS, like any movement involving young people, is going to have a big range of intellectual types all the way to some half-crazy hippie.  Both OWS and the Tea Party started as valid movements yet had flaws.  Even with my MR attitude towards the fed I can appreciate their positions on such a centralized monetary system. 

I was basically saying that these conversations don't happen in a vacuum, and to the degree we pretend that we don't have a choice, we create a tribal home for those who want to excuse their stupid behavior (and tribalism drives so much that we can't ignore it)... that goes for hippies and a whole lot of other folks.

Why do we do what we do? Why does someone behave the way that they do? Why does one person pick an apple and another a banana? Why does someone make the decision to rob a gas station and another makes the decision to spend the night studying in a library for their final exams? To what can we attribute these decisions? Is there a causal nature to them or are they goverened by some other force or law? What force would this be?

Singular celled organisms seem to respond in a stimulus response type manner to their environment in very predictable ways. If you believe in evolution, then we came from such organisms. At what point did we evolve the ability to break out of this causal relationship with our environment? Does this imply that the brain is more than just a collection of cells?

doodle wrote: Singular celled organisms seem to respond in a stimulus response type manner to their environment in very predictable ways. If you believe in evolution, then we came from such organisms. At what point did we evolve the ability to break out of this causal relationship with our environment?

At what point did we develop a sense of self?

dualstow wrote:

doodle wrote: Singular celled organisms seem to respond in a stimulus response type manner to their environment in very predictable ways. If you believe in evolution, then we came from such organisms. At what point did we evolve the ability to break out of this causal relationship with our environment?

At what point did we develop a sense of self?

The most common technique used in research for testing self-awareness in infants a mirror test known as the "rouge test.[18][19] The rouge test works by applying a dot on an infant’s face and then placing them in front of the mirror. If the infant investigates the dot on their nose by touching it, they are thought to realize their own existence and have achieved self-awareness. A number of research studies have used this technique and shown self-awareness to develop between 15 and 24 months of age.[20][21] Some researchers take language such as "I, me, my, etc." as an indicator of self-awareness.[22]

Rochat (2003) described a more in-depth developmental path in acquiring self-awareness through various stages.[23][24] He described self-awareness as occurring in 5 stages beginning from birth.

Stage Description
Stage 1 - Differentiation
(from birth)

Right from birth infants are able to differentiate the self from the non-self. A study using the infant rooting reflex found that infants rooted significantly less from self-stimulation, contrary to when the stimulation came from the experimenter.[25]

Stage 2 - Situation
(by 2 months)

In addition to differentiation, infants at this stage can also situate themselves in relation to a model. In one experiment infants were able to imitate tongue orientation from an adult model.[26] Additionally, another sign of the differentiation is when infants bring themselves into contact with objects by reaching for them.[27]


Stage 3 - Identification
(by 2 years)

At this stage the more common definition of "self-awareness" comes into play, as described above where infants can identify themselves in a mirror through the "rouge test" as well as begin to use language to refer to themselves.


Stage 4 – Permanence This stage occurs after infancy when children are aware that their sense of self continues to exist across both time and space.


Stage 5 – Self-consciousness or meta-self-awareness This also occurs after infancy. This is the final stage when children can see themselves in 3rd person, or how they are perceived by others.

I rewatched the Sam Harris video I posted and it addressed a few points that I thought I would bring up.

His argument starts with looking for free will in an example. The example he gives is to give the people in the audience a chance to exercise their "free will" by picking the name of any movie. A choice like this would seem to offer a good chance of utilizing ones free will to make a decision. However, he goes on to expose why their decision didnt involve free will. 1st..one cannot pick the name of a movie they have never heard of, so those options are off the table. 2nd...when he asked people to pick a movie, names of movies started popping into their heads. Out of the thousands of movies they had seen perhaps only a few dozen popped into their heads as potential choices. For example, even though they might have seen the wizard of oz movie, it simply didnt occur to them at the time of his question and was therefore not an option either. You cant choose an option that doesnt occur to you. So lets say you whittle things down to three movies out of which you select one. How does one determine which movie they chose? What does that process look like? We all make stories up in order to try to justify our decisions but even those stories of logic and reason are predicated on the information and experiences we have had and thus subject to causality as well. The fact is that we dont know why one idea comes into our heads and where it comes from but to just call this unknown "free will" is equivalent to the ancients attributing all sorts of natural processes like thunder or lighting to mysterious powers because they simply didnt know from where they came.

A couple other points:

1. Regarding The argument that if we dont have free will it would undermine our systems of morality. The response: why do we need to delude ourselves as to the underlying causes of human behavior in order to be able to effectively address issues like murder or other crimes?

2: The argument that why does this matter to an individual whether we have free will or our behavior is determined.  One response: it is liberating in a certain respect because it allows us to let go of grudges or resentment against other humans. Sam Harris gives an example of the difference in reaction one would have if one lost their hand due to a crocodile biting it off or a person with an ax attacking you and chopping your hand off. In the case of the crocodile you wouldnt harbor a liftime of resentment or anger towards that animal, but in the case of the human you could suffer from all sorts of mental trauma and feelings of intense outrage against what that person had done because you hold them morally culpable for their action in a way in which you dont hold the crocodile morally  accountable. Nevertheless, no matter whether whether you believe in free will or determinism that wouldnt undermine your ability to react to either situation

doodle wrote: The response: why do we need to delude ourselves as to the underlying causes of human behavior in order to be able to effectively address issues like murder or other crimes?

And how does he propose to "effectively address" the issues?  Because we do such a bang up job now.

doodle wrote: Nevertheless, no matter whether whether you believe in free will or determinism that wouldnt undermine your ability to react to either situation

He's making overly broad generalizations that may or may not be true for any individual human.  Most people are the proverbial fat, dumb and stupid, just at higher and higher socio-economic levels.  Try as they might to look superior to others, they're all birds of a feather.

And this guy obviously never visited the PP intellectual honeypot.   I love it when an intellectual talks down to me!

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: The response: why do we need to delude ourselves as to the underlying causes of human behavior in order to be able to effectively address issues like murder or other crimes?

And how does he propose to "effectively address" the issues?  Because we do such a bang up job now.

I think that the details of what to do are outside of the scope of his presentation, but would your immediate reaction to being attacked by human supposedly governed by free will or one whose behaviors were determined be any different? Further on with regards to addressing the punishment or rehabilitation phase perhaps our society would address these in a more scientific fashion than just locking people in cages and claiming them to be "evil" as if they woke up one day and decided to have a unhappy and miserable existence. And even if you were to say that they did, it still doesnt explain "why" they made those decisions. Saying it was their "free will" is just a lazy cop out because one doesnt want to address the complexity of causal relationships that lead people to behave the way they do. Its easier to just point a finger and condemn than to try to understand.

doodle wrote: Nevertheless, no matter whether whether you believe in free will or determinism that wouldnt undermine your ability to react to either situation

He's making overly broad generalizations that may or may not be true for any individual human.  Most people are the proverbial fat, dumb and stupid, just at higher and higher socio-economic levels.  Try as they might to look superior to others, they're all birds of a feather.

And this guy obviously never visited the PP intellectual honeypot.   I love it when an intellectual talks down to me!

I dont understand where you are going with this....

doodle wrote: I think that the details of what to do are outside of the scope of his presentation, but would your immediate reaction to being attacked by human supposedly governed by free will or one whose behaviors were determined be any different? Further on with regards to addressing the punishment or rehabilitation phase perhaps our society would address these in a more scientific fashion than just locking people in cages and claiming them to be "evil" as if they woke up one day and decided to have a unhappy and miserable existence. And even if you were to say that they did, it still doesnt explain "why" they made those decisions. Saying it was their "free will" is just a lazy cop out because one doesnt want to address the complexity of causal relationships that lead people to behave the way they do. Its easier to just point a finger and condemn than to try to understand. [/b]

A majority of criminals have nutritional deficiencies and/or genetic abnormalities that affect their ability to have "free will" in their amygadala.  "Free will" means the effective ability NOT to act on impulsive emotions.

We don't need more ever more diagnosing, we need fixing on a lot of levels.