[jknoepfler]

Ah, the hallmark of 20th century pseudo-intellectualism: operationalize an ill-defined concept (e.g. "free will," "rationality," "empathy"), produce a dubiously reproducible experiment, maybe write a controversial paperback making ridiculously hyperbolic claims, let the press go apeshit, $$$.

Other flavors include: Pluck a plausible, edgy explanation out of a vast hypothesis space (e.g. evolutionary psychology), over-reductively apply a catchy theorem to a vastly complicated domain (looking at you, game theory). Take a thin, ecologically invalid model and claim "that's how the brain works!" (both neural networks and sybolic reasoning systems).

I feel like in this century, we've realized that all of this was maybe useful as a reference point to formulate hypotheses, but become less stupid about the conclusions we're willing to draw (as a population).

The wonderful reality is that we don't really have strong opinions about free will, because we're not sure we really know what that could mean or why precisely it seemed so important a century ago.

[tasty_freeze]

You seem to be saying people were idiots for relying on the results of one experiment -- how could they be so stupid? Yet here you are, completely buying into the results of one recent paper as it agrees with your own model of the world (apparently).

As for being edgy, you are taking a condescending position using broad and vague claims that are impossible to refute ("looking at you game theory").

I agree that by itself "free will" is meaningless to talk about unless the term is defined. I'm sure most if not all authors on the subject do define what they mean by free will, eg, Dennett and Harris, but I'm sure there are many others who do.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> (both neural networks and sybolic reasoning systems).

Woa, woa. Symbolic reasoning _has_ been claimed to model the way the brain works (the original Pitts and McCulloch neuron was a propositional logic circuit that purported to model the way actual neurons work) but that sort of thing is much more common in connectionism. In fact, it's basically the whole story of connectionism ("let's copy the brain").

In any case first order logic was originally proposed as the foundation of maths, and nothing to do with how the human brain works.

[TimTheTinker]

> why precisely it seemed so important a century ago.

Free will is a proxy argument in the debate about physical determinism, which is a component when talking about metaphysical and spiritual reality, which comes up in discussions about the existence of God - whom the modern zeitgeist doesn't believe and/or wishes to disprove.

[Gibbon1]

A good question to ask does the answer to any of these nebulous ill defined questions have any non socio-politcial consequences? If the answer is no, be very very dubious.

[sutterbomb]

The concept of free will has tremendous implications for oursocio-policial world, such as in criminal justice or even taxation.

[naasking]

Not really. Presumably a criminal justice system ought to be designed to be effective at rehabilitating and deterring crime. That's a strictly empirical enterprise that needn't concern itself with abstract notions of free will.

The law could of course codify its own definition of free will, which it typically does, but again this need not be affected by outside notions.

[Gibbon1]

Yes but what are the non socio-politcial consequences? There aren't any. Does it matter if a pilot flying a plane has free will or not? No not really.

That's a tell that using any particular answer to this question for policy is a bad idea.

[mistermann]

And if the answer is yes, be very very suspicious!