[tpetrina]

Wow, to call psychology, sociology and all studies of human behaviour pseudoscience because free will is not true is really just projection - since free will is not even pseudoscience, it is contradiction, a play on words and an utter nonsense.

But humanity will not get rid of this last anthropogenic perspective on the world that soon or that easily.

[coldtea]

>But humanity will not get rid of this last anthropogenic perspective on the world that soon or that easily.

If humanity doesn't have free will (since the thing doesn't exist as you say), it's not up to humanity to "get rid of this last anthropogenic perspective".

And yet, you attribute an agency to this humanity, and even seem to condemn it about not doing what you think it should do.

That's a self-defeating argument if I ever saw one...

Actually, if there's no free will then "psychology, sociology and all studies of human behaviour" are also bogus: they just come to predistined conclusions, not to some truth arrived at by actual free study. They could not but arrive at whatever they arrived at, true of false.

Heck, this stands for physics and chemistry too, and all their empirical verifications. It's not like someone making an experiment actual has the free will to say anything other than what they were predetermined (by a causual chain of events going back to Big Bang) to say. Truth and accuracy is thus irrelevant, their proclamations and what we believe about them "is what it is".

Now, to step aside this "free will exists/doesn't exist" thing for a moment, we know so little about the universe, constrained by our IQs, energy available for experiments, etc. (just 400 years ago we didn't even know about crude Newtonian gravity equations - much less how it works -, suddenly we think we've mastered most there is), that it's laughable to claim with any certainty whether free will exists or not in general.

[netizen-9748]

Causality of decision making might not be explainable by traditional views of free will, but that doesn't mean it isn't up to us to spread information. There are those of us who value the transmission of such information, and we will likely take it upon ourselves to investigate and disseminate, and hopefully start a larger conversation.

[coldtea]

>but that doesn't mean it isn't up to us to spread information

Something being "up to us" implies and necessitates free will. With mere casuality/determinism nothing is up to us, everything is just another reaction caused by some initial condition.

Logically, we can't have it both ways...

>and we will likely take it upon ourselves to investigate and disseminate, and hopefully start a larger conversation

You can't "take it upon ourselves" since we have no agency, if we have no free will.

>and hopefully start a larger conversation

Without free will, we can't start anything that not already casually chained to start, so predetermined anyway.

Whatever we/you do or don't do can't change anything (even the idea that we can "do or not do" something is an illusion. Without free will we can only do what the casuality chain has us do and think what we're predetermined to think about it).

[netizen-9748]

You're right, my phrasing was poor. Those of us that have had experiences leading us to value this idea will discuss it with others, to put it simply.

[tpetrina]

> we know so little about the universe But free will doesn't fall in the realm of "things to research". It's an escape mechanism devised by religious people wanting a perfect mechanistic universe designed by God with an escape hatch from it in the form of "free will" that somehow enables us to sin. Nothing more, nothing less. It's just a for of saying "universe is mathematic, we are not".

If you are willing to claim "but the universe isn't even causal" then you don't even need free will anymore since the sole intent for it was to claim independence from causality. It's a broken metaphor for explaining the world. So by implying causality is an illusion free will doesn't give you anything that you wouldn't get with such "un-causal" universe. It has exploratory power of zero.

> And yet, you attribute an agency to this humanity Agency is an attribute of source - to differentiate whether this post was written by me or you. The idea that free will is a requirement for agency is not obvious nor true. It is just your requirement, one with which I will never agree.

> they just come to predistined conclusions No, technically they come to whatever they come. The opposite of free will is not determinism. One thing that baffles me even more than proponents of free will is the insistence of determinism as the alternative. Let's repeat, free will is not synonym for indeterminism. At best we can say that things happen and there are bunch of correlations in the system. For all intents of purposes, what we call causality in this universe is a bunch of beliefs in the uniformity of the universe. If the stone fell yesterday, then it sure will tomorrow.

- Free will doesn't explain anything.

- Nor can anyone claim that they "feel" free will - that is such a blatant non-truth.

- Nor you can "prove" free will by raising your hand. You can at most just point to the fact that you raised your hand. Through your existence, reasoning, internal and environmental pressures.

[coldtea]

>But free will doesn't fall in the realm of "things to research". It's an escape mechanism devised by religious people wanting a perfect mechanistic universe designed by God with an escape hatch from it in the form of "free will" that somehow enables us to sin. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think so. If anything it's the opposite: free will is a direct experience we all have (whether true or illusionary).

The idea of no free will, on the other hand, is pure rationality. It's us ignoring what we empirically experience, in favor of the theories we have devised to explain the world.

So, it's the latter (no-free-will) that is more religious in nature, to the extend that is ideological and not empirical in origin. At best it's based on a distillation of isolated empirical observations into general laws.

But while any empirical observation is enough in itself to support its own existence (if I feel X, I feel X - there's no two ways about it. X might or might not exist, and I might have felt it because I took drugs or whatever, but there's no denying that I felt X), any general law cannot be proved logically by any number of empirical observations (see e.g. Russel, re: the problem of induction). Heck, it can't even be supported, except in an uncertain degree (what if you see 1 million white swans and the 1.000.001 is a black one?).

>If you are willing to claim "but the universe isn't even causal" then you don't even need free will anymore since the sole intent for it was to claim independence from causality.

Well, I'm not bound by some rational neat ordering of things , where the universe follows our rational bias, things go by the simplest explanation, and so on (Occam's razor is just a heuristic, not a law of nature).

I'm not saying free will necessarily exists. But if it existed, it could exist whether we "only need it to claim independence from causality" or not. Casuality for example could not exist AND free will could be a thing. The same way two physical objects can XOR exist, not the same way two inter-connected exclusive theories do. Or there could be zero, or 10 different mechanisms alonside free will that are all independent from casuality in different ways.

>- Nor can anyone claim that they "feel" free will - that is such a blatant non-truth.

Well, we do. Whether correct with the "world as such" or not, it's only an ideological rational bias that says otherwise, not felt experience.

>- Nor you can "prove" free will by raising your hand. You can at most just point to the fact that you raised your hand. Through your existence, reasoning, internal and environmental pressures.

Well, the same is true for causuality. It's not something provable.

Which is why Wittgenstein once quoted "causality is a superstition".