Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Gaming the absense of free will via planned stimulus screening.
We think we don't have free will. This has been discussed here before. We think that it is 100% environment acting on genes. However, we've also discovered that different stimulus generates different responses. People who were presented with evidence that there is no free will became more fatalistic in decision making when compared to a control group. Therefore, you can game the system by what information you expose yourself too. You can affect how you will respond with planning and by creating a filter as to what you expose yourself too.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Comments
If we ignore the 100% correct but horribly impractical reality of this situation, and embrace some pragmatism, then we can game the system. You just have to realize that the "system" you're gaming is small sample of the greater system at work.
Pragmatically, consider it like the "Event Horizon of Logic" that is discussed so frequently in regard to Randi. Some people appear to consider the ramifications of their actions and act in their own self-interest, while other people appear to act almost deterministically against themselves or otherwise appear incapable of making rational decisions. Is it possible that someone more aware of his own consciousness, and more in (apparent) control of it, is more self-deterministic?
I strive in my life to limit the extent to which I act "automatically." When I catch myself responding in automatic ways, reacting before thinking, acting without clear and direct conscious purpose, I am taken aback, and re-evaluate my self-awareness. I strive to keep constantly alive the thread of thought that says, over and over, "I am aware of my actions, and am observing myself in their undertaking." That thread dies easily. Consider how it feels when you are looking inward at your own thoughts while acting. It's like being awake. But then you'll lose yourself in something. In a way, your personal consciousness stops. Now remember the distinct moment where you restart the thread, where you resume consciously watching yourself. Does it not feel like awakening? Does the interval between the last thought in that thread and the current one not seem a blur? Can you not remember taking actions for which you had no direct plan, or even which you regret? Have you not spoken in anger, words you would never have said while that thread of "I" were still alive?
Experiment for me. Be aware of yourself, consciously and directly. See how long you can act while maintaining constant awareness of your actions. It is difficult and tiring. But see how differently you can act while that thread is alive, versus when it is not. There is a manner of personal power there. And this is why the topic is worth discussing.
We're all gods. All of us. Or rather, we all possess the capacity to be gods. Subsequently, humanity is a single collective god. The problem is that not everybody is starting on the same level; some accept solipsism, some people acknowledge solipsism but don't accept it, others ignore it entirely, and others still play the card at every turn to be a dick on the Internet.
In short, in order for everyone to excel and fulfill their potential as a god, we have to get everyone on the same starting page. Then, we build philosophies and moral systems out from that same common ground. Competing philosophies annihilate each other. Whatever remains is the only truth that exists, and it commands the world around it.
So yes, you should give a fuck about this question, because your not giving a fuck stops everyone from excelling. This also means that it's impossible for anyone else to truly excel unless everyone gives a fuck.
You and I have no free will. Our thoughts and perceptions are shaped by other beings like us who also lack free will.
Not every being admits and believes in this lack of free will.
This means that not all beings are being shaped equally. Some are being shaped by faulty perceptions, which themselves were shaped by previous faulty perceptions, and so on. The perceptions are faulty because they do not all share the same basis; some refuse to recognize reality.
The net result of this is that true "progress" and "accord" are impossible. Completely impossible. So long as humans continue to believe that we have free will, some people will believe that they are totally right and other people are totally wrong, and this will result in perpetual conflict.
Hopeless, right? It's impossible to get everyone "on the same page" when we're all starting at different places in different books.
This also necessarily means that every single moral code, ethical system, and theistic philosophy so far posited by any human ever cannot possibly be correct. That includes this argument, any previous argument I've made, and any argument made by anyone on this forum for any point ever. We all suck hard, because everyone single one of us has been shaped by imperfect perceptions.
Get everyone to start on page 1 of the same book, and we can get somewhere. If everyone accepts the same premise - that free will is illusory and we are all gods - and then builds systems from that same common base, we can achieve true accord. This will, however, necessitate a reckoning of competing systems. In order for this to ever work, everyone needs to treat their own moral code as absolutely true, and defend it completely. This means that, when moral codes conflict with each other, the only option is mutual destruction of the moral codes and a reformation of an entirely new code that is acceptable to both gods.
Repeat until everyone agrees. Then we're all on the same page, and we've reached a true accord. There's no other way to achieve true peace.
Basically, you can't allow anyone to step away from the argument. You can't allow people to be wrong and think that you're right. It's sort of like winning at a game where nobody else is trying to win; your win is meaningless because there was no test.
This is why similar philosophers have all been wrong. Nietzsche talked about things like this, but he also believed that he was right and could be right. Essentially, elitist philosophies are incorrect because you have no true basis for comparison.
You have to elevate everyone, or nobody wins. So, giving up and walking away is just as bad as letting somebody else give up.
I believe it was Jonathan Haidt in his book "The Happiness Hypothesis" who came up with the elephant and rider concept. The elephant being the personification of stimulus acting on genes and the rider being our personalities which act as constant apologists for the elephant's actions.
I've been using this philosophy a lot recently.
There are some useful bits in her writing, but by and large, objectivism is rubbish.
Where I agree with her is that you must conduct your life as though you could determine objective reality, and when all of humanity is collectively determining their individual realities, we'll have a moral Ragnarok, and from the ashes will rise humans as a single collective entity which is effectively a god.
1. Interesting shit may happen at the intersection between these two causal chains.
2. It may be possible to be a first mover.
It could also mean that we have free will, but exist in a timeless space, our perception of time serving only to prevent our seeing of the entire picture in a meaningful way.
We have to separate the physics argument from the philosophical argument for now. Much like with other sciences, the gap in our understanding between the two is too great still, and meaningful debate appears to exist in both realms.
Unless, as you said, our perception of time is flawed. The, as with the possibility of random occurrence, we're just fucked.