Are you actually serious that it is possible to brainwash someone? As in turn them into a robot/zombie type being? Could you define what you mean by brainwashing?
Are you actually serious that it is possible to brainwash someone? As in turn them into a robot/zombie type being? Could you define what you mean by brainwashing?
If you assume that free will exists (DO NOT DICSUSS THAT TOPIC HERE), a brainwashed person is a person who for some period of time acts according to the will of another person and not according to their own will.
Are you actually serious that it is possible to brainwash someone? As in turn them into a robot/zombie type being? Could you define what you mean by brainwashing?
It's been done. There have been cases of aboriginal peoples from Carribean islands who drug and bury people so much that they think they are dead. When they were dug back up they thought they were undead.
Ah. I guess that, because I only act like people might have free will for pragmatic reasons, and don't assume it exists when thinking about it intellectually, I'll bow out of this conversation right away.
Acting like free will exists while claiming it doesn't is somewhat silly. Personally, I prefer the compatibilist position, roughly speaking. It matches up much better with my experience of reality.
I think of brainwashing as convincing someone that your will is correct and their natural will is wrong, and convincing them to go along with what you say is right because it's better for them. They aren't just acting according to someone else's will, they have become convinced that doing so is the right way to act, despite that it goes against their otherwise better judgment.
I think of brainwashing as convincing someone that your will is correct and their natural will is wrong, and convincing them to go along with what you say is right because it's better for them. They aren't just acting according to someone else's will, they have become convinced that doing so is the right way to act, despite that it goes against their otherwise better judgment.
^ Usually this involves some weird psychological shenanigans. Like how forcing someone to do a repetitive task under pressure (say, memorization drills) turns off other cognitive processes.
With what Scott posted, he's describing slavery. And while I might say that people who are brainwashed are acting like slaves, people who have been forced to be someone else's slave may not be brainwashed, just they have no better option due to circumstances out of their control.
Acting like free will exists while claiming it doesn't is somewhat silly.
Silly from what perspective? From an intellectual perspective or from a pragmatic perspective?
Pretty sure he's choosing pragmatic here.
I am almost an "illusion of free-will" believer myself, but I also see that as largely a way to communicate what is essentially a language problem. We have "choice" in the same way that an if/then statement has a choice. It's all choices all the time. They just have specified output based on their inputs. And those inputs themselves are deterministic.
Another way to put that is, "Assuming hard determinism, we still need a way to communicate series of potential outcomes based on an unknown input. The decision is itself moot, it's entirely deterministic based on the input. We've always used the word choice for that, so why stop?"
You can't really act like free will doesn't exist. The world around us requires us to make choices. Whether or not you believe we're actually making choices, it's still up to you to intellectually think about things and come to your own conclusion.
Acting like free will exists while claiming it doesn't is somewhat silly.
Silly from what perspective? From an intellectual perspective or from a pragmatic perspective?
Well, pragmatically speaking you'll just keep on making decisions regardless, so it's probably more the intellectual perspective.
Another way to put that is, "Assuming hard determinism, we still need a way to communicate series of potential outcomes based on an unknown input. The decision is itself moot, it's entirely deterministic based on the input. We've always used the word choice for that, so why stop?"
Being deterministic does not make it moot. Indeed, I think that a meaningful decision must necessarily be deterministic.
It can spiral on indefinitely. Stupidest internet argument I ever had was probably about free-will. I say probably not because there have been comparatively stupid internet arguments. I say probably because there's no telling what the fuck we were really talking about half the time.
You can't really act like free will doesn't exist. The world around us requires us to make choices. Whether or not you believe we're actually making choices, it's still up to you to intellectually think about things and come to your own conclusion.
Don't start. Really, you don't want to. Then again, you probably didn't have the choice.
I think of brainwashing as convincing someone that your will is correct and their natural will is wrong, and convincing them to go along with what you say is right because it's better for them. They aren't just acting according to someone else's will, they have become convinced that doing so is the right way to act, despite that it goes against their otherwise better judgment.
I disagree with this because I think this is a conclusion one can naturally come to. There are many issues that I know I am incapable of understanding and my conclusions about them are simply "automatically agree with the more knowledgeable regardless of personal opinion." There are a great many things that my brain disagrees with, but I espouse regardless because I know there are things smarter or better positioned to be knowledgeable than my own brain.
I think there is a certain kind of hubris involved to believe that you can ever be right about anything, or that you have the ability to think critically, when there exists anyone whose experiences are more in-tune with it.
It can spiral on indefinitely. Stupidest internet argument I ever had was probably about free-will. I say probably not because there have been comparatively stupid internet arguments. I say probably because there's no telling what the fuck we were really talking about half the time.
Edit: Yeah, then you have to define meaningful.
By a "meaningful decision" I mean planning and making a choice based on your values, goals and desires.
@open_sketchbook: I also think Scott's definition is too broad. You may follow someone else's will and not be brainwashed.
And it's one thing to agree with someone because they're smarter than you. It's another to have someone actively convince you that a way you are acting, or that something you believe, is completely wrong and you have to do what they say. It's also another thing entirely if they convince you of this through questionable means, rather than simple discussion and debate.
By a "meaningful decision" I mean planning and making a choice based on your values, goals and desires.
I don't know how to be succinct on this one, but I'm with you on this. I just think that in order to get where you're at you'll violate some people definitions of what a "choice", "plan", "goal", and "desire" are, because for some perspectives none of those things exist in a deterministic universe. From that perspective, they are just different electron configurations in your brain and such. That said, my obvious rebuttal to that perspective is simply, "OK, those definitions don't work for you. But why don't we develop some terms for those sorts of configurations that have those sorts of reactions. I know, we'll just use those words for them!"
Okay, if free will exists, then I have weighed up the options with my free will mind, and decided that free will probably doesn't exist, but have decided to treat other people as they would probably like to be treated, i.e. as though they have free will.
If free will doesn't exist, then the entire history of the universe has blindly come to this point, where someone like me can have the right brain processes in the right order to trick myself into believing that I have discovered, through scientific investigations of other people, and backed up by my own experiences, that free will doesn't exist. However, this same process has made my brain processes trick me into believing that acting as though other people do not have free will probably be harmful to those other people if they too do not believe they don't have free will.
Simply put, I like to act as though I believe that other people act as though they believe that they have free will.
You can't really act like free will doesn't exist. The world around us requires us to make choices. Whether or not you believe we're actually making choices, it's still up to you to intellectually think about things and come to your own conclusion.
Don't start. Really, you don't want to. Then again, you probably didn't have the choice.
By a "meaningful decision" I mean planning and making a choice based on your values, goals and desires.
I don't know how to be succinct on this one, but I'm with you on this. I just think that in order to get where you're at you'll violate some people definitions of what a "choice", "plan", "goal", and "desire" are, because for some perspectives none of those things exist in a deterministic universe. From that perspective, they are just different electron configurations in your brain and such. That said, my obvious rebuttal to that perspective is simply, "OK, those definitions don't work for you. But why don't we develop some terms for those sorts of configurations that have those sorts of reactions. I know, we'll just use those words for them!"
I don't think this is a definitional issue. Choice is a real process that happens within brains, though often much of the work is done subconsciously. It is misleading to suggest that this is an illusion, as though people don't really make choices. They do, and it's stupid to suggest otherwise. However, people have an intuition that suggests free will and real choices are incompatible with determinism. The real free will question is this - why do such intuitions arise? In simple terms, the answer is that you don't know what choice you'll make until after you've made it, which gives you an illusion of indeterminacy.
In short, when people talk about "free will", they're talking about a real process that they experience in their day to day lives; having some misleading intuitions about this process does not make it an illusion.
Yes, there are plenty of limitations to free will that are the direct result of limitations and flaws of the human mind, but to call it an illusion is misleading.
That sounds pretty much like textbook illusion of free will then.
Perhaps, but I think it's a poor use of language to call it that, and it simply leads to confusion. If we were clear on the issue and didn't use misleading language like "free will is an illusion", we wouldn't need discussions like this one in the first place.
Comments
Usually this involves some weird psychological shenanigans. Like how forcing someone to do a repetitive task under pressure (say, memorization drills) turns off other cognitive processes.
I am almost an "illusion of free-will" believer myself, but I also see that as largely a way to communicate what is essentially a language problem. We have "choice" in the same way that an if/then statement has a choice. It's all choices all the time. They just have specified output based on their inputs. And those inputs themselves are deterministic.
Another way to put that is, "Assuming hard determinism, we still need a way to communicate series of potential outcomes based on an unknown input. The decision is itself moot, it's entirely deterministic based on the input. We've always used the word choice for that, so why stop?"
Edit: Yeah, then you have to define meaningful.
EDIT: DAMMIT SCOTT.
I think there is a certain kind of hubris involved to believe that you can ever be right about anything, or that you have the ability to think critically, when there exists anyone whose experiences are more in-tune with it.
I also think Scott's definition is too broad. You may follow someone else's will and not be brainwashed.
And it's one thing to agree with someone because they're smarter than you. It's another to have someone actively convince you that a way you are acting, or that something you believe, is completely wrong and you have to do what they say. It's also another thing entirely if they convince you of this through questionable means, rather than simple discussion and debate.
If free will doesn't exist, then the entire history of the universe has blindly come to this point, where someone like me can have the right brain processes in the right order to trick myself into believing that I have discovered, through scientific investigations of other people, and backed up by my own experiences, that free will doesn't exist. However, this same process has made my brain processes trick me into believing that acting as though other people do not have free will probably be harmful to those other people if they too do not believe they don't have free will.
Simply put, I like to act as though I believe that other people act as though they believe that they have free will.
Choice is a real process that happens within brains, though often much of the work is done subconsciously. It is misleading to suggest that this is an illusion, as though people don't really make choices. They do, and it's stupid to suggest otherwise.
However, people have an intuition that suggests free will and real choices are incompatible with determinism. The real free will question is this - why do such intuitions arise? In simple terms, the answer is that you don't know what choice you'll make until after you've made it, which gives you an illusion of indeterminacy.
In short, when people talk about "free will", they're talking about a real process that they experience in their day to day lives; having some misleading intuitions about this process does not make it an illusion.
Yes, there are plenty of limitations to free will that are the direct result of limitations and flaws of the human mind, but to call it an illusion is misleading.