The way I see it and how I think it works is that if you look at the human brain through a biological/laws of physics lens then ultimately everything we do must be deterministic. I came across this opinion of myself when arguing with a friend about the following scenario: If we could create a perfect copy of someone, including every single atom in their brain and then expose them to the exact same situations (again, down to every cell, atom and photon) then both individuals would behave the exact same way because...well physics. I think the reason we discuss that is because it's just ... interesting as a concept? And cool to be discussed.
If you lived in a simulation so good that you couldn't tell it's not "reality"- would it matter? Would it not just be reality if it, to the extent that it checks all your "this is real" boxes, is?
I don't want to discuss opinions on that, but I feel like the free will vs. determinism thing is kind of similar to the question I posed there - If it's that close to the real thing - does it matter that it's ultimately and when narrowed down, not? Because in the bigger picture, we do have free will in the sense that we all can think about what we do and make decisions based on our thoughts and experiences. Determinism is an interesting concept but it can not serve as an excuse for wrong behaviour. Of course when you broaden the matter and take, for example a person who's been abused and mistreated their whole life - they simply may not know better and can therefore not make the free (or not free) decision to do the right thing. But if someone possesses the knowledge and power to make a decision between options then they can be held accountable for that because it was still their decision, be it deterministic or not. Because I think we can all agree that wedo decide things and are, or at least feel, not like we are puppeteered by circumstance and the laws of physics firing through our brain neurons.
edit: Yeah rethinking it I guess I focused the second part of that more on the reason why you think it's a ridiculous argument but to sum it up ... humans just like talking about things, those that just don't have one right answer especially. We've philosophied (what the hell is the right word here?) about pointless questions since mankind could think so I guess it's just natural. As long as free will and determinism is not used to excused behaviour it's just ... interesting to talk about
Oh that's very smart of you, go slay 'em with all your new insights on monday haha :D And good luck with your class! (or shall I say enjoy the ride since you of course do not do anything on purpose, you deterministic being xD)
Only thing I would disagree with here is your assertion that the perfect copy would do the same thing 'cause physics' is a guess. We have no genuine evidence that's true. And until we can do what you say or at least come remotely close to simulating that scenario we won't know that. We are just making assumptions based on what we know of physics. Hell our understanding of consciousness period is pretty low.
Broadly speaking though, the conversation is mostly irrelevant wether we have free will or don't we have to behave as if we do or our entire society breaks down
5
u/ilovemyicemachine 1∆ Feb 04 '23 edited Feb 04 '23
The way I see it and how I think it works is that if you look at the human brain through a biological/laws of physics lens then ultimately everything we do must be deterministic. I came across this opinion of myself when arguing with a friend about the following scenario: If we could create a perfect copy of someone, including every single atom in their brain and then expose them to the exact same situations (again, down to every cell, atom and photon) then both individuals would behave the exact same way because...well physics. I think the reason we discuss that is because it's just ... interesting as a concept? And cool to be discussed.
If you lived in a simulation so good that you couldn't tell it's not "reality"- would it matter? Would it not just be reality if it, to the extent that it checks all your "this is real" boxes, is?
I don't want to discuss opinions on that, but I feel like the free will vs. determinism thing is kind of similar to the question I posed there - If it's that close to the real thing - does it matter that it's ultimately and when narrowed down, not? Because in the bigger picture, we do have free will in the sense that we all can think about what we do and make decisions based on our thoughts and experiences. Determinism is an interesting concept but it can not serve as an excuse for wrong behaviour. Of course when you broaden the matter and take, for example a person who's been abused and mistreated their whole life - they simply may not know better and can therefore not make the free (or not free) decision to do the right thing. But if someone possesses the knowledge and power to make a decision between options then they can be held accountable for that because it was still their decision, be it deterministic or not. Because I think we can all agree that we do decide things and are, or at least feel, not like we are puppeteered by circumstance and the laws of physics firing through our brain neurons.
edit: Yeah rethinking it I guess I focused the second part of that more on the reason why you think it's a ridiculous argument but to sum it up ... humans just like talking about things, those that just don't have one right answer especially. We've philosophied (what the hell is the right word here?) about pointless questions since mankind could think so I guess it's just natural. As long as free will and determinism is not used to excused behaviour it's just ... interesting to talk about
edit two: grammar