Illusion of free will

[bskeptic]

It says plenty about such things. There are lots of simulations of the dynamics of populations with different numbers of "rule obeyers" and "cheaters". They tend to show that populations drift towards a state where most individuals obey the rules (and work to enforce them), but a small number of people are "cheaters". This is because in a population with no cheaters there are lots of advantages to be gained by cheating, so cheaters will inevitably appear, but the more cheaters there are then the more measures are taken by the "rule obeyers" against them, reducing the benefit of being a cheater, so fewer choose that strategy. So an equilibrium is eventually reached.

It may say such things, but it doesn't say that anyone is "wrong" or "responsible". If that's your theory, then rape and kill away if you can get away with it, and if your conscience doesn't trouble you too much.

[Questions11]

Fits in nicely with what I said on another thread was the most reasonable way to live if atheism-materialism, and therefore moral nihilism, was true: a selfish, but not psychopathic, hedonist who hypocritically encouraged others to live a moral life.  I called him MrHorrid.  If I deconverted it is who I would likely become, or at least try to become so I could live most profitably and reasonably.

[kurros]

It says plenty about such things. There are lots of simulations of the dynamics of populations with different numbers of "rule obeyers" and "cheaters". They tend to show that populations drift towards a state where most individuals obey the rules (and work to enforce them), but a small number of people are "cheaters". This is because in a population with no cheaters there are lots of advantages to be gained by cheating, so cheaters will inevitably appear, but the more cheaters there are then the more measures are taken by the "rule obeyers" against them, reducing the benefit of being a cheater, so fewer choose that strategy. So an equilibrium is eventually reached.

It may say such things, but it doesn't say that anyone is "wrong" or "responsible". If that's your theory, then rape and kill away if you can get away with it, and if your conscience doesn't trouble you too much.

I find the idea that things must be "really" wrong or people are "really" responsible pretty meaningless. Those of us who are rule-obeyers treat it as wrong, and will hold you responsible if you are caught doing it, and this is necessary to maintain the social order. That is far more concrete and meaningful than whatever you are talking about, imo.

[john doe]

Fits in nicely with what I said on another thread was the most reasonable way to live if atheism-materialism, and therefore moral nihilism, was true: a selfish, but not psychopathic, hedonist who hypocritically encouraged others to live a moral life.  I called him MrHorrid.  If I deconverted it is who I would likely become, or at least try to become so I could live most profitably and reasonably.

Oh, you mean Donald Trump?  But I thought you liked him for president, no?

[Trinity]

I find the idea that things must be "really" wrong or people are "really" responsible pretty meaningless. Those of us who are rule-obeyers treat it as wrong, and will hold you responsible if you are caught doing it, and this is necessary to maintain the social order. That is far more concrete and meaningful than whatever you are talking about, imo.

Do you think that some cultural values are better than others?

[kurros]

I find the idea that things must be "really" wrong or people are "really" responsible pretty meaningless. Those of us who are rule-obeyers treat it as wrong, and will hold you responsible if you are caught doing it, and this is necessary to maintain the social order. That is far more concrete and meaningful than whatever you are talking about, imo.

Do you think that some cultural values are better than others?

I think some produce more desirable societies than others, yes.

[Trinity]

I think some produce more desirable societies than others, yes.

Different people desire different things. Are some desires better than others?

[Identity Crisis]

So, hang on, you are telling us to watch the clip so we can look at the arguments and accept those arguments?

But if we dont have free will, then how can i or anyone rationally affirm the evidence and choose to believe that free will is an illusion? Werent some of us determined to believe in free will all the way back from the big bang.

You dont realise how self defeating your argument is.

I wanted to warn folks on the length. The premise of the argument is that modern evolutionary science is true. If one doesn't accept that premise it will be boring.

You still dont understand.

If free will doesnt exist, then when one looks at the evidences for anything, they cannot rationally affirm the evidence because they were determined to accept a view regardless of the evidence...

You are essentially defeating your own argument.

When you freely choose whether some proposition is true or false, how do you decide?

[kurros]

I think some produce more desirable societies than others, yes.

Different people desire different things. Are some desires better than others?

Only subjectively.

[Hawke123]

Fits in nicely with what I said on another thread was the most reasonable way to live if atheism-materialism, and therefore moral nihilism, was true: a selfish, but not psychopathic, hedonist who hypocritically encouraged others to live a moral life.  I called him MrHorrid.  If I deconverted it is who I would likely become, or at least try to become so I could live most profitably and reasonably.

Oh, you mean Donald Trump?  But I thought you liked him for president, no?

Uh, Q11 lives in the UK.  And I don't recall him expressing any opinions on Trump (though I may have missed the posts where he did so).

[john doe]

Yeah, unlike we yanks, I find our friends across the pond are far more savvy regarding the politics of other nations.  Same goes for Australians I've met online.  I'm scarcely political at all.  As with economics, it bores me.  But when you live in a country with the clout ours has it would be irresponsible not to keep the beast leashed.

[searcherman]

Fits in nicely with what I said on another thread was the most reasonable way to live if atheism-materialism, and therefore moral nihilism, was true: a selfish, but not psychopathic, hedonist who hypocritically encouraged others to live a moral life.  I called him MrHorrid.  If I deconverted it is who I would likely become, or at least try to become so I could live most profitably and reasonablyo.

Sounds like Trump. Seriously, there are crypto-atheists like that. Ayn Rand is an example of an open atheist like that. But linking such behavior to secular humanists is hard to prove.

[searcherman]

searcherman,
re:  "...thank goodness we don't have free will."

How do you define free will as you're using it in this topic?

I'm getting my head around the free will aspect of the speaker's thesis. I am more persuaded by how we seem to have a basis for amorality and empathy, good without God as some say.

[searcherman]

This is long, detailed and the guy isn't the most sparkling speaker, but he makes good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUBgBeNLk-w

Gawd help us.  Six minutes in and I can't stay awake .. I lack the will.  Does it get better?

Isn't this guy guilty of scientism?  So much emphasis on macro physics vs micro physics when it is internal states of consciousness which should surely be the center of focus for any discussion of will - free or otherwise.

That's a good point. Scientism may be the Achilles Heel of his overall position. I think a lot of what he says regarding humans, and the drive to do good based on evolution, has some validity.

[Language-Gamer]

Is this guy like an evolutionary psychologist or philosopher or what?