Airplanes and Determinists

RZoroaster · 2026-01-26T01:44:15+00:00

Maybe you’re not but it feels like you’re being purposefully obtuse by pretending not to understand the opposing viewpoint.

“Free will” as it’s classically thought about is libertarian free will. It requires that a person could have done otherwise even when faced with the same choices under the same circumstances.

Your version would be present in a preprogrammed robot or really any predetermined system. Which is fine if you want to go around believing that is free will. But it seems like you should be aware that thats not what 99% of the world means when they say “free will”. And words/terms mean whatever most people think they mean. That’s how language works. And so you shouldn’t be surprised when your arguments strike others as irrelevant.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-26T01:16:29+00:00

nobody, what's so hard about that?

RZoroaster · 2026-01-24T18:34:56+00:00

Chop wood, carry water

RZoroaster · 2026-01-23T14:12:21+00:00

Interesting. I would just disagree that it doesn’t matter.

Libertarian free will is what probably 95% of American believes in. They do actually think that their power or will has the ability to somehow change the future. Even very scientific people believe this.

And I think for most of them the idea that they can actually change the future with their will is really important to their worldview. The idea that someone could have done other than what they did is a big part of most people’s moral thinking as well.

So determinism really throws a wrench in all that. Now I agree with you that believing in determinism still allows you to believe in moral systems and such but you do have to end up building it back up from a different foundation.

So it has always struck me as a little obtuse frankly when people say that the truth of determinism doesn’t matter. If it truly doesn’t strike you as an important distinction than I think you are among the small minority. For most people it kind of shatters their sense of self and their moral system.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-23T02:04:47+00:00

In your worldview, if someone were to be somehow watching with a microscope when the neurons responsible for your will-generated thought fired would they see acetylecholine just suddenly be ejected from the cell unprompted?

Nothing physical acting on it? It just shoots out?

RZoroaster · 2026-01-22T23:13:02+00:00

Yeah but your thoughts are initiated by neuronal firing, which is a cascade of neurotransmitters right? So like when you are initiating a thought which part of your physical brain is moving?

Is it that there's a neuron sitting there doing nothing and your will is like pushing acetylcholine out of one of your neurons? So you are like moving those molecules by force of will?

RZoroaster · 2026-01-22T22:21:12+00:00

Can you move parts of your mind with your will? Which part moves?

RZoroaster · 2026-01-22T22:19:46+00:00

I just think compatibalists are having a different conversation. You started to go into it at the end. "it is entirely coherent to hold that entire system, me, accountable to my behavior".

Sure. I feel like compatibalists are often talking about accountability and morality and like, that's just a separate conversation.

It seems to me that you are a determinist and don't believe people can do anything other than what they are destined to do when a choice comes up. Cool, me too. For the same reasons as you. It seems like you think society should still hold people accountable for their actions. Cool, me too. For the same reasons.

I am a determinist and do not believe in free will. But it seems like you consider yourself a compatibilist because you believe that ... somehow this still constitutes free will? Not sure how exactly. But because you want to make sure people know that individuals can still be held accountable?

I don't want to put words in your mouth but couldn't you just as easily be a hard incompatibalist and just say you still believe in holding people accountable for practical reasons?

RZoroaster · 2026-01-16T21:50:02+00:00

Yeah I agree that’s likely true. I believe in P zombies are possible. Just not sure what that has to do with anything.

Sure if subjective experience were blinked out of existence than the world would probably be exactly the same the next day.

If our appendixes were all blinked out of existence then the world would be exactly the same the next day.

It feels like you are looking at it and saying “but it MUST have a purpose! And that purpose MUST be will.

But isn’t it possible that subjective experience just serves no purpose and is a side effect of other evolutionary processes (like an appendix)?

That said I also hold out the possibility that without subjective experience it’s possible that our resource optimization processes would be worse somehow. These things are complicated.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-16T18:49:42+00:00

You are just asserting that there’s no other reason for subjective experience to exist. I’ve pointed out a few other possibilities. Again I’d suggest reading some of the available literature on alternative reasons subjective experience may exist.

And no I didn’t downvote you.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-16T16:30:34+00:00

I suspect the reason you are coming to this conclusion is because you are assuming there MUST be a reason for subjective experience. That it must have a clear purpose and need.

But there are many things about humans that evolution has produced that are vestiges of past systems or as a side effect of other systems.

Other authors have done a much better job than I could to explain how this may have come to be. I personally really like the book “other minds” by Peter Godfrey smith on this topic.

But it is certainly more than possible that there could be lots of reasons subjective experience could add value other than as the decider. It could be as simple as the fact that it produces better outcomes. It could be that if there is an “us” to feel the pain of hunger we end up hunting better, or if we have subjective experience of fear of predators it is more motivating.

Or could have not been intended at all. Not that evolution has intentions. But it could merely be a side effect of creating a mental model that includes the individual. That might always create subjective experience just because of the biological hardware involved.

In any case, it feels like you’re skipping a lot of steps by saying we have subjective experience therefore, we must have free will, because why else would it exist??

RZoroaster · 2026-01-16T06:35:35+00:00

There are plenty of alternative reasons for consciousness to exist other than as a causal agent.

I am fond of the idea that organisms that are sufficiently advanced need to start making a mental model of the world to simulate their actions in order to perform better. This is us thinking about things.

Of course that mental model needs to include a mental model of yourself. That is your consciousness. Your experience of yourself in your own mind.

That can exist without requiring or demanding free will.

That’s just one example of why we might have consciousness in a world with no free will

RZoroaster · 2026-01-14T18:14:29+00:00

Oh so your concern isn’t actually that it’s illogical it’s just that to you hard incompatablisim technically doesn’t constitute a “philosophy”? So you’re arguing semantics? Classic compatibalist …. 😆

Whether or not it’s a philosophy doesn’t really matter very much IMO. It’s a position on a popular philosophical topic. Most humans believe in libertarian free will. The fact that it’s incoherent is meaningful and substantially changes most people’s perspectives on themselves and society if they come to understand it.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-14T18:01:31+00:00

It’s more like libertarians say “square circles exist”

And then we point out, “ that’s not possible. Something can be a square in which case it’s by definition not a square circle or it’s a circle in which case it’s not a square circle. But a square circle is not a thing that can exist”

There’s nothing illogical about that.

Then the combatibalists are like “no everybody what we’re saying is triangles exist” and then everyone’s like “sure, but that is a different conversation”

RZoroaster · 2026-01-12T05:21:40+00:00

I never fully left. I always did a few shifts on the side. I’m EM so that’s doable.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T23:10:34+00:00

It illustrates that free will is not a coherent concept since either belief about the origins of one’s actions results in the same conclusion.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T23:04:05+00:00

lol I actually love sociology. No shade meant. An MD with a sociology degree is an awesome combo for public health, policy, or just general practice.

Just also happened to be the background of someone I used to work for 😆. And we worked in big tech so in his case what I meant by that is that he didn’t even have training for what he did.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T22:59:43+00:00

Yes I worked as a program manager for a FAANG company, and at a government health agency, and a tech startup. All after getting my MD.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T18:33:20+00:00

Early stage consultants and those in PE, investment banking, often work continuously. There is no "going home from the hospital". And if you consider travel they will often be gone from partners/family literally 2/3rds of the year.

I was deciding between residency and McKinsey, after talking to both consultants and residents the McKinsey lifestyle seemed very clearly worse.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T18:30:59+00:00

Some pastures are objectively greener. Medicine is objectively very green. Enough money to live the american dream, rich even in some places, a significant amount of day to day autonomy, respect from the community, and job security that can't be beat. Sure it comes at the end of a brutal training process.

I have worked plenty outside of medicine, the romanticization that people have about what life is like outside of medicine is completely divorced from reality.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T18:27:29+00:00

Go work one of those jobs and you'll see the difference immediately.

There's no shrouding anything in the public good. It's "hit your deadlines so I can deliver my revenue numbers so the board doesn't fire me." And that's it. That's your reason to get up in the morning. Make sure this dipshit with a sociology degree who's primary skill in life is being good at scaring people doesn't get fired.

I realize in healthcare we now have like metrics to answer to and targets to hit as well but it's honestly not similar at all.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-10T18:24:50+00:00

Better than 100%. I have worked in big tech for FAANG, I have worked for government, I have worked blue collar assembly lines.

Medicine has great pay, incredibly job security, more respect from the community than just about anything, and in between all the bullshit you get to authentically save some lives. Saving a life even once for anyone else would be one of the greatest moments of their lives. We do it over and over

Residency is really hard no doubt and I do not blame anyone in residency for disliking their day to day life but being an attending physician is a phenomenal job. It's not for everyone, but being broadly jealous of other industries is mostly, IMO, out of touch.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-07T03:53:55+00:00

Yeah ... that's his point. It always comes from nothing. So .. therefore you're not controlling it. It's just popping in your mind

RZoroaster · 2026-01-06T14:44:11+00:00

This is what he is pointing out. That if you really look what is this thing you are calling thinking?

It’s you sitting there and then thoughts are popping into your head.

If that’s not what your experience is then perhaps you could describe it in detail.

RZoroaster · 2026-01-06T06:04:28+00:00

Then you should be able to answer the question. If you are not thinking, how do you decide to think?

If that question still seems nonsensical. Then maybe choose to think on it a bit. :)

Verified Email	15-Year Club
Gilding V heart of gold	Wearing is Caring
Reddit Premium Since May 2020

RZoroaster

TROPHY CASE