NonCausality: The New Reality

[LOGICZOMBIE]

㊙️ In the year 2050, a group of scientists and philosophers made a groundbreaking discovery that shook the foundations of human understanding. Through meticulous analysis of neural activity and brain scans, they found that all human decisions could be traced back to prior events or factors beyond our control.

This revelation caused widespread shock and disbelief across society. For generations, humans had believed in the idea of free will - the belief that they were capable of making choices independent of outside influences. Now it seemed that this cherished notion was nothing more than an illusion.

As people began to grapple with this new reality, there was widespread fear about what it would mean for individual responsibility and accountability. If everything we did was predetermined by external factors, how could anyone be held responsible for their actions?

However, over time a new perspective emerged among some members of society: if free will wasn't real, then perhaps there was no need for blame or punishment based on individual agency alone.

Instead, people began to focus on creating systems and structures that took into account the complex web of causes behind every event. They realized that while individuals may not have total control over their own lives; they still had a role in shaping outcomes through intentional action.

As such society shifted towards more collective models which emphasized cooperation rather than competition as it became clear everyone's fate is interlinked due to shared causality chains within societies . Rather than being judged solely on personal merit or success , individuals were evaluated based upon their contribution to society as whole .

The concept of moral responsibility also evolved from one based on blame towards acceptance since everyone's behavior can only ever be understood when viewed within context given causal complexity . This led many societies down paths focused more heavily on rehabilitation instead punitive measures.

While these changes weren't easy at first- especially after centuries-long beliefs in free will- ultimately humanity adapted its social norms around accepting both inevitability and unpredictability which proved beneficial overall.

In conclusion even though the idea of free will was proven to be logically impossible, humans did not despair. They adapted and evolved their understanding of personal responsibility based on a new perspective that took into account the complex web of causes behind every event.

As such society shifted towards more cooperative models which emphasized shared causality , rehabilitation over punishment and ethical acceptance rather than blame in order to create a better future for all.

 

[Cognisant]

Impulse control isn't an inherent trait, in the absence of imposed limits the scope of a child's behaviour will expand to fill the available "behavioral space", not because children are inherently malevolent but rather because impulse control is a learned skill. In the video Ned is destroying the psychiatrist's office because he's bored, not even particularly bored. In the complete absence of consequences for his actions Ned has gained no ability to regulate his behaviour, so he destroys on a whim.

The lessons learned in childhood (or lack thereof) carry over to one's behaviors in adulthood, people don't just magically evolved into adults overnight like Pokemon.

However, over time a new perspective emerged among some members of society: if free will wasn't real, then perhaps there was no need for blame or punishment based on individual agency alone.

Which is why this is a very bad no good idea, it's not the punishment that's the problem and removing punishment would only make the problem x100 worse.

The problem is the lack of positive reinforcement.
I think the current crisis of young people behaving badly is an unforeseen consequence of social support for single mothers and the de-stigmatization of divorce, that it is essentially a crisis of fatherless behaviour.

Spoiler

Fathers are not simply disciplinarians, mine certainly wasn't, for every time my father disciplined me I can think of a dozen times he nagged me to stand up straight, tuck in your shirt, don't swear in front of your mother, speak slower, enunciate your words properly. He didn't discipline me as much as he taught me to respect myself, respect others (offline) and encouraged me to be the best version of myself. Oh god my weight he's always on and on about, he wants me to go to the gym, he wants me to go to the GP every six months for a checkup, he'll be on my case about getting a prostate exam next.

But that's what father's do and it's something the lawman and the politician can't do for you, you're not their son or daughter, they take no pride in you.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Impulse control isn't an inherent trait, in the absence of imposed limits the scope of a child's behaviour will expand to fill the available "behavioral space", not because children are inherently malevolent but rather because impulse control is a learned skill.

 

[Black Rose]

Impulse control isn't an inherent trait, in the absence of imposed limits the scope of a child's behaviour will expand to fill the available "behavioral space", not because children are inherently malevolent but rather because impulse control is a learned skill.

Humans and animals have a different set of control mechanisms from each other. And domestication plays a huge role in this. It is an objective fact that breeds of dogs behave differently in what they were bred for. It is just that the variance in humans is extremely wide but not deep. Some can be loved in the most caring ways and still become psychopaths. Some can be tweeted the most cruelly and become the most gentle. Initial conditions and activation functions play a big role.

I think of the brain control structure as a set of strings on levers. These strings and levers have different lengths and frequencies as they move back and forth. It is in the design. This will determine how impulses are controlled as people interact with the environment. They push and pull internally as they push and pull externally.

Behaviorism is false as Noam Chomachy said you will never be able to condition a chimp to have nested recursive language. Humans just typically seem the same so what works on one usually works on another becoming a predictable mechanism but this is not always the case. Sometimes people are different in ways atypical from the norm for better or worse.

The people who have dominated society usually are the ones who cooperate the best. And because of capitalism, people formed divisions of labor. So people with different types of impulses could be divided and segregated. Not by race but by intellectual and physical labor.

Just like optimal health exists people can optime brain functions with the new medications that have been invented. Andgene therapies. but the impulse would still be structurally limited as the height cannot be changed Brain structure is not as malleable as we think though its plastic consistency would be.

agrees that reinforcement must be used in specific cases. but society is cooperation based, the top people will always have the most social intelligence / best social networks.

if we want to change society we do need to change what can be changed but in order to do so we need more not less intelligence / wisdom on how different people control their impulses.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I think of the brain control structure as a set of strings on levers. These strings and levers have different lengths and frequencies as they move back and forth. It is in the design. This will determine how impulses are controlled as people interact with the environment. They push and pull internally as they push and pull externally.

exactly

there might even be some springs that can store tension over time

the key point of all of this, though

is that injecting uncaused events into the human mind

does not translate to "self-control"

any result that is caused by an uncaused event could not possibly be credited to the individual human in which it appeared (without violating the very definition of "uncaused")

and since the individual human ALSO cannot claim credit for results that are part of a causal chain that extends beyond even their own birth, breaking the causal chain seems tempting, but can never be credited to an individual act of will

 

[Black Rose]

will is defined by its opposite "won't"

I will drink a glass of water brb.

ok I drank the glass of water (seriously I just did that)

now: I won't leave the room for 10 seconds then I will.

(just did that irl)

will is very much predicated on knowing,
so if I will or if I won't depends on me knowing if I can and if I have the energy and motives to do so.

I drank the water and I stayed in my room because I had the opportunity and I wanted to and I knew I would be able to.

maybe all this was all caused before I was born but whether I will or I will not do something does depend on a state of knowledge I have.

I will not stab my eye out because it will hurt, even if I have a knife in front of me right now. But I will eat a marshmallow because I am hungry.

Under different circumstances, I would stab my eye out and not eat the marshmallow even if I was hungry but it would just as much be a conscious choice only I would be a psychopath that did not care about pain or pleasure.

So what I will or won't do is determined by my desires and whether I know I can obtain them. I know that if I do x then y will happen. I am aware of this. So I do what I do because I am aware of the consequences. And when I make mistakes I learn a new set of things I will and will not do.

It is dependent on a threshold of pain and pleasure. I can do this but I cannot do that. I care about what happens to me. I do not do dumb things unless I am filled with too much emotional tension. But even then I have enough control not to generate the worse outcomes. That is why I am not dead yet.

People act in such a way as to not die. most of the time they are aware of what will and will not kill them. So they will do those things that help them survive and they will not do what will kill them. An act of will is to the extent of us knowing what the consequences will be.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

People act in such a way as to not die. most of the time they are aware of what will and will not kill them. So they will do those things that help them survive and they will not do what will kill them. An act of will is to the extent of us knowing what the consequences will be.

survival instinct is a core motivation

but do you think it is possible for the human will to actually break free of previous events ?

essentially becoming an uncaused cause ?

 

[Black Rose]

People act in such a way as to not die. most of the time they are aware of what will and will not kill them. So they will do those things that help them survive and they will not do what will kill them. An act of will is to the extent of us knowing what the consequences will be.

survival instinct is a core motivation

but do you think it is possible for the human will to actually break free of previous events ?

essentially becoming an uncaused cause ?

What happens inside is very much dependent on what happens outside.

But

The laws of physics are actually indeterministic microscopically so macro changes can happen in a butterfly-like effect.

Previous events cannot fully determine what I do next.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Previous events cannot fully determine what I do next.

i agree 100%

but the indeterministic microscopic influences are not caused by human will

will is always goal seeking in service of desire

and as such, always caused

if the will becomes untethered from goal seeking, it violates the definition of will

 

[Black Rose]

goal seeking

humans have no ultimate goal

we kind of just hang out

but when we do have goals it matters what they are (to us) and if we have the capacity to achieve them

people fixated on simple goals usually require no mental effort so are fine with themselves doing the simple tasks

but to some these simple tasks are boring

the simplicity of tasks is relative to the 3 dimensionalities of cognitive functioning

some people have ADD some dyslexia some myopia some are slow some have low working memory

so, like, I cannot draw, I dislike looking at things.

creativity is a reflective process.

what happens is a back-and-forth exchange.

new stuff comes out of it

it is generative

that is why internally or externally a goal is really about making something

what we make we find gratifying in the process of making it

but people cannot all make the same things

so we make what we make based on how big or small that may be in our capacity

and this is in proportion to the acquisition of the resources to make them

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

and this is in proportion to the acquisition of the resources to make them

very poetic

but you can't create an uncaused cause

 

[Black Rose]

you can't create an uncaused cause

I never said this

 

[Black Rose]

if a system is different it will cause different things given the circumstances

thus intelligence and the goals match based on what can and can't be achieved by the system

Simple goals can be achieved commonly (I can cook mac n' cheese)

Complex goals require more than commonality (program a physics engine from scratch in a computer)

and all in-between / below and above

people seek goals at their level

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

if a system is different it will cause different things given the circumstances

all humans are unique

and that makes them unpredictable

but not free from cause and effect

any action that is free from causality must be uncaused

 

[Cognisant]

The thing is we're not gods, we're not operating with absolute knowledge, we cannot know and account for all factors and thus we are forced to operate within systems of rules and consequences, that from a strictly deterministic perspective are not fair.

I understand that in the USA where the cultural influence of Christianity is still quite strong the justice system has a focus on punishment to the detriment of prevention and rehabilitation and there's certainly a wealth of opportunities for systemic improvement in those areas.

But that doesn't mean the rules of the justice system as it exist shouldn't be enforced, in the absence of consequences people will act out. Leniency is something a justice system can afford when the system is already working, indeed this is a feature of the system, first offenses are generally punished far less harshly than repeat offenses.

 

[birdsnestfern]

This is still causality, but it was interesting that Joe Dispenza says Melatonin and a certain technique of breathing so you pull your stomach up and in opens the pituitary which in turns opens the internal ability to visualize. So, one way to change the brain is melatonin he says.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But that doesn't mean the rules of the justice system as it exist shouldn't be enforced

nobody is suggesting we ignore a rabid dog

we must isolate a rabid dog in order to mitigate the threat

but there is no wisdom in torturing a rabid dog

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This is still causality

yes, and life is still ridiculously entertaining

 

[Black Rose]

Leniency is something a justice system can afford when the system is already working

If the system is not working this makes crime worse not better.

Yes, imprisonment is a deterrent but it does not teach people how to be better.

Often it is the mentally ill who commit crimes. Perhaps we should focus on curing mental illness first? (and poverty, don't forget poverty)

We have a duct tape system.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yes, imprisonment is a deterrent but it does not teach people how to be better.

there's pretty good evidence that it actually makes people better criminals

80% of inmates are more dangerous to society after they are released than before they were initially incarcerated

 

[Black Rose]

people seek goals at their level

people want to do things

but they can only do things at their intelligence level

that is why people get bored and some have fun doing the same activity

sports are fun to some because they are good at it, and skill matches the challenge

to me, sports are too hard so it is not fun for me

to some, they can draw and it is fun to them, I find it extremely frustrating

I like to think but I realize that most any activity is about reflection between two things. (internal or external)

the problem of the human being is in finding things to do

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

 

[Black Rose]

Yes, as she said, I think that free will is a word game.

define free will as not compatible with physics then it does not exist

but

then you need to define freedom as not compatible with physics because will already exists because will is just an action by an agent.

so what is freedom?

freedom is defined as: "that which does not prevent me from doing something".

so if it both prevents me from doing something and it is not an act of will, then free will does not exist.

Lots of things prevent me from doing certain things, physics prevents me from acting against its laws,

but then what is it that I am free to do?

not anything just what physics allows me to do.

I was free to eat today but I was not free to fly to the moon today

me eating the ice cream bar today was an act of "Free" will.

anything we do is free if we both;

1) want to do it
2) and we actually do it

nothing prevents me from doing free things, physics only prevents me from doing non-free things.

and doing things I do not want to do is coercion. even if it is free.

I freely do what I want to do and what I do not want to do.

anything I do not do was never free to do in the first place.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I freely do what I want to do and what I do not want to do.

you only do "what you don't want" if you prefer that to the perceived alternative

 

[Black Rose]

I freely do what I want to do and what I do not want to do.

you only do "what you don't want" if you prefer that to the perceived alternative

We are free to do things otherwise we would have been prevented by some kind of outside force.

What is preventing me from typing this message, nothing, nothing at all, it has already been done and I prefer it that way.

But if something did happen I would be: "damn, that damn outside force prevented me from typing what I wanted to say."

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

What is preventing me

your actions are (either) motivated (or) unmotivated

 

[Black Rose]

What is preventing me

your actions are (either) motivated (or) unmotivated

yes, now what about the "freedom" part?

will is already known, we cannot say will does not exist. we take actions based on motives.

but it is a word game to say if will is "free" or not.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

word game

it's only a "game"

if you fail to define your terms

will is defined as motivated

and motivation is a cause

perhaps you might manifest an unmotivated act

but that act could not be an act of will

ipso facto

no free will

 

[Black Rose]

word game

it's only a "game"

if you fail to define your terms

will is defined as motivated

and motivation is a cause

perhaps you might manifest an unmotivated act

but that act could not be an act of will

ipso facto

no free will

my terms are that any act is "free" if it happens otherwise it would not happen (it would have been prevented i.e. it is not free)

Therefore any motivated act is free.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Therefore any motivated act is free.

free from "not happening" ?

but not free from a cause

 

[Black Rose]

Therefore any motivated act is free.

free from "not happening" ?

but not free from a cause

if no "thing" prevents me from acting on my motivation then I am free.

but all motivated actions have a cause.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

if no "thing" prevents me from acting on my motivation then I am free.

but all motivated actions have a cause.

there are many "things" that prevent you from simply choosing to be satisfied

how you seek to vanquish your desire is limited by your resources

 

[Black Rose]

I strive to acquire more resources.

That is part of my motivation.

But also, I strive to create things and to learn things.

All within the bounds of resources.