The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating
Abstract
Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.
It’s funny how some people think that 😉 fixes stupid.
Said the “person” who claims to have a special kind of free will that ordinary people don’t have.
He uses the thing he does not believe as an excuse to not fix the thing he no doubt does not even believe is happening.
Do you believe that human caused climate change is real J-Mac or won’t your pathetic shitbag of a god let that happen?
Not really. Fiction is not the opposite of truth. Fiction is the transport mechanism, whether it is truth or entertainment or propaganda is determined by the author’s skills and desires.
That is because they what the truth to be what they need it to be. And illusions can be beneficial.
Certainly not holding a belief that climate change cannot happen does determine the possibility of accepting climate change is occurring.
The question is how does one arrive at beliefs. If I depend on fossil fuels as a livelihood does my economic interest predetermine my belief? Do I then find other reasons to justify the predetermined belief?
Warming water melts ice, warmer water expands.
As was human’s ability to learn, as was human’s ability to manipulate the environment , as was human’s ability to predict possible outcomes. As was some human’s ability to have a nuanced view ,to feel some responsibility to future generations to not burn the house down. Lots of predetermined paths.
If selfishness determines your choices, nothing could cause you to do otherwise.
Selectively? The meteor which chose to hit the Yucatán ,which chose which living creatures to wipe out and the Dino’s that choose to be vaporized?
Some might say the existence of such a weapon predetermines its use at some point.
It’s a free country, so knock yourself out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Last I checked, there is no scientific basis for “Many Worlds”.
Again, you can believe whatever, but if you’re thinking your claim of “rejection” and “incoherent” is scientific/logical, you must provide some proof.
In contrast, all I am saying is that at this point, (Determinism + Randomness) < 100% of output is the most plausible hypothesis that accounts for the difference seen between the living and the inert. You do see a difference between the living and the inert, right?!?
No. Think about it, “cause/effect” presupposes determinism.
keiths:
Nonlin:
I’m not asking for permission. I’m pointing out your error, which was to assert that
Compatibilists don’t invoke any “unexplained residual”. They don’t need to.
I’m also pointing out your error in claiming that QM “invalidates” determinism.
keiths:
Nonlin:
Then you’ve been checking in the wrong place. Many Worlds is scientifically superior to interpretations of QM that involve wavefunction collapse, because it is more parsimonious and less ad hoc.
keiths:
Nonlin:
I’ve made that case multiple times at TSZ, and I can certainly do it again if necessary.
Of course, but there’s no reason to think that the difference involves an “unexplained residual”.
In quantum mechanics effect can presuppose cause…
In other words, the effect can, and often is, predetermined no matter what the cause is… Unless of course we eliminated the linear time concept..
How else would one missile kill the dinos on at least 2 continents and leave most of other life alone without collateral damage?
I am not one of them…
I’m not responsible for my selfishness the same way I’m not responsible for my beliefs… It was predetermined many billions years ago that I would be like that…Unless of course there is a discrepancy in determinism…
Nonlin:
keiths:
I found a recent video by Sean Carroll that does an excellent job of explaining this:
Then explain yourself. What exactly is free will to you?
All I see about “compatibilists” – and you seem to confirm – is that they claim free will is an illusion. In this case, you are not a true free will proponent.
Interpretations are merely hypotheses. To become science, they need some proof. Hence no Nobel for Everett (many worlds) or Bohm (pilot wave). Bohr got his Nobel in 1922, so NOT for his 1925 to 1927 Copenhagen interpretation either.
No interpretation is needed to see QM invalidates determinism. http://nonlin.org/free-will
6. Quantum mechanics indeterminacy invalidates determinism. In the double slit experiment, one can have a perfectly deterministic setup, yet every time the experiment is repeated, it cannot be known (except statistically) where the particle will end up even if the setup is calibrated to the n-th degree. This is totally different than the deterministic systems (hereby invalidated!) where the normal distribution of outputs can be narrowed by tightening the inputs / set-up with the theoretical conclusion that perfect inputs / set-up will result in perfect outputs (determinism).
7. Even Newtonian mechanics doesn’t claim determinism is true. It only gives a limited (not exhaustive) set of rules without implying that’s all there is. Newton strongly believed in divine intervention and didn’t see a conflict between that belief and his mechanics. Chaos theory has been conceptualized as early as 1880 by H. Poincare, shaking the foundations of determinism which was never based on anything other than an incomplete understanding of physics and on a pure philosophical desire.
Then do it again. I haven’t seen them.
Are you appealing to “authority”? Sean Carroll is wrong on too many things. Besides, I am very familiar with all interpretations and find them all lacking proof.
What do you mean? An example would be great.
keiths:
Nonlin:
Roughly, free will is the ability to make choices based on our own natures, desires, and deliberations. That’s perfectly compatible with determinism.
Then you don’t understand compatibilism. I’d advise you to do some reading on the topic.
keiths:
Nonlin:
Many worlds is really just unadorned QM. It’s the other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, that add extra stuff like wavefunction collapse.
That’s incorrect. Read on.
Your entire #6 is predicated on the notion of wavefunction collapse. If you abandon that artificial notion, then QM is perfectly deterministic. The Schrödinger equation doesn’t have any random terms in it.
Newtonian mechanics isn’t fully deterministic, but not for the reasons you think. In any case, that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about QM, not Newtonian mechanics.
False. Chaos theory is deterministic.
Please add chaos theory to your list of things to read up on, along with compatibilism and the Many Worlds Interpretation.
keiths:
Nonlin:
I’ll do so in a later comment.
keiths:
Nonlin:
No, I’m taking advantage of Carroll’s skill as an explainer, so that I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. If you think Carroll gets it wrong in that video, you’re free to make your case.
You’re so mysterious… Here:
“According to the Consequence Argument, if determinism is true, it appears that no person has any power to alter how her own future will unfold.”
…
Compatibilist:
“If an agent acts differently in some possible world than she acts in the actual world, then some other set of laws will be the ones that entail what she does in that world.”
…
“Frankfurt explains freely willed action in terms of actions that issue from desires that suitably mesh with hierarchically ordered elements of a person’s psychology. ”
…
“Arthur Schopenhauer famously said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”
…
Compatibilism is sometimes called soft determinism pejoratively (William James’s term).[16] James accused them of creating a “quagmire of evasion” by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.[16] Immanuel Kant called it a “wretched subterfuge” and “word jugglery”.
That just about sums it up: Compatibilism is incoherent babbling.
No. As you notice, I put Bohr’s interpretation in the same category of wishful thinking.
False, Schrödinger equation is NOT reality, but it’s a very poor surrogate of reality. All theories are.
And in any case, Schrödinger equation was derived from measurements (what you call collapse). Do you know that without measurements, there’s nothing?!? Certainly no Schrödinger equation.
You’re asking people to believe your story and never measure because your story collapses upon measurement. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?
Again, NM/Chaos theory is also NOT reality, but a very poor surrogate of reality.
It don’t matter what you falsely attach to the Chaos theory or Newtonian or QM. They shows no determinism whatsoever. Else you would be able to predict and duplicate results. Remember, in a conflict, reality and NOT theory is what matters. And of these three, NM is the only one compatible with determinism but ONLY IF you don’t look too closely (aka Chaos theory).
Come on, be honest.
Not wasting more time on Carroll. As explained, Carroll gets it wrong a lot of times. He’s not helping your case – if you even have one that is. Bring your own considerate arguments rather that parroting others.
Nonlin:
You’re revealing your ignorance of chaos theory, which is totally deterministic.
Determinism does not imply in-practice predictability.
From the Wikipedia article on chaos theory:
Nonlin:
That’s a shame. Carroll’s video has a lot to teach you. Whence your resistance to learning?
As I said, I’m not going to reinvent the wheel. There’s no need for me to re-explain what Carroll has already explained so well.
Here’s a perfect opportunity to demonstrate that, if it isn’t just bluster on your part. Watch the video and see if you can spot any substantive mistakes.
keiths:
Nonlin first denies it…
And then makes my point for me:
Nonlin,
You’re assuming that measurement can’t happen without wavefunction collapse. That’s exactly my point. As I said, your entire #6 is predicated on the notion of wavefunction collapse, which is artificial and unnecessary. Without it, QM is perfectly deterministic.
Nonlin:
keiths:
Nonlin then supplied a bunch of quotes, none of which supported his claim that compatibilists see free will as an illusion.
Amusingly, Nonlin actually linked earlier to the SEP article on compatibilism, which proves him wrong. Oops.
Very funny!
It’s deterministic by decree. Because Wikipedia said so and Carroll agrees. Stop all experiments and shut down the labs.
Assuming you understand and can explain. And for that you need to show some proof.
Huh? I am merely assuming measurement cannot happen without measuring. Is that too much to ask for? How would you measure without measuring?
You see, measuring is not “artificial and unnecessary” but rather absolutely necessary.
Ok, so we’re looking at the same and you see something different. There’s nothing wrong with that. So unless you want to explain your position, I see what I see, i.e. compatibilism = incoherent babble.
Poor Nonlin. Click here.
keiths:
Nonlin, now:
Nonlin, a few hours ago:
Uh-oh. Nonlin, when you find yourself tripping over your own statements like this, it’s time to slow down and do some learning.
Nonlin,
It’s wavefunction collapse, not measurement, that is artificial and unnecessary.
Read my words:
People exposed to images on a computer screen consistently activated the very specific part (s) of the brain few seconds before the images actually appeared on the screen…
Thousand of MRI brain scans are the evidence for it…
How could the effect – the brain neurons sending the message – be happening before the image actually appears on the screen that is the cause of the neuronal activity in the brain?
How could the effect happen before the cause?
Whatever. You call measurement “collapse” and it becomes a different thing to you. Peekaboo anyone?
How is “collapse” (your word) different than measurement?
I say:
…and you reply with more Wikipedia?!? Wow!
And when will you explain the compatibility hocus pocus? CAN you explain? Or is that also something that only Carroll can do?
Seriously, Nonlin? You can’t tell the difference between Wikipedia and a Google search?
Nonlin:
“Wave function collapse” is standard terminology.
In the Copenhagen Interpretation, measurement is different from collapse because the former causes the latter. In the Many Worlds Intepretation, they are different because collapse never happens, though measurements obviously do.
Measurement is not wave function collapse, and wave function collapse is not measurement.
Ok. So you were just showing me how to search on Google. Got it. Wow again!
Don’t care about any interpretation. Just explain how you measure.
No, it’s not obvious seeing that there are no experiments associated with “Many Worlds”.
Nonlin,
I already defined compatibilism, which is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism.
You asked what I meant by free will, and I replied:
If you think it’s incompatible, where’s the conflict?
Hint: There isn’t one. Your “unexplained residual” is not needed.
Having so much fun with Keiths, frankly I lost track of our discussion. Anyway, can you send a link to the experiment?
What happens if no image is shown? Would there be no brain activity? Because that would be fantastic. But probably not what happens. Who said the image on the screen triggers the neuronal activity?
Nonlin,
The same way anyone else does. It’s no different for MWI than it is for Copenhagen or any other interpretation.
The difference is in the explanation of what happens during the measurements.
Famous quote: “it’s not even wrong”.
In a deterministic universe…
…what the heck does “natures, desires, and deliberations” even mean?
…how would one “make a choice” ?
…what’s “ability”?
Let me guess – another famous quote – “It depends on what the meaning of is is”?
Nonlin,
Those words mean the same thing under determinism that they do in common usage. For example, making a choice involves the consideration of alternatives and the selection of a subset of them. Nothing about that process needs to be non-deterministic.
Ok. So you measure like anyone else and get a value – same value – like anyone else. And then you say: “there’s another universe (many) and over there, this value is different”. Fine, but if you want to be believed you need to show some proof. Do you have any proof? Of course you don’t. Then what?
Doesn’t work.
Determinism is self-defeating as lack of Free Will would render all decisions illusory. The Sun, the dead, and the rocks do not decide anything, so why would a determinism proponent decide any more than these entities? And without decisions, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘worry’, ‘fair’, ‘guilt’, ‘self’, and so on do not make any more sense either. Convincing others that Free Will is not true makes absolutely no sense if Free Will were indeed illusory.
You are technically both wrong though I have not read all your nonsensical and contradictory comments…
What really collapses the wave function is NOT the actual act of measuring but rather the knowing of the path of the particle as proven by many version of the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments.
The knowing requires a knower…
Nonlin,
You’re assuming that determinism precludes free will, but that’s the very issue under dispute.
Determinism doesn’t render decisions illusory for the same reasons it doesn’t render choices illusory:
J-Mac,
The wave function doesn’t need to collapse at all, and a ‘knower’ isn’t necessary.
Nonlin,
First of all, science doesn’t deal in proofs. What it does deal in are things like parsimony, inference to the best explanation, and falsification.
Judging by your comment, you seem to think that the Many Worlds Interpretation complicates things by tacking extras onto basic QM. That impression is false. The many worlds are already implicit in the evolving wave function. It’s not that the MWI adds them, it’s that the Copenhagen Interpretation (along with other interpretations that invoke wave function collapse) subtracts them. The addition of wave function collapse in the CI increases the complexity of QM. The MWI avoids this additional complexity and is thereby more parsimonious. When two models fit the data equally well, science prefers the simpler and more parsimonious one. The MWI wins the parsimony battle.
Nonlin,
An additional comment to hammer home the point about determinism:
You think that decisions are incompatible with determinism, because a decision made under determinism isn’t really a decision at all:
But there’s nothing about decision making that requires non-determinism. Consider what happens when we make a careful, rational decision:
1. We lay out the alternatives.
2. We evaluate the alternatives against a set of criteria.
3. We compare the alternatives based on those criteria.
4. We pick the alternative that best satisfies the criteria.
Now suppose the process is carried out deterministically:
1. We deterministically lay out the alternatives.
2. We deterministically evaluate the alternatives against a set of criteria.
3. We deterministically compare the alternatives based on those criteria.
4. We deterministically pick the alternative that best satisfies the criteria.
Has the addition of ‘deterministically’ rendered any of those statements an oxymoron? No. They still make perfect sense. For instance, a deterministic evaluation is still an evaluation, and a deterministic comparison is still a comparison.
There’s nothing in the process of deciding that requires non-determinism. You’re imagining a conflict where there is none. Free will is compatible with determinism.
They don’t say what happens if images are not shown, so nothing fantastic there.
From your quote, this makes sense: “Most notably the possibility that this effect is just a result of ‘fishing’ for the right analysis out of many possible analyses. ”
Now what?
I didn’t bring up nor do I support “wave function collapse”, so how can I be wrong on that?
I agree, for once. You are not even wrong.
Of course science needs proofs and disproofs. Every time we apply Newton we prove his theories are still reasonable, while Pasteur disproved “spontaneous generation”. Yes, the proof is not absolute if that’s what you mean.
Anyway, you’re not answering: how can you demonstrate the measurement result is different in a different “world”? How can you show “many worlds” is not just a made-up story?
If you haven’t figured out, my position is not “interpretation 1 vs 2” but “focus on actual measurement and forget ALL interpretations”.
You are confused. Decision is a prerogative of the living.
Yes, we say “computer did this and decided that” as shorthand, but that’s not what happens. Computers do not decide. Instead, their creator decided how computers should behave and pre-programmed that. Computers just execute (macro deterministic although not quantum deterministic). Even when they’re called AI.
But we do see a difference between the inert that is 100% deterministic (macro level only) and the living that seems more than that. We call that difference (the residual) free will. And, since you are the one insisting on 100% determinism, you are the one responsible for explaining that difference away.
As explained, determinism fails experimentally in Newtonian at the micro level AND in QM. Wishing that away by decree is not a scientific option.
I see we’re going in circles at this point.