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.
Huh? Can you explain your mumbo-jumbo?!? Meanwhile, I offered a VERY SIMPLE thought experiment that demonstrate determinism is dead even under your MWI nonsense. Try to understand it.
Side note: the Schrödinger equation ‘describes’, but does not ‘determine’.
Who cares about “Modoc”? The programmer better anticipate every single situation OR AT LEAST default to a fail-safe. Otherwise he kills people like Boeing and Tesla and many others that try to do their best but can only do so much. You need to look up ‘logic diagrams’ and ‘truth tables’.
Why do you insist on “collapse”? And what has “which path” to do with “QM disproves determinism”, let alone “…excuse for bad behavior”?
Did I mention my argument for “determinism is dead” does not rest on “collapse” or “which way”? Turns out even “many worlds” (as stupid as it is) STILL kills determinism. Did you understand the argument?
They just don’t get your argument!!!
Democrats, probably! 😴
Nonlin,
Why the quotes? Modoc is a real place.
keiths:
Nonlin:
The programmer doesn’t have to anticipate the existence of a pothole at the corner of Elm and Conley in Modoc. The programmer tells the car how to decide; the car does the deciding.
Don’t try to snow me, Nonlin. I’ve done both microprocessor design and systems programming, and I can tell that you’re bluffing.
keiths,
Unlike the car, nonlin both has anticipated every possible situation and would figure out something cool and original to do even if he hadn’t been. No failsafes necessary for the guy who refuted determinism with his knock-down slam-dunk argument!
Yes, but only somewhat. My understanding of action seems to be very different from Andy Clark’s.
As a matter of fact, I don’t. But, unlike you, I have a theory, or an explanation, as to why I don’t. Your just “measuring of particles” in the double slit experiment tells me that nobody but you knows what that means and that’s even doubtful too…
Who says it does?
Just because you say it, it doesn’t make it true… You’d have to prove it first, which is not going to happen if you continue to be confused about the implications of the delayed choice quantum eraser with determinism…
The programmer anticipates a pothole-like situation in a generic place. That is when the decision is made – the rest is execution.
I find that very hard to believe given your lack of understanding.
On another note, did you finally understand how QM invalidates determinism? Even in the crazy “many worlds”? If not, read the thought experiment again.
Then go ahead and explain yourself.
Again, what has delayed choice to do with determinism? Are you concerned that a non-interferential system reverts to Newtonian mechanics? So what? Newtonian mechanics is no more deterministic than QM.
Did you see my thought experiment below?
“Experimentally, we KNOW that a system described by the Schrödinger equation is nondeterministic. Here’s a thought experiment that disproves determinism:
We have a double slit experiment with single photon emissions and the target area separated in 10 different sections labeled 0 to 9. Once a section is hit, it stays on (cannot detect multiple hits) Determine the output sequence? Is it 012…9? Is it 8754219036? What is it? Even if you have “many worlds”, the output is still not determined in either of those worlds.
…
If you roll a fair die, “a number from 1 to 6 will be obtained” and that’s the extent of Determinism. What number will be obtained is Random. If one gets 4 or 2, etc, no one in their right mind would say “that was predetermined” …this aside from “many worlds” being a totally retard fantasy to begin with… and a fantasy that doesn’t even help your case.”
Do you agree?
Nonlin,
By your logic, kids don’t divide numbers. Even if they do all the steps correctly and come up with the right answer, they haven’t divided. They’ve just followed their teacher’s instructions.
That’s silly, of course. If the kids do the steps correctly, they’ve done division. If the car executes the instructions correctly, it’s made a decision.
Your mistake is to ignore the parts of the wave function that you don’t happen to find yourself in.
J-Mac:
A single photon can’t create a pattern, J-Mac. The patterns only emerge by looking at many photons and separating them out based on what happens at D1 through D4. That’s what the coincidence counter is about.
You’re assuming that the photon has already definitely taken one path or the other by the time it reaches D0. But why? That doesn’t make sense even by your own reasoning, because wave function collapse doesn’t happen until someone finally looks at the results and learns which path was taken. That’s long after the twin photon has arrived at a detector.
I take it as a given that
if x is an element of the set of philosophers,
and y is an element of the set of topics that philosophers address,
then Neil’s understanding of y differs from x’s understanding of y.
I am pretty sure you are just in it for the entertainment value.
But there is an important point about Deep Learning (which I think driving AI uses) that is not captured in NonLin’s posts.
For Deep Learning, the programmer only implements a way of learning. Then the car’s AI learn’s how to drive (starting with driving in a simulated environment).
Old-Fashioned AI:
Data+Programming -> Computer -> Output
Deep Learning
Data + Output -> Computer -> Programming
Source (with prettier picture too)
https://www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/traditional-programming-versus-machine-learning-in-one-picture
Now, as it turns out, people are much better at learning than current Deep Learning computers,. Much, much, much better.
Computers need a vast number of correct examples (output in above); people successfully generalize from few.. Computers need whole hydroelectric dam’s worth of electricity; people only need a bowl of Cheerios. Computers cannot do the many types of general learning that people can do. Computers have difficulty acting in and learning from the real world and tend to stick to the internet version.
Well, on further consideration, maybe people today are not that different on that fourth point about the internet. But, still, the first three apply.
Bruce,
That’s a nicely indirect, Canadian way of saying that Neil isn’t a philosopher, because otherwise x could be Neil and the understandings would match in that case.
Bruce,
Bingo. Nonlin is basically a chew toy.
Good point. But I’m sure the chew toy will say that that the decisions are still implicit in the code. The car is “just executing instructions”, after all.
Are you assuming that I always agree with myself?
That’s a good point which I should have been explicit about (assuming I would have thought of it)..
Sean Carroll in hist latest podcast mentions that listeners will enjoy his interview with Pat Churchill because of her “charming Canadian accent”.
Which came off as patronizing to me.
Of course, I don’t mean anything too serious by that comment on Sean C, and let me offer my apologies in advance to any American who was offended by my offhanded comment.
It’s true bruce. I do find non-lin’s incredible hubris very entertaining. Neil gets that way a bit too. They can be dismissive because…they just know better.
I get that humans remain much better at some thngs than computers. Making a free will argument out of that is not trivial though. To non-lin everything is trivial.
You’re attacking a straw man. Better stick with actual quotes.
Huh? What does that even mean? And how is that tied to the thought experiment discussed? You know, the one that clearly demonstrates determinism is dead.
Chew toys get boring after a while.
I bite…he squeaks.
I bite…he squeaks.
And it’s just the same squeaks over and over.
Only we were not talking about learning but about determinism, free will, and decisions. Humans learn and machines record – a trivial task.
Wish I could say the same about your jokes (somehow the word “lame” comes to mind).
keith’s comments on the other side… very funny. Especially his many… many… many worlds. Pure entertainment. Why don’t you learn from him?
I can easily imagine the word “lame” coming to your mind.
But thanks again for proving the falsity of determinism once and for all!
How did you come to the assumption that only one photon was used in the experiment?
So… this experiment is way over your head, eh?
Well, you can continue to “torture” Nonlink…He developed a new version of quantum gravity; The Quantum Newtonian Reverting… I hope he can prove it…lol
Nothing as far as I can tell…
I’m not because it doesn’t…
Really?! How so?
I agree… but you can’t prove it…
I agree but this can only apply to our free will being “restricted” to the number of quantum states we can affect or create in the universe due to the law of conservation of quantum information…capish?
Experimental evidence that Trump-s all theories. You’re falling for the materialist scam that claims determinism should be the default. But why? There’s NOTHING in Newtonian mechanics that favors determinism. Unless you can prove otherwise, Chaos [theory] is just a manifestation of QM which never goes away. So onto QM…
Is this not convincing to you:
“We have a double slit experiment with single photon emissions and the target area separated in 10 different sections labeled 0 to 9. Once a section is hit, it stays on (cannot detect multiple hits) Determine the output sequence? Is it 012…9? Is it 8754219036? What is it? Even if you have “many worlds”, the output is still not determined in either of those worlds.”?
Why?
I have no idea what you’re talking about, catfish. Explain!
Btw, there’s nothing quantum about information. You’re falling for another materialist scam (next you’re gonna tell me microevolution is a thing). You must be bruised all over.
http://nonlin.org/biological-information/.
This was discussed at TSZ as well.
J-Mac,
I didn’t. Read my words:
That why you are getting one week off…
Short attention span… to nonsense too 😉
Ironic really, short attention span, given you barely interact in your own threads. I guess your windows are all already broken, so hey, why not…
J-Mac,
Speaking of your short attention span, that quote is from Nonlin, not me.