Hang on, what are we talking about here? Free will or technological progress? They're pretty orthogonal.
The problem with the 'Free Will' argument is that it descends into really weird definitions of 'free will' that only full time philosophers have the time to get to grips with. I take my cue from mindfulness. I'm on board with the fact that I have a subconcious that bubbles stuff up the whole time. But in the same way that the concious component can observe these thoughts, it can also make decisions on how to act in relation to them. For me, intuitively, just having the ability to make a decision about something equates to 'free will', whether or not that something originated automagically in my subconcious. But then you read this and think that you don't understand the question -> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion.
As Box once said, 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' - if I believe the universe is deterministic (it isn't according to quantum mechanics) and I extend that to 'free will being an illusion' well that mental model just isn't useful when I'm trying to decide what to have for breakfast.
Technological progress has forever been thus. In the same way that a mechanised loom seems hopelessly quaint and benign today (as does a book for that matter, with parents wishing their kids would use them) - in their time they were hugely dangerous and utterly terrifying. We'll feel the same way about phones when we have neural implants and hark back to the good old days of doom-scrolling. Things change, young people adapt, old people get apoplectic. Its just the way of things. Genuine problems, say the subject of AI ethics, as opposed to natural and continuous change will attract effortful thinking proportionate to there seriousness.
gosh... you're ofc entitled to your opinion - but I feel you've missed the point of the article a bit... I think what Richard is saying is much more nuanced than your reply gives it credit for - even with the big words and quotes :-) ... I think Richard was trying to make a case (very elegantly, IMO!) that free will and tech progress aren't separate - they're entangled... I think you might've missed the manufactured consent hinted by Richard. You sound like you're pretty comfortable in how things are, with status quo - but I don't think Richard is (and neither am I - that's why his writing resonates with me so much) - that probably means that we'll be coming to this discussion from two different perspectives and never fully agreeing - which is fine - we don't need to agree to still have a meaningful conversation. But I'll admit that the slightly dismissive tone in your response tickled me the wrong way. And in the end, Richard made a very clear case for his line of thinking - whereas, I'm honestly not entirely sure what point you were trying to make...
I think we are potentially in danger of furious agreement on this, its a great blog that resonates with me too! I'm not sure what point I was trying to make either, possibly something as simple as I don't understand the free-will argument and toying with the idea that hyper-connected smartphone enabled lives will, at some point in the future, seem quaint. I agree at this point in time they look like they are doing some significant damage. I don't agree with my last sentence any more, head-in-the-sand on climate change is a good counter-example.
Hang on, what are we talking about here? Free will or technological progress? They're pretty orthogonal.
The problem with the 'Free Will' argument is that it descends into really weird definitions of 'free will' that only full time philosophers have the time to get to grips with. I take my cue from mindfulness. I'm on board with the fact that I have a subconcious that bubbles stuff up the whole time. But in the same way that the concious component can observe these thoughts, it can also make decisions on how to act in relation to them. For me, intuitively, just having the ability to make a decision about something equates to 'free will', whether or not that something originated automagically in my subconcious. But then you read this and think that you don't understand the question -> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion.
As Box once said, 'all models are wrong, but some are useful' - if I believe the universe is deterministic (it isn't according to quantum mechanics) and I extend that to 'free will being an illusion' well that mental model just isn't useful when I'm trying to decide what to have for breakfast.
Technological progress has forever been thus. In the same way that a mechanised loom seems hopelessly quaint and benign today (as does a book for that matter, with parents wishing their kids would use them) - in their time they were hugely dangerous and utterly terrifying. We'll feel the same way about phones when we have neural implants and hark back to the good old days of doom-scrolling. Things change, young people adapt, old people get apoplectic. Its just the way of things. Genuine problems, say the subject of AI ethics, as opposed to natural and continuous change will attract effortful thinking proportionate to there seriousness.
gosh... you're ofc entitled to your opinion - but I feel you've missed the point of the article a bit... I think what Richard is saying is much more nuanced than your reply gives it credit for - even with the big words and quotes :-) ... I think Richard was trying to make a case (very elegantly, IMO!) that free will and tech progress aren't separate - they're entangled... I think you might've missed the manufactured consent hinted by Richard. You sound like you're pretty comfortable in how things are, with status quo - but I don't think Richard is (and neither am I - that's why his writing resonates with me so much) - that probably means that we'll be coming to this discussion from two different perspectives and never fully agreeing - which is fine - we don't need to agree to still have a meaningful conversation. But I'll admit that the slightly dismissive tone in your response tickled me the wrong way. And in the end, Richard made a very clear case for his line of thinking - whereas, I'm honestly not entirely sure what point you were trying to make...
I think we are potentially in danger of furious agreement on this, its a great blog that resonates with me too! I'm not sure what point I was trying to make either, possibly something as simple as I don't understand the free-will argument and toying with the idea that hyper-connected smartphone enabled lives will, at some point in the future, seem quaint. I agree at this point in time they look like they are doing some significant damage. I don't agree with my last sentence any more, head-in-the-sand on climate change is a good counter-example.
hehe - fair enough! we've all been there :-)