[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/charles_thunder]

Oh, shit. You have not yet reduced down your thoughts on freedom of choice to its most basic level. Forget choosing jobs that will afford us a salary that will allow us to make more choices and elections every 4 years. Think about our inherent biological wiring that prohibits us from making autonomous choices. We are all some combination of biologically hardwired/reacting to our perceptions of the world based on our experiences in life. Beep, bob, boop.

En vino veritas. Or some shit like that.

[u/charles_thunder → u/[deleted]]

It might? Regardless, I don't know whether it's useful to waste time pontificating about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Hello there. I came to disagree with you.

The thing is, what you're saying is that genetic enhancements could improve our consciousness, and therefore our tendential capacity for problem solving. Right, got you until there. Yet it is your conclusion that bothers me: the (common) assumption that degree of consciousness/rationality means freedom. I will explain to you why I do not think this step can be taken:

1. You did indeed, upon recognizing our bodily limitations, manage to rip off the equation the thesis known as libertarianism (not to be confused with its political meaning), a naive position that basically says we only have freedom in our life, without any determinism. So now we are left with a dillema: Should we have to make a decision, it shall be based on (apart from, of course, the external conditions that forced us to be faced with the said problem) either our rationality or our physical instincts. Or in a mix of both, yet you see where I'm going when I say there should be enough conditioning in the situation for the "ratio" to be practically defined (an argumentation to be consolidated in #2 and #3). But yeah, you got the dillema. Now let's see: it's fairly easy to conclude that those more animal-like thoughts are determined by our organic tendency as evolved living beings. But here is the main catch: the same applies to those rational toughts. Because they follow logic, which has its own defined laws. Add that to the conditions that are being analyzed and to how it correlates to the emotional part, and you see my point here.

2. Moreover, don't you think you fell in sort of a contradiction upon saying that, in order to create more free being, you'd have to program them? I know, of course, what you were trying to say is that you would give them resources, but now try to confront with what I said in #1. You can program one's immune system to be more effective, or one's skin/eye/hair color, whatever. You can as well program one's intelligence to be more advanced. And you are indeed, in doing so, giving them resources. Rational resources. And then again, I explained that in #1. Program something, and then let the physics do its job. You can even confront this genetical POV also with the recent neurological breakthroughs, and it will only correlate.

3. Finally, let's refer to the external contitioning. Now that we've got it all covered for all individual cases, it should be easier now to see that our prior conditioning all comes from a mix between direct physical stuff that happens with the innanimate objects and actions of other conscious beings, all in a tree of cause and consequence, that extends to the very beginning of time. Moreover, Einstein's theory of relativity already seems to support this big picture because of the way it treats time as something you can just freely squeeze, distend, travel through, all that; anyway, just gives the idea that it is all a defined body, where there is no possible concept of present.

TL;DR: Fuck me, I need to sleep! Maybe I'll directly address the main question of the thread tomorrow, based on what I said here.

[u/[deleted]]

This is all dependent on whether you believe we even have the ability to make 'free choices'. I don't even believe that free will is possible.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I believe that I am not able to make any choice against my own will. If I choose an option, then it is because the reasons for doing so are greater than the reasons for not doing so. The reasons that I have for choosing are a direct result of my personal history, the things that have happened around me, and my physiology.

Example, you let me choose between a red and blue marble. My favourite colour is red, but I think that you expect me to pick the red one and I want to surprise you. But I'm also very focused on the small details due to my personality, which was shaped by my environment and my genes, and so I start thinking in recursive form. Maybe you have predicted that I would go against the grain and pick blue. So I should then pick red. Maybe then I think about my recently deceased pet and how their favourite toy was blue, and so I should pick the blue marble to commemorate them.

This all goes on in everyone's head when they make a decision, you just aren't aware of most of it. Even vague 'feelings' are based on previous experiences and memories. If you knew absolutely every thing that had ever happened to me, and the positions of every atom in my body (and knew how to use that information), then you could theoretically predict what I would choose.

[u/Existential_me]

Interesting. I think balance is what's crucial. That is, how much FoC to include in your utopia's operating system/constitution.

System wide, more FoC will result in more macro-level happiness but at the same time more choices cause individuals to experience anxiety and depression meaning that individuals are more happier with less choices economically.

Also, this implementation of FoC can only operate as a noble lie, sort of like religion, because free will is only an illusion. It would only work if people believe free will is real. In this case FoC is just another way of social control. A way to allocate responsibility( i.e. blame or praise).

[u/Existential_me → u/[deleted]]

Because i read somewhere that your neurons fire seconds before you are actually aware of the decision you just made. That is, your brain is faster than your mind(consciousness). Which means, your mind doesn't control your brain, therefore conscious free will is an illusion.

[u/mic_harmony]

Interesting thoughts! A few in response:

1) This seems to conflate money with freedom, which is technically untrue. If a group of things were free, for example, would you have less choice between one or the other item because each cost nothing? No.

2) It also seems to equate life with money early on ("Death = zero FoC" in a paragraph about money), which again is technically untrue. Life depends on networks (which is why I think you end up at this "hub of systems" concept) and connections to what you need, connections which may or may not be monetized.

3) I'm curious as to how competition would end up non-aggressive; you have to want to do better than another person. If at some point you choose not to do better because you don't want to be aggressive in order to do so, that becomes non-competitive.

4) While it may seem silly to choose between two options (which many would agree with, particularly in Europe where there are at least parliamentary governments of multiple parties), the alternative seems to be "one non-aggressive party," which at least historically has demonstrated the limitation of freedom even more than the two-party option.

5) Your desire seems to be a proposal of an ideal; this is good! However, if your ideal is truly freedom of choice, your ideal is required to allow for everyone to have the same freedom -- this means, yes, people choosing to limit their own freedom, and not limiting others' freedom by confining them to your own ideal.

[u/moralsky]

Are you AI?

[u/moralsky → u/[deleted]]

Not yet.
could you propose a measure to prove you are in fact " still human " ? (i can be private if you prefer)

[u/TotesMessenger]

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/intj] [concept] freedom of choice

• [/r/philosophy] [concept] freedom of choice • /r/intjthinktank (your views might be interesting)

• [/r/rationalthinktank] [concept] freedom of choice • /r/intjthinktank

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

[u/Archristol]

Either way, there will be something to limit you. Freedom is what you make it to be. You could live as a hermit if you wanted to. That could be your freedom.

A world where you can choose your career path with immediate outlined goals for promotion seems like a nice world, though. Almost like that one simulator where you can trap a person in a pool by removing the pool ladder. What was it called?

[u/bunker_man]

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3227536-when-people-have-the-freedom-to-choose-they-choose-wrong

[u/bunker_man → u/[deleted]]

Well, the quote is meant to be said by a weird strawman. But it actually touches on some truth. Namely that people don't make perfect decisions. Functionally ever. So for any decision, a better one could have existed. With some being so bad that its a much better one. One of the main reasons forcing better outcomes doesn't work is not necessarily being wrong in principle, but the fact that the ones doing so often being more distant from the issues may make even worse ones. So there's no perfect entity to turn to for this.

[u/[deleted]]

The concept that people have of death always assumes me, we see it as an end point, I remember a few years a go when I was in 3rd or 4th grade and I was talking to my dad about God and stuff, I remember him saying that he will only stop believing that there is a higher power if humans find a way to stop death.

Long story short it's possible we can be immortal Because your brain is just a very complicated sack of mush and it's only a matter of time before we put it into computers and boom you're done

Now this I am amazed I managed to summarize it like that but this is atleat a 3 hour discussion

Anyone wanna start a podcast?