I don’t think this line of argument is reasonable, and especially not for this site which is about aiming to believe things that have evidence for being true rather than just because they may be convenient.
To begin with: those are some of the vaguest definitions of both free will and consciousness that I’ve ever seen, and don’t even approach the meat of the issue.
The first argument is simply outright false. If you believe in free will, you will act differently from someone who does not believe in free will in at least some circumstances. So in contrast you what you propose, something would change.
I’m not sure what you mean by your second point. Quite apart from the fact that you haven’t even defined adequately what you mean by free will, what limitation do you suppose of someone who does not believe in it vs someone who does? Give an actual example, and I’m sure that someone who actually believes that free will does not exist will either verify it or refute it. My expectation is that your example will be refuted, but feel free to surprise me.
As for the last section, it looks like some form of argument for ignorance. If you think that’s going to fly on this website, you’re in very much the wrong place. From the About section (emphasis mine):
We are a community dedicated to improving our reasoning and decision-making. We seek to hold true beliefs and to be effective at accomplishing our goals. More generally, we work to develop and practice the art of human rationality.
The first argument is simply outright false. If you believe in free will, you will act differently from someone who does not believe in free will in at least some circumstances. So in contrast you what you propose, something would change.
You will act differently in discussions about free will but I haven’t seen any evidence that it correlates with behavior in other contexts.
I guess it would depend on how exactly one “believes in free will” or “disbelieves in free will”. That is, what exactly is their model of a human mind (including their own).
This may result in specific behaviors, for example a “believer in free will” may generally try to overcome their problems using willpower, while a “disbeliever in free will” may generally try to modify their behavior indirectly by modifying their environment. With regard to others, a “believer in free will” may try to convince them verbally, while a “disbeliever in free will” may try to set up incentives.
Of course, people can be inconsistent. One can profess disbelief in free will, and yet try to solve their problems using (nonexistent, according to their worldview) willpower. I would actually expect most “disbelievers in free will” to make this mistake.
Ironically, this interpretation contradicts the author’s conclusion:
In a nutshell, I state that believing FW is just more optimal. (for most people)
I don’t think this line of argument is reasonable, and especially not for this site which is about aiming to believe things that have evidence for being true rather than just because they may be convenient.
To begin with: those are some of the vaguest definitions of both free will and consciousness that I’ve ever seen, and don’t even approach the meat of the issue.
The first argument is simply outright false. If you believe in free will, you will act differently from someone who does not believe in free will in at least some circumstances. So in contrast you what you propose, something would change.
I’m not sure what you mean by your second point. Quite apart from the fact that you haven’t even defined adequately what you mean by free will, what limitation do you suppose of someone who does not believe in it vs someone who does? Give an actual example, and I’m sure that someone who actually believes that free will does not exist will either verify it or refute it. My expectation is that your example will be refuted, but feel free to surprise me.
As for the last section, it looks like some form of argument for ignorance. If you think that’s going to fly on this website, you’re in very much the wrong place. From the About section (emphasis mine):
You will act differently in discussions about free will but I haven’t seen any evidence that it correlates with behavior in other contexts.
I guess it would depend on how exactly one “believes in free will” or “disbelieves in free will”. That is, what exactly is their model of a human mind (including their own).
This may result in specific behaviors, for example a “believer in free will” may generally try to overcome their problems using willpower, while a “disbeliever in free will” may generally try to modify their behavior indirectly by modifying their environment. With regard to others, a “believer in free will” may try to convince them verbally, while a “disbeliever in free will” may try to set up incentives.
Of course, people can be inconsistent. One can profess disbelief in free will, and yet try to solve their problems using (nonexistent, according to their worldview) willpower. I would actually expect most “disbelievers in free will” to make this mistake.
Ironically, this interpretation contradicts the author’s conclusion:
I expect that in most cases people’s philosophical beliefs on will power are fairly sandboxed from practical concerns.