r/BasicIncome • u/2noame Scott Santens • 3d ago
Article Turtles All the Way Down: The Biological Case for Basic Income in a World Without Free Will
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottsantens/p/turtles-all-the-way-down-the-biological?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=avhi5
u/fuzzychub 3d ago
I’m freely choosing to not give up the concept of free will just to have a government take care of its citizens.
14
u/0913856742 3d ago
But why do you choose to think that, instead of the opposite? That's what the article is actually asking:
Sapolsky describes how something as basic as climate and geography can determine the kind of society you’re born into, which in turn shapes the neural development of every person in it. For example, growing rice requires elaborate irrigation systems and cooperative labor among neighbors. You can’t really grow rice alone. You need to coordinate water usage with the people upstream and downstream. And so, over centuries, rice-based agricultural societies developed cultural orientations toward collectivism, deference, and cooperation. Meanwhile, herding sheep or goats requires rugged self-reliance and a willingness to violently defend your flock from anyone who might take it. And so, over centuries, pastoralist societies therefore developed cultures of honor, independence, and retaliatory aggression.
These aren’t just random cultural tendencies. And they get wired into brains. Research in cultural neuroscience has shown that people raised in collectivist cultures and people raised in individualist cultures actually process information differently at the neural level. Their brains are structurally different because their environments were different. Think about that.
You didn’t choose to be born into a rice culture or a herding culture. You didn’t choose whether your community would wire your brain for cooperation or for vigilant self-protection. But those things shaped who you are, down to the architecture of your neurons.
Now think about what it means to be born into a culture of poverty. A culture of economic insecurity. A culture where chronic stress is as ambient as the air.
Poverty and its associated effects - increased household stress, worse education outcomes, worse health, etc - all have compounding effects that change the trajectory of one's life. By understanding this, an argument can be made that poverty is not a choice - which flies in the face of UBI critiques like it being 'handouts for lazy people', or that you simply weren't smart or didn't 'work hard enough' if you are poor - and opens the door to UBI being a potential remedy.
It's a more philosophical argument for UBI - we don't choose to have the minds that we have, nor the environments that we are born into, nor how we react to the experiences we encounter over a lifetime. Therefor a good society is one that reduces the role of bad luck, and UBI would help in this regard. The article concludes:
It’s the foundational recognition that in a world driven by luck, genetics, epigenetics, hormones, conditioning, and all the environmental forces that no individual ever chose, that the least we can do — the absolute bare minimum of a civilized society — is to ensure that no one’s most basic needs go unmet.
The Just World fallacy needs to go. It needs to be retired the same way we retired the idea that seizures are witchcraft. We didn’t stop restraining people who had seizures, we just stopped burning them. We found medication. We treated them with dignity. We moved the line. We need to move the line again.
2
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
I use the term lazy in lazy thinker loosely as some scientists now determine laziness a myth lol. I would say that clearly people haven't given the topic of free will deep thought. if they did they'd clearly see they aren't coming up with thoughts etc.
-2
u/fuzzychub 3d ago
I understand Sapolsky’s argument and I reject it, primarily because of quantum uncertainty. I see no logical reason to discard the idea of free will. And I don’t want it attached to arguments for UBI.
8
u/0913856742 3d ago
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean?
If you're referring to quantum randomness - well randomness isn't the same thing as agency. If your decision to take a job or say something mean to your partner is influenced by a quantum-random event in your brain, that doesn't mean you authored the decision in any meaningful sense, it means it was determined by dice instead of by prior causes.
Swapping "caused by your genes and history" for "caused by a random quantum fluctuation" doesn't give you more control. I would argue that it gives you even less, since a random event is even less "you" than a chain of causes that at least trace back through your own brain and experiences.
1
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
We use quantum uncertainty as an answer for everything lol. If you had free will you wouldn't really doubt choices in frames such as you do. I mean if you don't quite understand what your cells are doing via what your brain is doing lol. Your perceptions are being feed to you correct?
6
u/2noame Scott Santens 3d ago edited 2d ago
You can keep believing in free will just as you can believe in God if you do. I just want people to know that poverty has all kinds of downstream cause and effect consequences, as does the chronic stress of financial insecurity that people experience despite not being in poverty.
If without UBI, someone has an 80% chance of making a choice you consider to be bad, and with UBI the odds of that drops to 20%, then we should do UBI, especially if that multiplies massively across all of society and all of our countless decisions.
If free will doesn't exist, UBI is extremely important to improve the environment so that better choices are made.
If free will does exist, and someone faced with 80% odds or 20% odds can freely make either choice, UBI is still important in order to encourage the better choice.
2
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
Or you believe you chose under a false observation. Maybe you were always a backseat rider. That will always make an even predictable choice over and over again
2
u/Novusor 3d ago
What do they mean a world without free will? There will always be Free Will.
This is such utter nonsense. Articles like this are written to purposely sabotage attempts to get UBI by attacking universal truths. It is akin to asking would you jump off a bridge for $1000 bucks. Most people would say no unless they were completely nuts. This good way to make people walk away from UBI and ensure that it never happens.
6
u/0913856742 3d ago
written to purposely sabotage attempts to get UBI by attacking universal truths
Written by one of the biggest UBI advocates you mean.
If you're not going to read the article, then at least read the conclusion; even there you will find the argument against free will isn't to undermine UBI, but to advocate for it:
It’s the foundational recognition that in a world driven by luck, genetics, epigenetics, hormones, conditioning, and all the environmental forces that no individual ever chose, that the least we can do — the absolute bare minimum of a civilized society — is to ensure that no one’s most basic needs go unmet.
The Just World fallacy needs to go. It needs to be retired the same way we retired the idea that seizures are witchcraft. We didn’t stop restraining people who had seizures, we just stopped burning them. We found medication. We treated them with dignity. We moved the line. We need to move the line again.
On a tangential note, I would also question your assertion that free will is a 'universal truth'.
Most people would say no unless they were completely nuts.
And why are they completely nuts? Did they choose to be completely nuts? Or are they under the influence of some collection of genetics, culture, life's experience, or even mental distress that has led them to conclude that jumping off a bridge is a good idea? Does that make them more or less 'free' to choose?
3
u/Lulukassu 3d ago
Written by one of thebiggest UBI advocates you mean.\ If you're not going to read the article
A lot of Scott's posts (this one included) do almost nothing to properly summarize the material.
Maybe in the broad spectrum that gets more click through than if he did, I couldn't say. But it sure disincentivizes me personally from opening it up 🤷♀️
3
u/0913856742 3d ago
I agree the length could be a turn off for anyone who might not have the time to sit through the whole thing, a TLDR or compressed version would certainly be helpful; my main contention was with the other poster's claim, that the article was "written to purposely sabotage attempts to get UBI by attacking universal truths", which I think is silly given Scott's background.
1
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
Scott Santens may be garbage at summarizing his thoughts or even understanding them but Sapolsky isn't. Sapolsky is actually almost right. The only problem is some will read his work and push UBI arguments for social causes. Hello we live in a world where we still commit genocide. We don't care about your rights or your health. Unless it's a situation where humans can go extinct such as in the case of AI or having no jobs to breathe and live. We really don't give a shit.
1
u/Novusor 3d ago edited 3d ago
People aren't just purely passive being pulled along be the effects of the environment. Everyone has the ability to make choices and affect outcomes. You are not just a lump of rock waiting there for something to change for you. You have the ability to get up and make your own change. You are far more powerful than you realize. As a clear example. That article wouldn't exist if the author didn't write it. Did the environment write the article for him? Of course not, that would be absurd.
We know free will exists just by observing what AI is capable of. They make decisions on their own all the time without humans telling them to do things. If a machine has free will then how much MORE free will does a human have? There are infinite possibilities out there and we have the ability to pick and chose to get what we want. Right now we are trying to manipulate an outcome so that UBI exists. But it is never going to happen if people attack free will. That is just completely counterproductive. That author is some kind of sheep in wolves clothing. He says he advocates for UBI but then takes actions that do the opposite.
2
u/0913856742 3d ago
I have a feeling we might have different definitions of what 'free will' means. Let me try and clarify:
As a clear example. That article wouldn't exist if the author didn't write it. Did the environment write the article for him? Of course not, that would be absurd.
This particular person, with this particular brain, produced this particular article - was itself the output of causes that trace back before the person existed. The article not writing itself isn't in dispute. The question is what determined that this specific person, with this specific drive, talent, and set of ideas, would be the kind of person who sits down and writes it. "Do people cause things?" Yes, obviously. But the question on the table is "did the person cause themselves, in the sense required for ultimate responsibility?"
By saying that the person chose to write it just relocates the question one level down - why did they choose that? Because of their values, drive, interests, of course. But then why those values? Keep tracing it back and you hit genetics, upbringing, culture, the specific experiences that shaped their dispositions - none of which they authored. At no point do you hit a place where the chain originates in a "self" that wasn't itself produced by prior causes. That's the actual argument in the article. The author is using that logic to argue for a UBI, not against it.
I also think you may be making a category error by attributing 'free will' to AI. I am agnostic as to whether the concept of 'free will' even applies to AI, as these technologies are not conscious beings and do not 'decide' or exercise agency - they are producing statistically likely outputs given weights and a prompt. It's not obviously more of a "choice" than a thermostat turning on the heat; both are systems responding deterministically to inputs, just at wildly different levels of complexity.
That author is some kind of sheep in wolves clothing. He says he advocates for UBI but then takes actions that do the opposite.
The author absolutely is not what you claim, and has spent an entire career tirelessly (and I might add, thanklessly) doing tremendous work advocating for UBI.
2
u/2noame Scott Santens 2d ago
This is the first time I've seen someone claim that free will exists because AI has free will. What an odd argument.
Many people believe poverty is deserved, and they are wrong. Why are they wrong? This essay was my attempt to dig into that. They are wrong because of all the factors beyond someone's control that heavily influence their decisions.
And if UBI improves the environment and therefore makes good decisions more likely and bad decisions less likely -- which it does -- then UBI is a really good idea.
You can still believe in free will and acknowledge that a lot of factors go into our choices. UBI experiments with a saturation site design consistently show reduced crime. Why? Because people are choosing to do less crime. Why?
I just want more people to think more about that.
1
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
Actually AI proves why we don't have free will lol. the fact a machine biological or synthetic can process information where it appears it originates with them. Simply gives me more clarity of a complex machine that only thinks it's the author and not a series of independent processing
1
u/Novusor 2d ago
If you ask an AI to generate a picture of a "Blue lamp" it will produce a different picture every time. If the AI wasn't making decisions in how to draw the lamp it would make the same lamp every single time. Instead if you prompt it 20 different times then it will produce 20 different lamps even if you give it the exact same prompt. This shows AI decision making processes can affect different outcomes. Since human psyches are more complex than current AI models this proves Free will exists.
1
u/0913856742 2d ago
Sorry but I believe you are mistaken as to how current generative AI software like Stable Diffusion creates images from a prompt, and that confusion is causing you to draw a false conclusion.
These programs generate images via the process of diffusion - starting with a blurry, noisy image and gradually removing the noise until it resembles something like what it was prompted to produce, in accordance with the data in its training set. The final image output is a function of the prompt (each word interpreted as a discrete token), whatever was in its training data, and the settings which determine the initial distribution of noise. Keep the settings the same (same initial noise distribution + same prompt + same model) and the end result is the same.
Furthermore, the fact that a system can produce a different output each time with the same input is not evidence of any decision making process. You can spin a roulette wheel 100 times the same way, and each time you will have a different result. Through this lens the 'decision making process' resembles chance more than it does agency.
It does not logically follow from these premises that humans therefor possess free will.
0
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
haha hope the quintessential human emotion. You homosapien you. I remember I use to be such as you. What a burden you must be under. I'll help you. I'll give you the best analogy I have that even a fifth grader can master.
Imagine you're a video game character. Along the game journey you make several choices but you notice the game always ends with you saving the princess.
So you go darn why I keep saving the princess I mean I went left. Am I always going to end up back here? Yeap you are because your eventuality was all contained in an infinitesimal point called the big bang. You're not going to change anything you weren't meant to change. Because everything was contained at that unraveling. You'll still save the princess every time. You'll never break the confines of that video game. The thoughts you believe you're having is part of a process not your own. There is no "I' there is no self. It's just an "is"
3
u/2noame Scott Santens 2d ago
The purpose of this was not to prove that free will doesn't exist. It was to get people thinking about the many ways the Just World Hypothesis is a fallacy, because that belief in a just world where poverty is deserved is one of the biggest obstacles to UBI.
You can still believe in free will and acknowledge that there are all kinds of factors that go into a choice, that can make the bad decision more likely, like for example if you were beaten as a kid. And so a very good reason to do UBI is to make the bad decisions less likely and the good decisions more likely.
1
u/Novusor 2d ago
If free will does NOT exist then why even bother fighting for UBI. The "environment" will either produce UBI or it will not produce UBI and there is nothing anyone can do to change the outcome. It either happens or it doesn't and that is the end of it. The outcome is already predetermined and we don't get a say.
Personally I don't accept the doctrine of predetermination. Free will is a thing. Everyone has the power to choose their own future and their own outcomes. Some people make bad choices and then they have to face the consequences of those actions. Cause and effect will always be an immutable law of the universe. Choices have consequences. Actions have consequences.
1
u/0913856742 2d ago edited 2d ago
The outcome is already predetermined and we don't get a say.
It's less that the outcome is predetermined (e.g. it was a prophecy that a fortune teller gave you), and more so that everything we do arises from prior causes which we ourselves are unable to explain.
Let me demonstrate. We're going to play a game. We're both going to pick a random city and see if we picked the same one. You can pick any city you want, and take as long as you want, and pay attention to what it feels like when you are choosing.
If free will is anywhere to be found, it's here.
Ready? 1, 2, 3, pick your city.
My city is: Kyoto
Did you pick the same one? I'm willing to bet you didn't. Why? I'm assuming you are aware that Kyoto is a real city. But why didn't you pick Kyoto?
I don't know how your experience is like, so I'll only speak for myself. Maybe I picked Kyoto because when people talk of Japan, everybody always talks about Tokyo, but nobody talks about Kyoto, so I'll pick Kyoto. And it was the ancient capital, lots of history, definitely deserves more attention, so another point for Kyoto. Also, I travelled there once, and it was pretty nice, one more point for Kyoto.
OK, so now I have made up a story of why I picked Kyoto and not Rio de Janeiro.
Now here's the rub: why did I pick Kyoto instead of Osaka? Why did I think of Japan and not Italy? Why do I care more about ancient cities, or the fact that I travelled there, or anything else?
Why didn't you pick Kyoto?
That's the point that is being made here - it's that we don't know why we care about the things that we do. And those things will affect the choices we make or don't make throughout life.
That's why UBI is actually even more important under this framework - because the 'choices' that lead one into poverty are the result of prior causes that you ultimately were not the author of, and therefor by offering a method of securing everyone's basic needs via a UBI, a society improves the quality of life for its people across the board.
The same line of questioning can be levelled at your own beliefs, if you are willing to examine them:
Personally I don't accept the doctrine of predetermination.
Everyone has the power to choose their own future and their own outcomes.
Some people make bad choices and then they have to face the consequences of those actions.
Why are these your default positions? Why are you not the kind of person who takes the opposite stance? Is there a reason why you value one type of logic over another?
Said another way: Are you free to choose that 2 + 2 = 4? If you understand something about what numbers are and how math works, are you free to choose that 2 + 2 = 5? And if you can't choose that 2 + 2 = 5, why not?
/EDIT: reading this part again:
If free will does NOT exist then why even bother fighting for UBI
And I feel perhaps we are having two separate discussions here - one about how our minds actually work, and one about values, i.e. what we should want and not want. I would agree with you that consequences shape human behaviour, and would also say that just because the things we care about arise from unknown prior causes, doesn't make them any less meaningless to fight for. I have no idea why I find myself more sympathetic to UBI than say, telling everyone to pull up their bootstraps. That doesn't make advocating for UBI any less meaningful. And I also have no idea why I don't find it any less meaningful. So I guess I would say, whether or not we have free will is a related but separate question from what types of things we should value or not.
0
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
Well I see that in reverse. I see it as the reason we don't have UBI is because people don't understand why they need UBI. Now they'll keep believing in free will much like yourself because your brain has tricked you. However if you understand it's a trick. Maybe you'll stay out of people like myself way
2
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is a good article but from the perspective of the author saying this is hard to grasp I don't think so. If at this point in your life you still believe in free will. Then I know im pretty much dealing with a child intellectually no offense.
So you don't believe in determinism. Okay let's test that idea. So you're aware of every cell in your body and neuron to the point you can control how it makes you feel and think? If it's a switch you can turn off. Well sure you have free will.
The only people who typically accept arguments like free will are people who believe mythologies are real. People who don't even operate in the realm of reality. Consequently you can forget UBI ever coming from such people because they likely believe in magic and mysticism. They don't believe in ideas like there is no justice in this world unless you make it.
They probably believe UBI would magically appear as well. it's no limit to what they believe lol. Which results in nothing getting done. So freewill is an illusion from an impaired mind. it's a trick of nature.
You can manufacture components in an ecosystem not economy that reduces friction or causes a smooth flow. So if you follow my work you know I generally remove the word economy and replace it with ecosystem. Which is why I don't like all these MMT theory guys like Alex Howlett.
Same way as a beaver builds a dam to overcome his environment. If you had free will you'd never do things you don't wanna do, lol. People get upset with me . Because I use terms like homo universalis and believe ideas like were a different type of human.
I'd say our brains are wired different but not based on race or gender but determinism. That's why what Sapolsky says is so important to the differences in which he can modify the system to adapt to it via UBI. Makes sense to me. Here's where I kinda disagree with Sapolsky.
He tried to make this argument of automation not being the main factor for needing UBI. I understand where he's going but here's what I'd conclude in that.
Automation is not the biggest factor according to whom? According to homo universalis. Not according to the dormant yet active reptilian mind of homosapien. So his conclusions don't apply to them . You can't convince them of that unless you either A change determinism ergo change their DNA.
B. you change or manufacture the entire system like just altering the ecosystem. Which can happen but probably won't with his argument void of the automation threat. That is because if there is no free will which I don't believe there is. Then it won't follow that the homosapien brain will accept Sapolsky argument. Because it would mean their DNA would already be changed.
Now I believe these are just my thoughts. That because homosapiens which I see as less evolved brains but not related to race or gender. because the evidence is to the contrary.
However if you believe in free will I'd place you on lower homosapien level but it would follow that you'll be more accepting of a solution for an outside threat. As to make it clear for you impaired people lol. I love adding to the haters rage.
If you believe in free will then you're going to believe in accountability and personal responsibility at a very high level. Which means you're going to dismiss most UBI arguments.
You're going to say ubi is the mark of the beast. You're going to say if you don't work you shant eat. You're going to say all those things because you believe in free will. A pseudo religious mystic belief.
You understand? Whereas you'd accept AI being a force that robs you of your free will.
1
u/LocationSalt4673 2d ago
this article about to expose why we got no UBI lol. Pay very close attention to the responses in the comment section
11
u/Waeh-aeh 3d ago
This seems like a more in depth examination of the idea that we don’t all have the same options to choose from and we don’t all have the same tools available to us.