Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#41

Post by narag »

onion2k wrote: post #8
narag wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…

that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would…

it's wholly and completely predictable

Predictabilty hasn't anything to do with freedom either.

it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would make the exact same decisions as that person

So what?

In other words, we don't actually make any decisions for ourselves. It's all determined by chemistry.

Nonsense. We are the chemistry, we are our brains. Are we "determined" by ourselves?

the fact they shot their wife was actually nothing they could have had any control over, and it's very unfair to lock them away for 30 years

That comes from the ancient and barbaric conception of penal justice as retribution. Punishment is a disincentive and the very right thing to do to prevent crime.

Edit: also that's again the faked duality. "...nothing they could have any control over" as if the subject is a pure soul completely apart from the universe and its forces. The subject is part of the universe, exactly the part of the universe that could have any control over killing or not killing. We put that part of the universe behind bars to prevent it from killing again and sending a message to other parts of the universe that could feel tempted to do the same. Also, in theory, to try to modify that part of the universe so it wont kill again.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#42

Post by marklgr »

Drakim wrote: post #38
onion2k wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we don't have free will then we have no control over what we do. Consequently we can't be held to account over our actions if they weren't a choice.

Sure we can. If a robot went around killing people with an axe, we would stop it and dismantle it. We wouldn't shrug out shoulders and say "The robot can't help it so we can't hold it accountable for what it's doing." If an individual does something to break the law, we hold that individual accountable for it. There are tons of modifiers, maybe the individual was under the influence of drugs, maybe the individual was…

That's incapacitation, not retribution.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#43

Post by marklgr »

yk wrote: post #16
narag wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…

Not sure why you are downvoted, for presenting what amounts to the leading theory of free will. ( Compatibilism, the view that free will is compatible with determinism is the most popular theory of free will among philosophers.[1]) [1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

Even though the view is mainstream, compatibilists have a lot of serious objections to deal with, so the point is far from "obvious".

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#44

Post by Natanael_L »

spacehome wrote: post #14
Natsu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on exactly what idea of determinism you have. If you mean something like phenomena can be described by the standard model, that's fine, but if it's something like local realism, that's been busted pretty hard. This might prove more interesting than the linked article, though it was on HN previously: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a... Local realism is the idea that objects hav…

The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.

What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be?

And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled particles you get two waves that meet where X+X and Y+Y don't interact, but X+Y and Y+X does and thus create new universes. I don't see how the wave-less versions hold up when there for example are orientation-dependent probability and a ton of other crap like that. What else makes the particles interact with exactly the right universe?

Edit: Not to mention how complex MW would have to be to explain the delayed quantum eraser experiment.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#45

Post by yk »

marklgr wrote: post #43
yk wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you are downvoted, for presenting what amounts to the leading theory of free will. ( Compatibilism, the view that free will is compatible with determinism is the most popular theory of free will among philosophers.[1]) [1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

Even though the view is mainstream, compatibilists have a lot of serious objections to deal with, so the point is far from "obvious".

Yes, and actually I am a libertarian in that debate, but I think one can successfully defend a compatibilist view.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#46

Post by narag »

yk wrote: post #16
narag wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…

Not sure why you are downvoted, for presenting what amounts to the leading theory of free will. ( Compatibilism, the view that free will is compatible with determinism is the most popular theory of free will among philosophers.[1]) [1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

Not sure why you are downvoted

Politics. Any question that has remotely been associated with different ideologies, religions or any other polarizing groups division is bound to provoke this kind of reaction.

Free will is associated with religion, so non-religious people tend to oppose to the idea.

Actually I believe that religion is in the origin of the no free will conception.

Nature vs nurture is another of such debates. I'd add a few more, but enough of making friends for today :-)

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#47

Post by spacehome »

Natsu wrote: post #28
spacehome wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.

True, but it makes Occam spin in infinitely many graves.

I'm not sure why people believe this. I would address it here again, but better people than me have written on it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#48

Post by spacehome »

Natanael_L wrote: post #44
spacehome wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.

What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be? And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled par…

You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#49

Post by Amezarak »

narag wrote: post #40
Amezarak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains and describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" e…

Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!! describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will" That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric c…

Maybe I misunderstand, but your definition of free will seemed to me to be a tautological "free will is the freedom to choose among possible alternatives."

To my reading, you did not address what it actually means to choose, which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another.

> And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity.

Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact event that occurs after a decision is already made in the brain as a consequence of how it synthesizes different instincts and stimuli.

Anytime you think to yourself "I'm going to do this", that decision was already made before you were even aware of it.

> We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us.

What does that mean? Do you have any evidence that, given the same circumstances, I could have chosen to do something differently? Or it is just a bunch of hypothetical navel-gazing?

The Stanford encyclopedia link is a great read.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#50

Post by Natanael_L »

spacehome wrote: post #48
Natanael_L wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be? And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled par…

You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.

In what way? There's no one canonical MW either way, my version with growing parallel universe bubbles that merge or split is just my interpretation, as the other versions I've seen seem to be unable to address various issues
Post reply on HN