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

Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#71

Post by circlefavshape »

twodave wrote: post #44
colordrops wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of many holes in this theory is that the mind that believes it has free will is also the one that created the conceptual model of neurons, so we could also be wrong about that too.

This is, in my opinion, the main flaw with Naturalism. If Naturalism is true, then no truth can be discerned (not even the concept of Naturalism itself). It's an argument for futility. It's actually a pretty dated argument, though. C.S. Lewis even spoke on the subject: > If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the by-products of an irrational proc…

Are you sure that's a flaw? There is no truth. There is only Nature

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#72

Post by hathawsh »

Kapow wrote: post #68
hathawsh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, acting as if people possess free will is a conscious decision. When I'm tired, I sometimes slip into my natural mode of thinking of everyone as automatons. I have to choose to believe that people are conscious. I have to remind myself that people are not merely robots, or even if they are, it's self-destructive if I think of them as robots.

You think everyone else can't make conscious decisions, but you can? That sounds like solipsism, or just a lack of empathy.

Yes, there is a part of me that seems solipsistic. There is also another part that sees myself as an automaton along with everyone else. And there is yet another who reasons that at some level of sophistication, it's impossible to distinguish between automatons and beings with free will; I no longer care whether I have free will and rejoice in living along with everyone else.

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#73

Post by mythrwy »

asey wrote: post #59
lisper wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one actually believes this, including you. I'm pretty sure that I'm in a better position to know what I actually believe than you are, and I'm telling you, I really do believe this. There are only three possibilities: either free will is an illusion, or dualism is true, or consciousness is the result of unknown new physics. The first is by far the most likely from a scientific point of view, and the evidence for…

I'd argue that there are more than three possibilities. One addition, for example, is that the concept of free will is under-defined and an intelligible conversation can't be had about it. I encourage you to define free will without resorting to synonyms like volition, free choice, and the likes.

In order to define "free will" as in "I have free will" or "We have free will" first we have to define who "I" or "We" is and I'm not sure we have accurately done that yet.

Who (or more precisely what component of "us") is it exactly is it that has free will? The ethereal eternal soul (which is that anything but an imagined property of conscious beings)? The meat abacus in our heads? the nerves in our arms?

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#75

Post by mythrwy »

lisper wrote: post #52
pavel_lishin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what _nardi_ is trying to say is that there's no functional difference between having free will, and acting as if you do. What decisions do you make differently with your knowledge that free will is an illusion? What choices do you make differently? (fwiw, I agree with you; I just think it doesn't particularly matter now.)

> What decisions do you make differently with your knowledge that free will is an illusion? What choices do you make differently? Interestingly, my belief in the illusory nature of free will has had a huge impact on my life. I'm a much more laid-back person than I used to be. I don't stress out so much over making mistakes. It has also helped me in a lot of practical aspects of my life. For example, it has helped me…

Dockerized micro-services for the self!

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#76

Post by circlefavshape »

nardi wrote: post #7
lisper wrote: post #6

I have some bad news for you: your perception of free will is a by-product of your ignorance of how your brain works. Every decision you think you make is actually just a bunch of neurons firing, and those neurons were built by your DNA.

No one actually believes this, including you. You may say you do, and even think you do, but you don’t. Everyone acts as if they and others around them possess free will. We act that way because that’s what we believe. Honestly, I don’t think we understand enough about consciousness and how it arises from physical brains/bodies to make such an extraordinary claim like “there is no free will,” when the entire history…

Free will is a subjective experience we all have, no matter what we believe. Talking about it in terms of Physics is kinda barking up the wrong tree afaics

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#77

Post by AngryData »

nardi wrote: post #7
lisper wrote: post #6

I have some bad news for you: your perception of free will is a by-product of your ignorance of how your brain works. Every decision you think you make is actually just a bunch of neurons firing, and those neurons were built by your DNA.

No one actually believes this, including you. You may say you do, and even think you do, but you don’t. Everyone acts as if they and others around them possess free will. We act that way because that’s what we believe. Honestly, I don’t think we understand enough about consciousness and how it arises from physical brains/bodies to make such an extraordinary claim like “there is no free will,” when the entire history…

I believe it. Free will is an illusion, humans are just biological automatons, along with every other animal. Thinking you have free will doesn't change whether or not you actually have free will. Just as someone believing they are intelligent doesn't make them intelligent.

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#78

Post by ajuc »

bdamm wrote: post #67
ajuc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We act that way because that’s what we believe. Don't assume we have a free will when debating if we do :) If we don't have a free will, then the fact that we believe in free will is irrelevant, and you cannot deduce that we believe in it from the fact that we act as if we believed in it. Free will is most probably a quirk of language, an answer to a misleading question based on wrong assumptions. There are no diff…

This philosophical line of thinking is without much basis. In certain Buddhist teachings is the idea that we really only have about 60% free will. That is, 40% of our actions are not something we ever could have done differently, but there's still room for plenty of actual choice. Personally this seems pretty high, but even 10% truly self-directed free will would still be astounding. There's no scientific understandi…

> This philosophical line of thinking is without much basis.

It has exactly as much basis as the alternatives, explains the world just as well, gives the exact same predictions, but needs less assumptions.

BTW - why is lack of free will a downer? I perceive is as neutral.

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#79

Post by twodave »

lisper wrote: post #53
twodave wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe I'm being drawn into this, but in my view knowing an outcome doesn't mean controlling it. It simply means knowing it. In the case of your proposed definition of God's omniscience, it helps to picture God existing outside of our timeline. If God can see the entirety of history and the future as if it were a long thread, then it's more like he's watching a video of something that already happened. To Him,…

> Can't believe I'm being drawn into this, I know, right? > but in my view knowing an outcome doesn't mean controlling it. It simply means knowing it. Turns out knowing is enough to negate free will. Take a look at the proof.

Not when time is considered, in my view. Reference back to the football example. You can watch a replay of a football game where the outcome is already decided because you're literally in the future. But it wasn't decided before the game was played. So from God's perspective, yes the game has already been played and the ending is known.

I hope I'm not insulting you, none is intended, but it seems to me that most theories that attempt to remove God and/or free will from reality are a thin veneer over a desire to be without responsibility. The only thing I have to add that I think we both agree on is that truth is indeed concrete, and what we choose (or sadly, think we are coerced) to believe has no bearing on it.

Re: Evidence that addictive behaviors have links with ancient retroviral infection

#80

Post by twodave »

circlefavshape wrote: post #71
twodave wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, in my opinion, the main flaw with Naturalism. If Naturalism is true, then no truth can be discerned (not even the concept of Naturalism itself). It's an argument for futility. It's actually a pretty dated argument, though. C.S. Lewis even spoke on the subject: > If all that exists is Nature, the great mindless interlocking event, if our own deepest convictions are merely the by-products of an irrational proc…

Are you sure that's a flaw? There is no truth. There is only Nature

Yes, because that statement is nonsense.
Post reply on HN