Live data from Hacker News

On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

aeon.co

121–130 of 172 posts

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#121
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I exhibit behavior that allows you to pursue your own desires Okay, then please don't rearrange my brain, even if you think it would "improve" some "deficiency" of mine. If we're agreed on that, then I'm good.

I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it. One day we will do the same with thought cancers and viruses I am sure.

> I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it.

With my consent, or without it?

Does that make a difference to you? It does to me. If it does to you, we probably agree more than it seems like we do from this discussion.

But if consent doesn't matter to you, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think any amount of discussion will resolve.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#122
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would you rather me be doing to fight it? Honest answer? You and I, as individuals, can't fight it unless we are right there when it happens. As I have said, more than once now, the fact that we can make choices does not make us omnipotent. In any case, I'm not the one that is saying everyone should drop everything and go fight child trafficking. You are. I am simply pointing out that you are not actually doin…

We can't fight it unless it happens right in front of us? We can donate to organizations that do have the stated purpose. We can vote for politicians who propose laws and policies that make it extremely difficult for it to happen. How are you powerless to do anything about it unless it happens "right in front of you"? And I'm pointing out how in my capacity I am doing everything I can to fight it. Part of that is con…

> We can donate to organizations that do have the stated purpose. We can vote for politicians who propose laws and policies that make it extremely difficult for it to happen.

Sure, if we think such organizations and politicians actually exist. (I'm skeptical that they actually do, but I'm willing to assume they do for the sake of this discussion.) But to me, that doesn't count as "drop everything you're doing and fight", which is what you said earlier that everyone should be doing. If what you meant by "drop everything you're doing and fight" is just "support organizations and leaders that you think will improve the situation", then I don't disagree with your suggestion as a general thing (though I might disagree with your specific selection of which organizations and politicians to support), but I think your choice of words was a very poor one. To most people, "drop everything you're doing and fight" means "completely rearrange your life so you are spending all of your time and effort fighting this problem".

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#123
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our society is largely a result of your way of thinking It most certainly is not. Our society refuses to respect people's right to freedom of choice in all kinds of ways. And most of those ways can't even be justified on the grounds of harm to others, which is where your big sticking point seems to be. Our society throws people in jail just for having drugs in their possession, even if they haven't harmed anyone an…

No, in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them. A parent thrusts their choices onto their children often to much detriment as the aforementioned person. In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because the idea that you can choose for someone is removed. It simply is behavior that is exhibited, and…

> in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them.

Oh, for goodness' sake. I've already agreed that this is the case. I just don't think it means our society is based on respecting other people's freedom to choose. Are you not even reading what I post?

> In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because the idea that you can choose for someone is removed.

Since you and I don't even agree on what "choice" means, I think we need to taboo that word for this discussion, because to me, what you are saying here looks like pure sophistry given as an excuse to allow you to do whatever you want to people without their consent--in other words, as I said, tyranny worse than the worst tyranny in history. The rest of your post has the same problem.

Elsewhere in this discussion, you said that if I had cancer, you would rearrange my brain if you thought it would cure the cancer. And I asked you a question in response. Your answer to that question will help me to understand whether the issue we are having here is just a matter of a difference in terminology, or a fundamental difference in viewpoint. You can respond where I asked the question, or here.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#124
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at the end of they day you are removing their ability to choose murder. No, I'm not, because the consequence only gets imposed after they have made that choice. Removing their ability to choose murder would mean changing them beforehand so they don't choose to murder in the first place. Which, if it can be done while respecting their right to freedom of choice, would of course be vastly preferable.

You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder. You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse. If you could prevent the unlawful murder of someone, you don't give a damn about their choice. You are making the choice for them by saying it is not allowed. Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law. In the future, it might…

> You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder.

Sorry, but I disagree.

> You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse.

No, I just have a viewpoint that you apparently can't understand.

> Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law.

This is obvious nonsense since having a law against murder does not prevent someone from committing a murder. It just imposes a punishment on them afterwards.

> In the future, it might be before they are even able to generate a murderous impulse.

Which is very, very different from the current scheme of law we have now. And, as I have said elsewhere in this discussion, to me looks like tyranny worse than the worst tyrannies in history.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#125
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it likely is a cause and effect system Of course consciousness is a cause and effect system like everything else. I have never claimed otherwise, and the viewpoint I am defending certainly does not require otherwise. > My definition of free will is the common understanding of free will The common understanding of free will is that people can make choices and that those choices affect what happens to them. That can…

It is not free will in the sense that you can spontaneously decide it for yourself. I can choose to eat vanilla yogurt or plain yogurt. That is the narrative my brain hallucinates. The reality behind the illusion is that the choice was made before I even am aware of the "story I tell myself" that I chose one or the other.

> It is not free will in the sense that you can spontaneously decide it for yourself.

If "spontaneously" means "outside of the laws of physics", then of course I agree. I just don't think that kind of "free will" is the only possible kind of free will, nor do I think that impossible kind of free will is the kind of free will that matters.

> I can choose to eat vanilla yogurt or plain yogurt. That is the narrative my brain hallucinates. The reality behind the illusion is that the choice was made before I even am aware of the "story I tell myself" that I chose one or the other.

Of course this is true in the sense that, as far as we can tell, the brain process of you being aware of your choice happens either at the same time as, or after, the brain process that makes your choice. But so what? All those processes are still happening in your brain.

Compare what you just described with this scenario: you want vanilla yogurt, but I force you to have plain yogurt instead because I believe it's healthier for you. Here there are still processes happening in your brain, which, if I weren't there, might well have led to you eating vanilla yogurt--but because I am there and I force you to eat plain yogurt, your brain processes do not determine what kind of yogurt you eat--instead, my brain processes do.

Do you see any meaningful difference between those scenarios? I sure do. (And note that I think that difference is meaningful even if it is true that the plain yogurt would be healthier.) If you don't, then we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think any discussion can resolve.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#126
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not advocating for a violent person to not be stopped. You're advocating for "stopping" them by having someone else rearrange their brain so they won't be violent any more. And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that that someone else is making a choice that has consequences; to you it's all just particles reacting to their environment. Yet you also seem to think suffering is bad--but if it's all just particles…

Absolutely! Re-education, rehabilitation is exactly THAT! It's altering the synaptic connections in the brain to bring their behavior in line with what we view should be the case in civilized society. You just seem to have a problem with making that process more efficient. And it is all just particles moving around, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore what is very likely an unpleasant experience from your subject…

> You just seem to have a problem with making that process more efficient.

No, I have a problem with that process being done without the consent of the person, even in cases where there the person has not harmed anyone else. I have asked you about that elsewhere in this discussion; your response will tell me whether it actually is an fundamental difference in our viewpoints or whether you are just describing things using very different terminology than I would use.

In cases where a person has harmed someone else, it's the fact that they have harmed someone else (more precisely, that they have harmed someone else without an extremely good reason, such as self-defense, for doing so) that creates the consequences I have talked about. There are consequences for people's choices regardless of whether we have a society or not. Sometimes, as a society, we alter the consequences from what they would be in a state of nature (for example, we put murderers on trial and then imprison them if they are found guilty, instead of just letting the families and friends of the murder victim take private vengeance, which is what would happen in a state of nature with no society). But it is simply ridiculous to say that respecting people's freedom of choice is inconsistent with there being consequences for people's choices. If you choose to jump off a cliff, you will die. If you choose to harm other people for no good reason, they will retaliate. Calling that "limiting freedom to choose" is just sophistry.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#127
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder. You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse. If you could prevent the unlawful murder of someone, you don't give a damn about their choice. You are making the choice for them by saying it is not allowed. Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law. In the future, it might…

> You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder. Sorry, but I disagree. > You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse. No, I just have a viewpoint that you apparently can't understand. > Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law. This is obvious nonsense since having a law against murder does not prevent someone fro…

So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone?

I understand it fine. It's objectively wrong.

Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action. The threat of being thrown in jail or even executed is not to retroactively deal with the situation, but to give people an incentive to not murder. If it didn't discourage murder, then people would find a different way to dissuade people from murdering.

How is it tyranny to curb a person's ability to murder? Or you trying to argue that allowing people to murder others is a net gain for society?

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#128
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not free will in the sense that you can spontaneously decide it for yourself. I can choose to eat vanilla yogurt or plain yogurt. That is the narrative my brain hallucinates. The reality behind the illusion is that the choice was made before I even am aware of the "story I tell myself" that I chose one or the other.

> It is not free will in the sense that you can spontaneously decide it for yourself. If "spontaneously" means "outside of the laws of physics", then of course I agree. I just don't think that kind of "free will" is the only possible kind of free will, nor do I think that impossible kind of free will is the kind of free will that matters. > I can choose to eat vanilla yogurt or plain yogurt. That is the narrative my…

You can't redefine what free will means and expect people to take you seriously. Free will means you have the ability to choose, and if you agree with me that the universe is deterministic, then you have to admit that making a choice is only an illusion. I can make choices in the same way that a neutron chooses to move toward more massive objects. I eat vanilla ice cream over dirt because I have taste buds that allow me to taste the difference between the two. Eating dirt instead doesn't prove I had a choice, because now I'm not eating dirt for taste, but to win an imaginary argument about free will. It's not the external world I'm reacting to now, but the internal one.

Your scenario is irrelevant because you admit that those processes, which you don't control happening in your brain, are still you. But if they are you, and you don't have control over them, you only become aware of them after the fact, then you JUST ADMITTED you don't have any choice. The choice was already made by something you have no control over, but only watch as a passenger. Your heart beats without your choice. You will pass out and have to breath because your brain will force you to at some point stop holding your breath. You will remove your hand from an external heat source that you did not expect AUTOMATICALLY, and only then become aware that your body moved milliseconds after the stimulus has already short-circuited through your PNS and not your CNS. If you think that the distinction doesn't matter, then you are still willfully lying about the reality, or intentionally want to deceive people about the physical world and how it works by redefining any word you need to to maintain your hallucinated reality.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#129
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it. One day we will do the same with thought cancers and viruses I am sure.

> I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it. With my consent, or without it? Does that make a difference to you? It does to me. If it does to you, we probably agree more than it seems like we do from this discussion. But if consent doesn't matter to you, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think any amount of discussion will resolve.

Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would.

If I had to physically do it via surgery like our best attempts in science can do today, I would operate if you came to the hospital for the procedure.

When it comes to altering your brain so that you like vanilla instead of chocolate, I would not do that. Some things require consent absolutely. Some things do not, like resuscitating a person if you are an EMT and sworn to do no harm. Consent isn't the end all be all of the debate, not by a long shot.

For example, do you ask the murder to consent to going to jail or do you put the murderer in jail against their will?

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#130
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them. A parent thrusts their choices onto their children often to much detriment as the aforementioned person. In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because the idea that you can choose for someone is removed. It simply is behavior that is exhibited, and…

> in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them. Oh, for goodness' sake. I've already agreed that this is the case. I just don't think it means our society is based on respecting other people's freedom to choose. Are you not even reading what I post? > In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because t…

I did there. Let's consolidate our discussion to just a back and forth on that thread if you want to continue the discussion, which I thoroughly hope you do.
Post reply on HN