On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 1:47 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #145

Layke1123 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then if you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, would you not do it? If you could prevent murder, why aren't you morally compelled to? If you chose to let it happen, that means you approve of it. My position is that reducing murder as much as you can is the correct position, to include making that number zero, just like stopping all rape is better than just reducing the number of rapes. Is it OK…

> if you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, would you not do it? I should have commented earlier in this discussion that you are presuming an awful lot of certainty about something where I don't think any such level of certainty is even possible. How could you possibly be so confident that some brain procedure would really, truly make a person incapable of murder? And would do so without impairi…

Because I'm confident the brain is physical, and just like chemicals (alcohol, opoids) and viruses or bacteria (toxoplasmosis) can already brain behavior, so can a person alter than brain through similar methods. It only comes down to knowing how the brain forms new thoughts and making it incapable of exhibiting murderous thoughts.

And I say historical evidence does not lend you credence, but actually the opposite. Nazi Germany believed in capitalism and the doctrine of free will. The is considered the worst of the worst, and that is your society and historical fact you choose to ignore a m ought the rest of atrocities the western philosophy of that has inflicted through war. Or are you trying to tell me every war the US has been involved with was necessary to protect lives and promote less horrendous death and suffering?

If I can't convince you that murder is wrong, I will do my best to force you out of civilized society. I will not tolerate it in my sphere of influence just as you would not either. I simply take it not just in the external sense but the internal sense as well. If you think about murdering someone, I would ask why and if you are at fault for said thoughts and couldn't not provide an answer that justified your position, I would "cancel" you and your contributions to our society. We don't need murderers or violent offenders, whether its internal or external.

As for your inability to conceive of an idea of a real possibility, that's a lack of imagination on your part. I can clearly consider it a possibility but even more so an eventuality. Your world view is limited, not mine.

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

#152

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #148

Layke1123 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both scenarios, no free will exists. I didn't trigger my brain processes, only observed them. Neither did you. You are trying to paint a single scenario in which there is an important distinction and then ignore any other scenario where your reasoning fails. For instance, if I chose to kill myself, and you stop me, and I later thank you for stopping me from killing myself, is that difference important? Yes or no?

> In both scenarios, no free will exists. Not by your definition, no. It does by mine. As I have repeatedly remarked in various places in this discussion, please stop getting hung up on that term; I purposely did not use it at all in my description of the two scenarios in order to avoid that. > I didn't trigger my brain processes, only observed them. Neither did you. Your brain processes are part of you, just as my b…

Your definition is wrong. It is not what people think making choices are. People feel they are free to make choices. That doesn't mean they actually had a choice if you permit that you are not on control of your brain processes even if you consider that "you". Your subjective experience of those processes is what people associate with choice, not an observation of some part "you" making the decisions that you are unaware of. You indeed are just a chest in the machine according to your owns words just now in these scenarios. It's intellectually dishonest to just redefine making choices however you want. It's a non- starter.

Further more, you claim any your reasoning doesn't fail, and yet you also admit your viewpoint is vulnerable? It is an admission outright that your arguments don't withstand rational scrutiny. However, you have yet to articulate a an argument that does make my position vulnerable to scrutiny.

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

#153

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #149

Layke1123 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The later for both, yes, and the line is when you make a judgment for what is likely to happen as a result of current events. If you have the power to make a better outcome happen 90 percent of the time versus 80 percent of the time, you choose 90 percent even if you are wrong some of the time. No ones has perfect information, yet we still make decisions that alter things despite perfect information. We just do the b…

> If you have the power to make a better outcome happen 90 percent of the time versus 80 percent of the time, you choose 90 percent even if you are wrong some of the time I don't see how this leads to your having to get my consent to make me like vanilla instead of chocolate. If you believed making that change in me would "make a better outcome" with 90 percent probability, by your logic as stated above, you would be…

"Always get consent" (except here, here, and here)

This if not a simpler rule than to act if the outcome is judged to improve the situation. My rule is that a 90 percent chance is better than an 80 percent chance. It has no exceptions, no caveats.

I could convince you 90 percent of the time to "consent" to brain cancer surgery. If I can fix your brain without you even being aware of the problem 95 percent of the time, I would choose the later not the former, even if you happened to be the 5 percent. It's the same reasoning why we REQUIRE vaccines even though a small percentage of people can die from the vaccine itself. There are no exceptions in my system, it's simply the laws of probability applied precisely rather than some semantic argument you twist and turn at every exception to every case.

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

#154

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #146

Layke1123 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly how redefining what most people take to mean free will and changing the definition of it is poor wording?

I have already said elsewhere that I disagree with you about "what most people take to mean free will". I will agree that "poor wording" was just my opinion and you are free to simply ignore it.

And you would be wrong then, as most people define free will as the ability to actually control one's own actions rather than participate in a false world view where those "choices" are viewed as the important part of defining free will.

And I do ignore it. Not it of spite, but because it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

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

#155

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #144

Layke1123 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So forcing them to do everything else is fine, just as long as no one touches the brain. Removing a foot ok though? What about the death penalty? That can be done without rearranging the brain.

> forcing them to do everything else is fine, just as long as no one touches the brain. I have made no such claim. You keep attacking straw men instead of addressing what I'm actually saying. > Removing a foot ok though? I have made no such claim. > What about the death penalty? I have already pointed out that the natural consequence (i.e., in a state of nature if there is no society) of attacking someone else for no…

Incorrect. You willingly lock people up for premeditated murder even if the murder did not happen. If I hire a hit man, and they turn out to be an FBI undercover agent, I am now in jail not for committing murder but trying to commit murder.

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

#156

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #147

Rury wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ponder this. Can you ever willfully choose option C, if you never knew or had anything lead you to think that option C was even an option? Or better yet, can you willfully imagine a new color that's not in any way related to the colors or any combination of colors you've already seen before? Or further, not related to ANY CONCEPT you're already aware of? You can't. But if you could, how would you ever describe it to…

> Ponder this. Everything you're saying is old hat to anyone as familiar with the literature on free will and cognitive science as I am. Nothing you are saying is in any way inconsistent with the view of free will I have been defending.

Yes it is, because you are defining free will to be the illusion of choice, and that is not the common understanding of what free will means. You are intentionally misleading people who will read your comments about "free will" as a justification to continue believing free will actually exists.

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

#157

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #143

Layke1123 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't sophistry, it's showing that your own reasoning fails to hold because a word like choice is meaningless when you really analyze it. If free will doesn't exist, then there are no choices, only the illusion that you made a choice.

You keep getting hung up on the word "choice" instead of addressing the actual substance of what I'm saying. I don't see any point in further discussion on those terms.

Because you keep referring to choice and free will in a completely different definition than anyone coming along and reading this conversation understand it to me. It's intellectually dishonest and preys on minds that won't be able to distinguish the subtly and instead just see, "pdonis mention free will, me likely, updoot."

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

#158

Post by Layke1123 » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #150

Layke1123 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rhetoric doesn't stop a car from running over you no matter how the warning is phrased if you choose to not understand said rhetoric. This is not a rhetorical argument.

Could you explain this analogy?

The wealthy can't convince you they deserve wealth if they are dead. Does that make more sense now? The idea is that all the words in the world can't hide the truth of a situation and what ends up happening as a result of said situation.

See how well, "Why don't they just eat cake?" turned out.

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

#159

Post by pdonis » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

Layke1123 wrote: post #157

pdonis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep getting hung up on the word "choice" instead of addressing the actual substance of what I'm saying. I don't see any point in further discussion on those terms.

Because you keep referring to choice and free will in a completely different definition than anyone coming along and reading this conversation understand it to me. It's intellectually dishonest and preys on minds that won't be able to distinguish the subtly and instead just see, "pdonis mention free will, me likely, updoot."

> It's intellectually dishonest

No, it isn't. The definition of free will that I am using is common in the literature on free will and cognitive science, i.e., among people who have actually worked on understanding how human brains work based on exactly the same physicalist principles that you say you believe. I also have disagreed several times with your claims about what "anyone coming along and reading this conversation" would understand.

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

#160

Post by pdonis » Thu, Feb 04, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

Layke1123 wrote: post #155

pdonis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> forcing them to do everything else is fine, just as long as no one touches the brain. I have made no such claim. You keep attacking straw men instead of addressing what I'm actually saying. > Removing a foot ok though? I have made no such claim. > What about the death penalty? I have already pointed out that the natural consequence (i.e., in a state of nature if there is no society) of attacking someone else for no…

Incorrect. You willingly lock people up for premeditated murder even if the murder did not happen. If I hire a hit man, and they turn out to be an FBI undercover agent, I am now in jail not for committing murder but trying to commit murder.

Yes, conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime under our current legal system. Do you not think it should be? If not, why not? Instead of name calling, how about some actual arguments?