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

On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

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

#161

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #154
pdonis wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you would be wrong then

I disagree. And I see no point in continuing to argue about it. We simply do not agree on how "most people define free will".

> it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

You are apparently ignorant of the extensive literature on free will and cognitive science in which the view I am defending does hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

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

#162

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #156
pdonis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I've responded to these invalid claims elsewhere. We simply disagree on these points, and I see no point in continuing to argue about them.

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

#163

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #153
pdonis wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sorry, we disagree. And I see no point in continuing to argue about it.

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

#164

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #151
pdonis wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. N…

> I'm confident the brain is physical

So am I. I have already said so multiple times. Continuing to talk as though you are somehow refuting my viewpoint by saying this is ridiculous.

> Nazi Germany believed in capitalism and the doctrine of free will.

No, it didn't. It forcibly sent millions of people to concentration camps. It had the government take over management of all production. It subjected an entire country to the whims of a small group of people in power.

> 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?

Certainly not. I have made no such claim. And I am tired of you continuing to respond to claims I have never made.

At this point I think our discussion has run its course.

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

#165

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #152
pdonis wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 una…

> Your definition is wrong.

I have responded to this elsewhere. We disagree, and continuing to argue about it is pointless.

> you claim any your reasoning doesn't fail, and yet you also admit your viewpoint is vulnerable?

I say that any viewpoint is vulnerable, so saying a viewpoint "fails" because it is vulnerable is pointless. Your viewpoint is vulnerable too.

> you have yet to articulate a an argument that does make my position vulnerable to scrutiny.

This is laughable. I have done so multiple times. You have not accepted my arguments, but that doesn't mean I haven't made any.

I think our discussion has run its course.

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

#166

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #164
Layke1123 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. N…

> I'm confident the brain is physical So am I. I have already said so multiple times. Continuing to talk as though you are somehow refuting my viewpoint by saying this is ridiculous. > Nazi Germany believed in capitalism and the doctrine of free will. No, it didn't. It forcibly sent millions of people to concentration camps. It had the government take over management of all production. It subjected an entire country…

If the brain is physical, and you think it doesn't entirely determines your actions, then we disagree on the point it makes to say the brain is physical, as a lot of people reading this think there is something extraphysical about what our brains do.

As for Nazi Germany, all those Germans chose to either resist or go along with putting millions of people into concentration camps because they were enemies of their goals. That was there choice to see others as inferior to them. They still believed Jews had free will, and they most certainly all Christians, which it's fundamental tenants are about free will. You choose to accept Jesus as your saviour. Also, I'm pretty sure their industries were privately owned, ala capitalism. Or are you trying to redefine what terms mean again?

Oh, so it's only OK to talk about the death and destruction left in the wake of other countries you paint as the bad guy, but anyone mentions the atrocities committed by systems you taut as superior rubs you the wrong way? Do you even begin to understand how brainwashed you are? You can't even contemplate the evils your world views have perpetuated on societies as you pretend to claim the moral high ground.

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

#167

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #165
Layke1123 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 una…

> Your definition is wrong. I have responded to this elsewhere. We disagree, and continuing to argue about it is pointless. > you claim any your reasoning doesn't fail, and yet you also admit your viewpoint is vulnerable? I say that any viewpoint is vulnerable, so saying a viewpoint "fails" because it is vulnerable is pointless. Your viewpoint is vulnerable too. > you have yet to articulate a an argument that does ma…

It is not laughable. EVERY point you have tried to make has been demonstrated to be false or misleading.

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

#168

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #161
Layke1123 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you would be wrong then I disagree. And I see no point in continuing to argue about it. We simply do not agree on how "most people define free will". > it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny. You are apparently ignorant of the extensive literature on free will and cognitive science in which the view I am defending does hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.

At any point you could link to any scientific study that established the rigor of your arguments. The fact that you do not indicates you are unable to, or you are aware of the latest scientific evidence that shows contradictory evidence to your claims.

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will

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

#169

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #162
Layke1123 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've responded to these invalid claims elsewhere. We simply disagree on these points, and I see no point in continuing to argue about them.

What is invalid about them? You claim free will exists. Yet if you admit "free will" is simply believing you have a choice when the underlying reality is that you don't actually have a choice, only the illusion of it, you are intentionally not admitting the truth which is your definition of free will is a LIE!

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

#170

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #163
Layke1123 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Sorry, we disagree. And I see no point in continuing to argue about it.

You disagree that forcing people to get vaccines is not in the best course of action?
Post reply on HN