The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#221

Post by tux1968 » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 12:25 AM UTC

smaddox wrote: post #187

dragonwriter wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "you are within physics" necessarily bridges these two explanations. But, it doesn't. The reason dualism and free-will are so deeply tied up is because “you are within physics” does not provide a means by which “you” can be the root cause of anything; if you are merely within physics, then you are simply a product of material causes and can only be (to the extent physics is deterministic) a fully-externally-determi…

Computational irreducibility breaks the apparent paradox. "You" are an extremely complicated computational system. Even if the choices you make are fully deterministic given the current arrangement of the atoms, molecules, cells in your body and the situation of those in the wider universe (which is an oversimplification of the quantum mechanical reality), "you" are still making the choices and you still have free wi…

But that is true for all computationally irreducible systems, including inanimate objects. But people want to feel like there is something special about them that goes deeper than the current arrangement of their atoms. That there is a real possibility of more than one outcome starting from this configuration of atoms, and that the outcome that actually materializes is theirs for the choosing.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#222

Post by chordalkeyboard » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #220

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in Thats a loaded way to phrase “you posted a reply on hacker news”

If the posted reply takes the form of meddling in a discussion you weren't involved to question why one party dared to write what they wrote and scold them, it's somewhat apt though. Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...

your insistence that opinions imply “free will” is an interesting position, but your attempts to invoke it as a frame for your replies without bothering to substantiate it on the merits does pattern-match to common troll behavior. Consequently there’s nothing wrong with someone joining the discussion to address this.

> Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...

I’ve read and responded to Erlich_Bachman, who was kind enough to offer some remarks in support of his position. We have yet to understand why you and others believe that opinions require “free will.”

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#223

Post by amazingman » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 12:50 AM UTC

Free Will is a positive claim, so the proof requirement runs the other way.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#224

Post by finghin » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #89

finghin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this line of argument. It is difficult to see why something being hard to define makes it nebulous. The use of the concept of free will (which is incredibly intuitive—try asking a stranger if they have it, and they will certainly be able to answer) is only in this rather useless discussion associated with physical determinism (which is certainly not being thought of by the mentioned stranger). Can…

Your post exemplifies why it is hard to define and discuss. You implicitly take on one particular definition of free will (though you leave it unstated) and then discuss it as if it is the only obvious thing one could consider when they say the words "free will". While this is a perfectly useful notion that you are targeting, it simply omits some other important aspects which people care to discuss. A more nuanced di…

Maybe this was unclear, but the point wasn't that there is a good singular notion of free will, and that that is a commonsense one.

Even if I leaned towards this view (I wouldn't say that I do) my point was moreso to point out that while the average person (if not everybody) can't define free will, they certainly will be able to use the term and understand its meaning. In fact, they will understand it in virtue of a plurality of definitions (or senses).

The claim that if you can't define a term you do not understand it is defeatist because it simply does not reflect the role of language. Does a child who asks for chocolate not understand what she is saying if she cannot define that term? Do names (pointing to objects) have definitions or just abstract objects and types; if so what do these definitions consist in besides their names, if not why this dualism? And so on.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#225

Post by smeej » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 1:55 AM UTC

kranner wrote: post #219

smeej wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you asking for any particular type of formal proof of the negative? Or would the fact that there are no known cases of this phenomenon recorded in the recorded history of dogs, even in places dogs have been revered, be adequate? This seems like a trick that relies on a fallacy.

In my view if your entire argument is the restatement of an assumption, you'd better offer a stronger proof than not knowing of any counter examples.

In my view, if you're looking for formal proof of a negative, you've already insisted on an impossibility, so there's no hope of persuading you anyway.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#226

Post by kranner » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

smeej wrote: post #225

kranner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view if your entire argument is the restatement of an assumption, you'd better offer a stronger proof than not knowing of any counter examples.

In my view, if you're looking for formal proof of a negative, you've already insisted on an impossibility, so there's no hope of persuading you anyway.

I did not ask for a formal proof, but a stronger proof than you not having heard of such a thing happening. It is just about plausible to me that a dog can refuse to eat and starve; dogs do get very depressed.

Anyway, by this method of denying the possibility of animals acting in a certain way until a counterexample is presented, you can ascribe any number of unique traits to humans; but they all stem from your default assumption that humans are unique. It's not particularly interesting to merely restate an assumption.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#227

Post by chordalkeyboard » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #94

taneq wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone actually provide a definition of free will? No, never! We must just argue endlessly whether we do or don't have it.

Well, if we don't have it, then it's not up to us to chose between providing a definition or merely arguing about having it or not...

So are you unable to produce a definition because there isn’t one, or because the universe where your brain is mechanistically caused to define your terms is not inside this light cone?

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#228

Post by taneq » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 3:38 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #119

coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your brain isn't "you" in some special way that the rest of your body isn't. Well, in some way it is, in that they can cut your hands and feet, and you'll still be you. And perhaps if they could just put your head/brain in a jar, and you were still coscious, you'd still consider yourself you...

Or if they slice your brain down the middle in put it in two different jars, would they both think of themselves as you? Then, if you keep carefully cutting small bits off of those hemispheres, when would they stop being you?

Or to use the usual philosophical questions, what is it like to be:

- A human brain in a human body

- A human brain not in a human body

- Half a human brain

- Some smaller portion of a human brain

I don't think "is me" / "isn't me" is a clean dichotomy. As you lose parts of your brain you're still somewhat you but you're less you than you were.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#229

Post by taneq » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 3:41 AM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #147

taneq wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! All of the "YOU don't actually choose to move your hand, it's THIS PART OF YOUR BRAIN" stuff makes no sense. What do you think 'you' are if not your brain plus your body?

There is no "you" or "self", that's the illusion. The "self" which exercises "free will", that's just another psychologically constructed phenomenon, just like thoughts and ideas and images. If "you" choose to move your hand, it's really just the environment, your senses, and your brain dictating that movement, your sense of self is there as a feeling. Meditation reveals that this is not necessary, this sense of self…

> There is no "you" selecting these films, its just your memory module skimming through films you've heard of and seen, then some "preference" circuit is acting to decide which film to "pick" for this exercise.

But my memory module and my preference circuit (along with myriad other subsystems) ARE "me", and when they select a movie, it's me that's selecting it. Just like when my motor cortex sends commands to my arm muscles, it's me moving my arm, not "just my motor cortex". That's what "me" means.

Re: The Libet experiment doesn't disprove free will (2019)

#230

Post by twodave » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

deeeeplearning wrote: post #218

twodave wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm simply asserting that a lack of free will constitutes lack of control over one's own thoughts. Do you disagree with this or am I just not communicating well? Edit: I'm also not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just because you personally haven't read the authors or pieces that agree with my point of view doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not aware of anyone making the argument that without free will knowledge does not exist. And really the situation is simple. Either you believe in determinism or you believe in libertarian free will. The problem is that one of these beliefs is supported by science and the other requires magic.

Can you explain this further? It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude. While that may be the case, I'm going to overlook it.

The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source. This isn't an argument against determinism so much as it is against naturalism.

I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex. I would say that just because something is pre-known doesn't require it to be pre-determined. To say such a belief requires magic is a little flippant, I think.

Our universe and everything in it exist as they are in a moment of time. Our attempts at reasoning about the universe have given us some degree of accuracy in describing it. But the fact remains that whatever ideas and supporting science we come up with are just that, ideas and science. Reality trumps it all. So--while you can _say_ things in whatever tone you like and alienate or belittle folks who don't believe the same things you do--I would say that how we as humans show love for each other is much more helpful, and that it's okay to admit we don't know nearly as much about the world as we think we do.