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

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

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 257 posts

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

#231

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #217
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to demonstrate the obvious repercussions of truly trying on the belief "free will does not exist/not a meaningful thing" on something even so commonplace as an online conversation. If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation. People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of c…

> If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation How does this follow? Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks? > People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of cards. How does an opinion rely on “free will”? > has a free will to ultimate…

> Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks?

Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common...

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

#232

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

garmaine wrote: post #213
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur. Maybe you are just not aware of what you really deeply believe about it? > but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK. Free will is not the main reason for posting. But it is one of prerequisites for assuming it is a meaningful activity.

No, I think that is only true if you cling to naïve assumptions about what free will is. The fact that we do things for reasons (deterministic!) is precisely what gives our actions meaning. If we only did things because of a roll of the dice, that would take away meaning.

> No, I think that is only true if you cling to naïve assumptions about what free will is

Then explain what is "wrong" about it. When you write "I don't know what to write about it but it's wrong" indicates an ideological conviction which is not based on true developed thought process behind it.

Like explain for example: if you have no free will, why should I communicate with you? Why would that be interesting to me? Like talking to a wristwatch? It's certainly very complicated as well, but I have no reason to communicate with it as if it was my peer.

>If we only did things because of a roll of the dice

Who said anything about rolling a dice?

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

#233

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #216
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you mind explaining? Alright. They pointed to how you used the concept of "of the opinion". This is the phrase that you have used yourself in the previous comment. Even if the conversation wasn't about free will, that phrase would indicate something meaningful about your thought process, which is why you used it. Also we all, who read your comment had no trouble interpreting your phrase, and neither why you u…

> you (one part of your mind) is sitting here and trying pretend that free will is a meaningless thing (~ to talk about), another part of your mind, uses the very concept of free will, to communicate to us about the first part. How did I use the concept of “free will” to communicate with you? My understanding of “opinion” makes no reference to “free will.” > To make it clear: you saying "I am of the opinion of..." al…

> They might be useful for some purposes

Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well.

>deterministic system is incapable of deterministically outputting a strings that audience members could interpret as referring to a mental state.

What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator?

In that case I have even less reason to communicate with you. It's like you have even further proved my point to comparing yourself to it, because it makes the distinction perfectly clear: when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it. "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. They know that some humans have free will, and GPT-3 certainly does not, and they don't feel any reason to talk to anything that does not. You could have some other terms also describing this phenomenon, but free will is a good and useful one.

This is also the reason why people don't spend time talking to GPT-3, other than for 10 minutes as a fun thing. And after 10 minutes it is not even fun anymore.

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

#234

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #233
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you (one part of your mind) is sitting here and trying pretend that free will is a meaningless thing (~ to talk about), another part of your mind, uses the very concept of free will, to communicate to us about the first part. How did I use the concept of “free will” to communicate with you? My understanding of “opinion” makes no reference to “free will.” > To make it clear: you saying "I am of the opinion of..." al…

> They might be useful for some purposes Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. >deterministic system is incapable of deterministically outputting a strings that audience members could interpret as referring to a mental state. What is the point o…

> "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way.

Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you?

> Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well.

Ok, how is adopting nonsensical and incoherent notions like “free will” supposed to help me live an interesting and meaningful life?

> What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator?

No, that was you. I’m asking how you can examine a string of text and infer “free will” or not.

> when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it.

Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes. Does that mean you’re wrong about gpt-3 having free will, or that you’re wrong about people expecting their interlocutors to have free will?

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

#235

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #231
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation How does this follow? Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks? > People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of cards. How does an opinion rely on “free will”? > has a free will to ultimate…

> Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks? Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common...

Simple question. Why do rocks choose to attract each other?

> Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common...

“Free will” and “having a conversation” have 0 in common so....

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

#236

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #235
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks? Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common...

Simple question. Why do rocks choose to attract each other? > Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common... “Free will” and “having a conversation” have 0 in common so....

> Why do rocks choose to attract each other?

This is exactly what they don't do - they don't choose. Rocks attract each other all the time, every time, with fixed force. When people talk, they routinely agree/disagree, convinced/unconvinced, they choose different topics, they choose words, they choose what they think. You are demonstrating the exactly how those two things are nothing alike.

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

#237

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #234
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They might be useful for some purposes Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. >deterministic system is incapable of deterministically outputting a strings that audience members could interpret as referring to a mental state. What is the point o…

> "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you? > Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. Ok, how is adopting nonsen…

> Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you?

I am surprised at how you can't understand that there are terms that are insanely useful and yet can't be defined exactly 100%.

But ok I agree to play this game if you first define the term "love" to me real quick?

>Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes.

Show some sources. I don't care about 1 uncommon person doing it once, and that just to prove that they technically can, or while being high, or someone being tricked into it and for a short while falling for it..., I am saying that in general people don't. You spend interestingly huge amount of effort to not see this obvious point...

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

#238

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #237
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you? > Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. Ok, how is adopting nonsen…

> Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you? I am surprised at how you can't understand that there are terms that are insanely useful and yet can't be defined exactly 100%. But ok I agree to play this game if you first define the term "love" to me real quick? >Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes. Show some sources.…

> I am surprised at how you can't understand that there are terms that are insanely useful and yet can't be defined exactly 100%.

Oh I understand that. What I don’t understand is how you and other people think that your use of an ill-defined term in this context is the least bit helpful when the actual referent of that term is the subject of the discussion.

> But ok I agree to play this game if you first define the term "love" to me real quick?

No, I’m not playing games. You’re using a nonsensical and incoherent term and you refuse to define it.

> Show some sources.

https://play.aidungeon.io/main/landing

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

#239

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #236
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple question. Why do rocks choose to attract each other? > Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common... “Free will” and “having a conversation” have 0 in common so....

> Why do rocks choose to attract each other? This is exactly what they don't do - they don't choose. Rocks attract each other all the time, every time, with fixed force. When people talk, they routinely agree/disagree, convinced/unconvinced, they choose different topics, they choose words, they choose what they think. You are demonstrating the exactly how those two things are nothing alike.

So you connect free will to making a choice? On what basis does a person with free will make choices?

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

#240

Post by konschubert »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #198
konschubert wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Copenhagen-Style quantum collaps isn't really Physics. Other than that, where is Physics probabilistic?

The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpreation. The thing being interpreted has probabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Uncertainty_...

The uncertainty principle is a pretty high-level compaction and it gets it probabilities only through the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Post reply on HN