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

241–250 of 257 posts

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

#241

Post by red75prime »

tux1968 wrote: post #221
smaddox wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The assumption that choices of a decision-making system are predetermined is totally useless. It doesn't allow to simplify decision algorithms or anything.

So, just make a decision and let the universe worry about providing initial conditions, which physically lead to the chosen action.

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

#242

Post by deeeeplearning »

twodave wrote: post #230
deeeeplearning wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

You are the one making grand claims so you should be the one supporting them. My position is that of the majority of professional Physics and Philosophy communities which is that the universe is deterministic and libertarian free will is a fantasy.

>I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex

Well show some proof and claim your Nobel Prize.

> 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.

You are just saying this, it doesn't follow from any Philosophical argument that I can see Honestly I think your argument boils down to "The absence of free will makes me uncomfortable so therefore it can't be true," this isn't unique to you either most of the people on that side of the fence's arguments tend to come down to that.

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

#243

Post by mcguire »

red75prime wrote: post #208
mcguire wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you boil water, you see an amount of water changing state from a liquid to a gas, not individual molecules simply gaining momentum.

Do I understand correctly that there's a physical mechanism, which creates something akin to a phase boundary from electrochemical brain processes and that "phase boundary" happens to be me and my perceptions?

Well, no, what I was trying to say is that the behavior of individual water molecules or the electrochemical activity in the brain is not necessarily descriptive of the overall pot of boiling water or personal behavior.

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

#244

Post by UnFleshedOne »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #206
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A choice happens in a short timeframe, Libet measured half a second for the simplest choices. Distant history simply doesn't happen in the right time.

I disagree. To be precise, I disagree with the notion that our choices are ours, as you said and that they are not dependent on history. A choice is conditioned on a myriad of things, from whether you had your coffee in the morning 8 hours ago and the milk had gone bad, to whether your parents paid attention to you 20 years ago when you were a child. Literally everything matters because experiences shape our brain's…

"Literally everything matters" -- not necessarily. The world is full of stable attractors that turn any number of small perturbations meaningless. Coffee turning bad might influence you decisions a few hours down the line, but likely not months, being half a degree warmer or colder likely won't influence you at all. Meeting an impressive person as a child might change you greatly, but the other thousands of people you've met in passing likely won't affect you much.

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

#245

Post by twodave »

deeeeplearning wrote: post #242
twodave wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. You are the one making grand claims so you should be the one supporting them. My position is that of the majority of professional Physics and Philosophy communities which is that the universe is deterministic and libertarian free will is a fantasy. >I would also argue against determ…

As J.B.S. Haldane wrote, nearly 100 years ago:

[begin quote]

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

[end quote]

If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that happens to have resulted in consciousness, but it's all simply an effect to some original Cause and no more," and then on the other hand argue over claims of logic, reason and truth--I'm not sure I can help you any further along.

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

#246

Post by feanaro »

finghin wrote: post #224
feanaro wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

How could this be when we can be demonstrably discussing different objects when we say "free will"? Just because people will generally, kind of, vaguely think they agree when they say "free will" does not mean they are truly in sync.

And yes, the objects they mean will mostly overlap in a significant way so if you do not look too hard, it could seem to them they are discussing the same thing. I find this to be a common type of situation in everyday life.

But when you want to discuss something more deeply and in greater detail, there arises a need to wrestle out a more precise meaning and then you can notice discrepancies arise between the subtly different things that could all be reasonably given the name "free will".

> Does a child who asks for chocolate not understand what she is saying if she cannot define that term?

A child has an understanding of what it is saying, not the one and only understanding. Another child asking for chocolate might have a different object in mind. The objects they are referring to will most likely significantly overlap and they might never notice the differences.

This is where definitions help. Definitions are a way of banging and cross-referencing a lot of different, mostly-shared objects together in the hope of arriving to a more precisely shared version of another mostly-shared object. Reaching towards better understanding via definitions is like applying the Whitworth Three Plates Method (https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-thre...), but to concepts instead of physical objects.

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

#247

Post by cwalv »

PixyMisa wrote: post #82
cwalv wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a better distinction is how some things are "hard to define" but "easy to understand".

That's the problem. If you can't define it, you don't actually understand it.

I guess that depends on how you define "understand." There are many things I understand that I would have a hard time explaining to someone else, much less defining them. Most people who have spent enough time to master something would agree there are certain (possibly asthetic) aspects that they recognize but couldn't define.

Even when you get formal, there are limitations to how expressive any language can be.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompletenes...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_th...

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

#248

Post by cwalv »

sethammons wrote: post #130
PixyMisa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem. If you can't define it, you don't actually understand it.

The ol’ “I know porn when I see it” argument.

Kind of, yes. You don't have to learn very much about law to realize that trying to codify/define everything to the extreme is a fool's errand, so we just punt and leave it up to "a jury of your peers".

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

#249

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #238
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

So I guess "love" is to you also a nonsensical incoherent term? It is not to me, it is very useful and produces a lot of great ressults in my life, and the same goes for free will. Then we live in a very differnet universes. If you're not going to put more effort into understand something new, it is not my job to make you understand it.

Also I couldn't because without understanding what kind of "logical definition" you supposedly have for a term like "love" it is impossible for me to know what kind of logic you expect to find in a term like "free will". There is like 10 differnet ways to explain it with different kinds of logic, how am I supposed to know which one you want to hear? That is the beauty and utility of intuitive terms, that they gather together so many different meanings and are not limited to some inferior mental ego model/rigid definition.

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

So you couldn't even find one example huh? That link not people talking to GPT as a converstaion with an sentient being. That's people playing an RPG with procedurally generated content. In the same way as when people also play Tetris sometimes. But we don't assume that Tetris has free will either.

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

#250

Post by deeeeplearning »

twodave wrote: post #245
deeeeplearning wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. You are the one making grand claims so you should be the one supporting them. My position is that of the majority of professional Physics and Philosophy communities which is that the universe is deterministic and libertarian free will is a fantasy. >I would also argue against determ…

As J.B.S. Haldane wrote, nearly 100 years ago: [begin quote] If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. [end quote] If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that hap…

>If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

Oh man, Haldane wrote this 100 years ago so it must be true amirite?

All Philosophers and Physicists are crushed by these 2 sentences...

>If you truly can't see how nonsensical it sounds to say on the one hand, "The universe is just a random assortment of matter that happens to have resulted in consciousness, but it's all simply an effect to some original Cause and no more," and then on the other hand argue over claims of logic, reason and truth--I'm not sure I can help you any further along.

It's not nonsensical. Your statement is actually nonsensical. If you found a mathematical proof written by an illiterate schizophrenic the only thing that matters is the consistency of the proof's logic not its source. Maybe you should read actual philosophers instead of the centuries old writings of a Biologist.

The laws of physics are true as we know them, it is completely irrelevant if the minds that came up with ways to describe them have no free will. Your position is completely untenable and unsupported. You would fail Philosophy 101 at any community college if you wrote a paper on your position.

Post reply on HN