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

What You (Want to)* Want

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#121

Post by slothtrop »

scott_w wrote: post #46
slothtrop wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weakness of the perfect determinism model is nothing would ever happen if it were true. The leap to bacteria to mitochondrion to humans was not pre-determined, randomness is part of the equation. I could buy that will isn't free in an absolute sense, but neither is it entirely deterministic. The question is whether the confounding factor for the latter has anything to do with the individual, but you can't divorce…

While I don't think the universe is deterministic, the existence of evolution isn't proof of this. It's possible that what we perceive as "randomness" is actually just the result of variables and things happening that we're not able to perceive. Take rolling a dice: which number comes up is determined by the starting conditions, the force you throw it with, what it lands on and any external forces acting during the t…

Well you can't conflate the banality of rolling dice with evolution. Based on what I've read, randomness has been a necessity for it's fruition, but of course this isn't my field.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#123

Post by mistermann »

papascrubs wrote: post #120
mistermann wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My beef with it is that it is a series of opinions stated in the form of facts. If the topic was something like programming, CPU's, etc this approach would not go over so well, but for certain topics it seems like concern for the truth is ~unacceptable. And why does this matter, at least plausibly? In my opinion, because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect I believe that if humans get the ide…

I can understand that. And I appreciate you sharing your opinion and thoughts on it. I'm not familiar with the Illusory truth effect but will get some reading into today (thanks for the link!) In speaking. I try to approach things as always mutable. If I put a disclaimer in front of everything I state (when I perceive the I talk about to always be some form of a hypothesis based on the data that I currently have), it…

Rarely do I get any agreement on these ideas, so many thanks for that.

Unsurprisingly, I am interested in some clarification:

> If I put a disclaimer in front of everything I state (when I perceive the I talk about to always be some form of a hypothesis based on the data that I currently have), it tends to slow down discourse and get very messy.

The domain of science typically involves overwhelming (in a text conversation scenario) amounts of complexity as well....but they realized the problem, found a way to manage it, and went on to produce amazing results. Unfortunately, science does not have mastery over all of reality (confident claims and perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding). Perhaps something similar could be done in other domains.

As it is, it seems to me that thinking on top of approximations of reality that are perceived as reality itself is sub-optimal, and dangerous. I think most people could appreciate this in the case of science, but in other domains it is very often considered absurd.

> In my mind, because I've already accepted the potential for bad data-- that's how I approach others works/papers.

"In my mind" - watch out! :)

> There are no absolute truths in anyone's words (or very likely period).

Disagree - if one has decent skills in set theory, abstraction/decomposition, and tautological framing of ideas, it is not difficult at all to achieve absolute (but vague/non-comprehensive) truth. That's not the finish line, but you can get WAY further down the track than someone who does not have such abilities.

> I understand your concerns around this (and at least from my current understanding of our social/political issues) and I agree. It is extremely dangerous and detrimental to hold beliefs like that.

And as far as I can tell: this is the methodology of the vast majority (90%+++) of people....and some of these are The Literal Experts, or people who believe they know The Way humanity needs to go to solve climate change. What could go wrong!!??

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#124

Post by Thursday24 »

nopinsight wrote: post #72
distcs wrote: post #11

Why is PG writing these pseudo-scientific metaphysical posts? His last post on Alien Truth was a disaster. Now this? I normally enjoy PG's writings! His writings on Lisp had good influence on me. But these recent posts are embarrassing. How can someone who has had so much influence in tech communities bring themselves to write these pseudo-scientific posts so glibly?

Do people still read philosophical writings by the likes of Plato and Socrates? This piece like quite a few others is a kind of musings which many find interesting and PG doesn't claim it to be scientific. There are areas of human interests that lie well outside our scientific capabilities. People should be allowed to speculate on them. Reasonable conjectures often precede solid evidence/proofs in math and science. T…

A more stark example is that of Newton. A true philosopher, by hacker news standards he'd be considered a misguided madman, since he spent 2/3rd of his life on "unproductive" topics such as religion and alchemy. However, the "productive" 1/3rd cannot be separated from the rest.

One must remember that the word "scientist" was coined merely in 1834...the word isn't 100 year old even. Newton saw himself as a philosopher, he studied the ancients intently, etc. The same applies to many of his contemporaries as well.

My overall point is, one shouldn't judge a person too harshly for any particular piece, while ignoring their larger contributions and efforts.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#126

Post by joisig »

> How do you reconcile being a machine made of matter with the feeling that you're free to choose what you do?

First, accept the fact that "you" are _only_ that machine. No higher "soul".

The machine (you!) has free will in that it decides for itself, through physical processes occurring within it, what it wants - albeit with some outside forces, circumstances and other individuals influencing this anywhere from a bit to a lot.

You are this mostly-independent machine operated by physical forces. Therefore, you have free will.

A secondary question is whether the state of the universe and therefore of you the machine at time T also pre-ordains what you will do and what you will want at time T+1. I think a more interesting question is whether that actually matters in any practical or even metaphysical sense, given that we experience time linearly in the direction we do?

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#127

Post by Bilal_io »

theGnuMe wrote: post #61
jondeval wrote: post #53

I actually think PG is exploring something that is at the heart of what it means to be a human being. Interestingly, the traditional teaching of Original Sin is that we are broken at the level of what we 'want'. The phrase commonly used is 'disordered desire'. The key idea here is that if you want the wrong things, you are not actually free, even if you perceive yourself as choosing freely. As a corollary, the more y…

The concept of original sin is garbage.

As someone that believes in the Quran, which talks about the Adam&Eve tree incident, I agree.

Then there is the whole definition of God being just, and for someone to die for someone else's sin is far from just.

I personally believe in a God that I can ask directly for forgiveness and he forgives. That being said, he wouldn't forgive me for wronging someone else, I will have to settle it with that person in this life, or we'll meet and settle it in the day of judgement.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#128

Post by lliamander »

> Randomness destroys the ghost in the machine as effectively as determinism.

I totally agree, and yet my encounter with academic philosophy was that most people with a free-will orientation see that randomness as precisely the origin of free will.

Personally, the only notion of free will that makes sense (and the one to which I personally hold) is the notion of agent-causation[1].

> it seemed to me that there might possibly be some way to get out of trouble by arguing that I wasn't responsible for my actions

The philosophical notion of free will is actually completely irrelevant here. The relevant questions are a) "Is social accountability psychologically effective and altering someone's behavior?" and b) "what sorts of behavior modifications are morally permissble?"

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/...

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#130

Post by 98codes »

xianshou wrote: post #80

Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills." I've wrestled with this question from time to time and, to the extent I've found a solution, the key is duration: In the short term, choices are mutable (but determined by character), and character is fixed. In the long term, character is mutable, and determined by some inner nature plus the integral of experience, influence, and choice. Ther…

As someone with a lifetime of fighting with the executive dysfunction end of ADHD, I very much understand what Schopenhauer has saying. I can know what I need to do and have the willpower to do it, but the door to the cupboard where the willpower resides is locked, unlocks randomly, and nobody knows where the key is.
Post reply on HN