131–140 of 189 posts
Also, our thought processes are sufficiently chaotic that no amount of inspection can catch all the starting conditions, so any model has to be statistical in nature.
The idea that a materialistic universe made of unthinking, unchoosing matter bumping into each other would create the "Monorail" song, with all the specific cultural assumptions built into it, is just so much less likely to me than the alternative that I end up just siding with free will by default.
Neither the free will argument, nor determinism, nor any attempted unification of the two that I'm aware of are fully satisfying. But, the idea that we're just atoms that, for no particular reason, happen to write the words "I call the big one Bitey", and then just happen to create the infrastructure to broadcast that out, and view it, seems like the more absurd of the available options.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is quantum effects are random. Even if they impact our behavior, RNG is not what most people think of when they say "free will". In my opinion, any coherent definition of "free will" implies a supernatural force - since it must be non-random yet not bound by deterministic chemical and physical processes. At this point it becomes a matter of faith/religion whether we have free will or not.
Are there any coherent definitions of free will? I dont think I've ever seen a disprovable definition. It's like "god" or "love".
If someone X with some manner of advanced brain altering technology was able to temporarily force someone Z’s actions to be whatever X specified into the machine, with afterwards Z remembered the experience as their taking these actions for whatever reasons X specified in the input (where this is achieved by influencing whatever is going on in Z’s head at the time, not via altering memories),
then, during that duration, I think it would make sense to say that Z “did not have free will” for that duration.
As for sufficient conditions for someone to have “free will”, I suppose I don’t have a great description.
However, “what/who we are is the primary explanation for what we do (and so in particular, no external influence/manipulation is a primary explanation)” seems, like it has at least something right towards the goal of a good definition.
Rolling Stones https://youtu.be/krxU5Y9lCS8, Joe Jackson https://youtu.be/XGqmiT7JJVg or New Radicals https://youtu.be/DL7-CKirWZE ?
Whenever I think about the universe being deterministic, I get caught up on things like the Monorail episode of The Simpsons. For some reason, that's always the specific example that pops into my mind when I think "does it make sense that the initial position of atoms in the universe would lead ineluctably to the exact state of the world today, without anyone making choices about it?" The idea that a materialistic un…
Isaac Bashevis Singer