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

What's expected of us

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: What's expected of us

#31

Post by warcode »

I'd say this touches more on the mechanics of time travel than free will.

So if this "predictor" is nothing more than a circuit that sends information to itself in the past, there must be a "me" that pressed the button without seeing the light, before the data is transmitted to the past to the "me" that then sees the light but at that exact point splits off into a separate timeline. And then I would have free will again.

Of course I am assuming time travel where travelling forward in your own timeline is impossible, something the article seem to not really go into.

Re: What's expected of us

#32

Post by hmsimha »

jey wrote: post #27
tomp wrote: post #25

Oh my... another meditation on the issue of free will, and the existential angst we would experience if we learned that our choices are deterministic. Personally, however, I think that the whole question of free-will vs. determinism is a false dilemma. For me, another issue is more important: Determinism vs. randomness. If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. I would rather be deterministic than ran…

You seem to be assuming that "random" must mean "uniformly at random". A weighted die that 99.99999% of the time comes up "3" is still random, but not uniformly random. The outcome of the die roll is nearly certain.

I think you misunderstood tomp's message. Certainly they didn't mean to imply there was the chance our actions are uniformly random. Rather, the question seems to be whether there is a truly random component to our decisions. The dichotomy lies in the contrast between determinism and the possibility of a truly random quantam process.

Re: What's expected of us

#33

Post by vortmeester »

manmal wrote: post #29
tomp wrote: post #25

Oh my... another meditation on the issue of free will, and the existential angst we would experience if we learned that our choices are deterministic. Personally, however, I think that the whole question of free-will vs. determinism is a false dilemma. For me, another issue is more important: Determinism vs. randomness. If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. I would rather be deterministic than ran…

I think that the brain is influenced by what is often called true randomness (e.g. radioactive decay). If neurons are influenced by true randomness in our environment, then the way they fire is not purely deterministic. But I'm not so sure anymore that radioactive decay and the like are purely random. Are they (because of quantum mechanical effects)?

As best anyone knows, quantum mechanical effects (like radioactive decay) really are purely and objectively random -- i.e., it is not the case that they appear random because of our ignorance of some deterministic processes. The not-actually-random scenario is called Local Hidden Variable Theory [1], and is ruled out by a series of remarkable experiments based on Bell's Theorem [2].

You can, if you are stubborn, create a theory of QM with non-local hidden variables, but it turns out to be just as weird as orthodox QM; but instead of accepting objective randomness, you have to accept faster-than-light interactions. One example is David Bohm's "pilot wave" theory. [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie-Bohm_theory

Re: What's expected of us

#35

Post by benpbenp »

tomp wrote: post #25

Oh my... another meditation on the issue of free will, and the existential angst we would experience if we learned that our choices are deterministic. Personally, however, I think that the whole question of free-will vs. determinism is a false dilemma. For me, another issue is more important: Determinism vs. randomness. If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. I would rather be deterministic than ran…

If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random.

But this is not what is classically understood by free-will, and I suggest that it is your dilemma which is false. Quoting Aquinas, "Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act."

I anticipate that free-will thus understood is likely ruled out a priori by your philosophical disposition. Nonetheless, I think you can perhaps come around to see that is logically opposed neither to determinism nor randomness in the human brain as observed from an objective standpoint.

Re: What's expected of us

#36

Post by spenuke »

tomp wrote: post #25

Oh my... another meditation on the issue of free will, and the existential angst we would experience if we learned that our choices are deterministic. Personally, however, I think that the whole question of free-will vs. determinism is a false dilemma. For me, another issue is more important: Determinism vs. randomness. If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. I would rather be deterministic than ran…

I'm interested to see you show that determinism vs. randomness is a false dilemma. Not that it isn't - it's just that you haven't explained HOW it's a false dilemma. You just skate right onto the issue "more important for you".

Along the same lines, how is determinism vs. randomness any less of a false dilemma? You say "if my choices are not deterministic, they must be random." But the concept of free-will is another (well established) alternative to determinism.

We have already entered into an old metaphysical forest here, so why not go ahead and think about what exactly randomness is? From the way you describe the "more important" dilemma, randomness is a sort of determinism - when viewed at a systemic level. That is, we often speak of randomness in the terms of probability, as though the mathematical probabilities of a phenomenon are the a priori governing laws that determine that phenomenon's taking place.

An alternative way of seeing random probability is that the laws governing a system are simply unknown to us - though they are determined. We can calculate a-posteriori probabilities of a phenomenon, but it is not the probability itself that governs the system. This is the crucial point.

For example, assume that humans have free will. My favorite sandwich shop serves Reubens on average once every 18 days. But let's further say that the shop owner has some idea to sell Reubens 20 times a year.

Whether the universe is truly governed by random probabilities, or whether the real will (shop owner's) governing the system is just a black box to me, the calculated probabilities look the same.

So I suggest perhaps that yours is also a false dilemma. There seems to me no necessary implication of non-determinism and randomness, because I view randomness from an epistemologically humble position, i.e., that it is an a posteriori description of our lack of understanding.

Maybe in so much as randomness solves the false dilemma of free-will vs. determinism, free-will solves the false dilemma of randomness vs. determinism. A trilemma, perhaps?

Re: What's expected of us

#37

Post by moondowner »

return0 wrote: post #19
eloff wrote: post #4

The predictor already exists, there's a common FMRI experiment in neuroscience where with about 80% accuracy the scientists can predict you're about to push the button about one second before you decide to do it. Someone no doubt will post a link, I don't have time to Google it now. I'm guessing it's the inspiration for this story. I'm more curious about what you guys think. I've long thought the arguments against fr…

Not 1, but 7 seconds before http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...

Wow, thanks for sharing this, will definitely read it.

Re: What's expected of us

#38

Post by aninhumer »

benpbenp wrote: post #35
tomp wrote: post #25

Oh my... another meditation on the issue of free will, and the existential angst we would experience if we learned that our choices are deterministic. Personally, however, I think that the whole question of free-will vs. determinism is a false dilemma. For me, another issue is more important: Determinism vs. randomness. If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. I would rather be deterministic than ran…

If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. But this is not what is classically understood by free-will, and I suggest that it is your dilemma which is false. Quoting Aquinas, "Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act." I anticipate that free-will thus understood is likely ruled out a priori by your philosophical disposition. Nonetheless, I think you…

As I see it, if you consider the universe to be a series of states[1], either the next state is perfectly determined by the previous one, or there is a (finite) set of possibilities for the next state. The latter therefore exhibits randomness.

I'm happy to be challenged on my philosophical disposition though, because I'm aware that there are whole schools of thought that seem like vague informal nonsense to me, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume I'm simply smarter than them.

[1] I don't understand relativity well enough to adapt my argument to it, so I'm happy to accept a counterargument there.

Re: What's expected of us

#39

Post by diydsp »

dangrossman wrote: post #5
eloff wrote: post #4

The predictor already exists, there's a common FMRI experiment in neuroscience where with about 80% accuracy the scientists can predict you're about to push the button about one second before you decide to do it. Someone no doubt will post a link, I don't have time to Google it now. I'm guessing it's the inspiration for this story. I'm more curious about what you guys think. I've long thought the arguments against fr…

It'd be a "predictor" if an FMRI could predict that the neurons are about to light up a second before that happens, rather than just measure the delay between neuron activity and conscious perception or conscious motor control. Regardless, if anyone finds the thought that an FMRI can detect you making a decision a significant amount of time before you're aware of making that decision particularly interesting, this bo…

Yes, loved the User Illusion. Fascinating Stuff.

Also, lately I've been hearing a lot about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happiness_Hypothesis

in which the brain is likened to a person riding and elephant. We can train the elephant, but mostly the elephant repeats its program.

It's billed as about "happiness," but imo that's only one slice of it. It applies to all habits, including eating, exercise, improving sw development skills...

Re: What's expected of us

#40

Post by benpbenp »

aninhumer wrote: post #38
benpbenp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my choices are not deterministic, they must be random. But this is not what is classically understood by free-will, and I suggest that it is your dilemma which is false. Quoting Aquinas, "Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act." I anticipate that free-will thus understood is likely ruled out a priori by your philosophical disposition. Nonetheless, I think you…

As I see it, if you consider the universe to be a series of states[1], either the next state is perfectly determined by the previous one, or there is a (finite) set of possibilities for the next state. The latter therefore exhibits randomness. I'm happy to be challenged on my philosophical disposition though, because I'm aware that there are whole schools of thought that seem like vague informal nonsense to me, and I…

Indeed, what I am saying is that you can have the deterministic universe, or the random universe, and still have free-will, properly understood.

Note that from the outside, free-will is by definition apparently "random". It is a black box not determined by any variables in the greater world. What matters is that the free-will is mine or yours-- that the entity known as to me as myself or to you as yourself should also possess this power of determination which to the outside world appears random.

To witness to the lack of a logical incompatibility with determinism, you can posit a model wherein the will does something like project itself in both time directions in such a way as to keep up the "illusion of determinism". Not that I think such a mechanism is actually in place; this model is just to show there is no logical contradiction, and there could be other models that do the same.

Post reply on HN