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

Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#11

Post by pmoriarty »

nabla9 wrote: post #9
rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

To say an argument has been "debunked" implies that the argument holds no credibility, or the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is an attempt to shut down a discussion and provide fodder for ad-hominem attacks against those who dare to disagree. In other words, The Atlantic should be ashamed to run a headline like this because it is antithetical to rational discussion.

Debating on headline that are often chosen or changed by editors to be controversial or more dramatic is waste of time. Magazines do it routinely. HN sometimes changes headlines to be more correct. Propose one.

It's not just in the headline. It's in the article's body as well:

"The topic is immensely complicated, and Schurger's valiant debunking underscores the need for more precise and better-informed questions."

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#12

Post by PavlovsCat »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

To say an argument has been "debunked" implies that the argument holds no credibility, or the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is an attempt to shut down a discussion and provide fodder for ad-hominem attacks against those who dare to disagree. In other words, The Atlantic should be ashamed to run a headline like this because it is antithetical to rational discussion.

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=debunked

Seems to be used all the time for things that aren't a scam, a hoax, a lie or something like that.

This is one of the example sentences Mirriam-Webster gives for the word debunk:

> The results of the study debunk his theory.

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#14

Post by codeulike »

excursionist wrote: post #8
rpmisms wrote: post #3

I don't see how the original experiment "debunked" free will. Wouldn't the decision-making process spark neural activity?

I don't see how any kind of scientific experiment could possibly support the concept of free will. If the universe is deterministic, then obviously there is no free will - since humans are part of the universe. If it is non-deterministic then all we can say about events we identify as non-deterministic is that we don't understand them.

Or, its deterministic, but so complex that its literally impossible to exploit the determinism to 'look ahead' in any way ... you'd need to simulate every subatomic particle, therefore needing something bigger than the universe to 'look ahead'. So perhaps the universe is like a deterministic computer that is calculating its own future. The determinism in that case just doesn't really mean anything - it can't be repeated, it can't be predicted or exploited. And so the whole problem goes away.

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#15

Post by mcphage »

jobigoud wrote: post #7
rpmisms wrote: post #3

I don't see how the original experiment "debunked" free will. Wouldn't the decision-making process spark neural activity?

The thesis was that taking the action or not taking the action resulted in different EEG patterns, Bereitschaftspotential or not, and that the spike was visible before the person was consciously taking the decision. So it's not just the neural activity from the decision-making process, it's the neural activity from taking a specific decision, seen before the decision is taken by the person. As if the decision was tak…

> and that the spike was visible before the person was consciously taking the decision

Or does that just mean that our ability to measure when a decision is made is flawed?

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#16

Post by pedrocr »

codeulike wrote: post #14
excursionist wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how any kind of scientific experiment could possibly support the concept of free will. If the universe is deterministic, then obviously there is no free will - since humans are part of the universe. If it is non-deterministic then all we can say about events we identify as non-deterministic is that we don't understand them.

Or, its deterministic, but so complex that its literally impossible to exploit the determinism to 'look ahead' in any way ... you'd need to simulate every subatomic particle, therefore needing something bigger than the universe to 'look ahead'. So perhaps the universe is like a deterministic computer that is calculating its own future. The determinism in that case just doesn't really mean anything - it can't be repea…

How does the problem go away? If you can prove your thesis then even though you can't exploit the determinism you've proven that you can't influence the future. Doesn't that mean that free will doesn't exit and is thus an extremely important result?

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#17

Post by superkuh »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

To say an argument has been "debunked" implies that the argument holds no credibility, or the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is an attempt to shut down a discussion and provide fodder for ad-hominem attacks against those who dare to disagree. In other words, The Atlantic should be ashamed to run a headline like this because it is antithetical to rational discussion.

You're not wrong. Especially since, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2019/10/31/th... "The Ghost of Libet Returns"

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#18

Post by codeulike »

pedrocr wrote: post #16
codeulike wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, its deterministic, but so complex that its literally impossible to exploit the determinism to 'look ahead' in any way ... you'd need to simulate every subatomic particle, therefore needing something bigger than the universe to 'look ahead'. So perhaps the universe is like a deterministic computer that is calculating its own future. The determinism in that case just doesn't really mean anything - it can't be repea…

How does the problem go away? If you can prove your thesis then even though you can't exploit the determinism you've proven that you can't influence the future. Doesn't that mean that free will doesn't exit and is thus an extremely important result?

The future is unknowable and you're part of the mechanism that is unfolding it microsecond by microsecond. The question of whether or not you can 'influence' it doesn't make any sense.

That is, Free Will as a concept doesn't really make any sense. Does Free Will mean if exactly the same situation happened twice, the person might choose different things? But its somehow different to just being random? And when does exactly the same situation every happen twice anyway? Its an incoherent concept.

In my head, I have sortof redefined 'free will' like this:

The world is a mass of cause-and-effect chains. For a given object/being, if you were to 'trace' those cause-and-effect chains, would most of the proximate links in the chain be within the object/being, or outside of it? e.g. a rock can fall and roll around if pushed, those chains of cause-and-effect are mostly outside it. Us, as humans, choose to do things using our brains, so the chains of cause-and-effect (or the first bits of the chain at least) are within our brains. Naturally if you trace the cause-and-effect far enough you will get to some external cause (memories of previous events, learning etc). But if you look at the proximate cause-and-effect chains, they're mostly in our brains. That - for me - is roughly what I take Free Will to mean. The center-of-gravity of recent cause-and-effect chains reside within us. We have it, most animals have it to varying degrees. Rocks dont have it.

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#19

Post by dang »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

To say an argument has been "debunked" implies that the argument holds no credibility, or the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is an attempt to shut down a discussion and provide fodder for ad-hominem attacks against those who dare to disagree. In other words, The Atlantic should be ashamed to run a headline like this because it is antithetical to rational discussion.

Ok, but what's a better word? Refuted? The article makes clear that Schurger's counterargument has been generally accepted.

Edit: given the link in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21486117 I suppose we can say "questioned".

Re: Benjamin Libet's argument against free will is being questioned

#20

Post by whatshisface »

excursionist wrote: post #10
NickM wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it always seemed like it a shaky argument to me too. Even if people were unable to accurately perceive the timing of their own decisions, that doesn't seem to preclude the idea that people are still consciously making those decisions themselves....

But humans don't exist in a vacuum, your decision process was programmed into your brain by nature & nurture, and you had no control over either - the decision process for any control you think you might have had was previously programmed into you brain without your choice.

>your decision process was programmed into your brain by nature & nurture,

But that's asserting the absence of free will, which you can't do in an argument meant to prove the absence of free will. Your interpretation of a free will experiment can't involve assuming a-priori that there is no free will.

Post reply on HN