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

101–110 of 257 posts

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

#101

Post by ThalesX »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #13
ThalesX wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure I understand this counter argument. Surely we can rationalize in a deterministic universe without having free will to make independent decisions based on objective rationalizations. What about understanding the clock structure? Does that limit my ability to reason about time? Or about digital clocks? Or to be upset at someone for not showing up when I was expecting them to.

What do you mean by “rationalize”? What is the difference between rational and irrational in a deterministic universe?

I will give you an example. Say, everything at Tn is based on the function at Tn-1, which means Tn-1 is based on Tn-2 and so on and so forth to the beginning of the universe.

That would mean that my next steps are predetermined. If I choose to fight the idea, or resist the idea, that would also be predetermined on factors such as upbringing, and even the upbringing of an ancestor living 2000 years ago, and the geometry of space-time a million years ago, and the thermal gradient of a billion years ago and so on and so forth.

> What is the difference between rational and irrational in a deterministic universe?

I would argue that irrational, in a deterministic Universe, would be living your life as if the universe were random and probabilistic; imagining you are a nugget of free spirit and energy; considering your individuality and power.

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

#102

Post by chordalkeyboard »

coldtea wrote: post #92
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also of the opinion that the concept is either incoherent or meaningless.

Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? In which case, you don't really have an opinion, any more than the way a dead frog jerks his legs when we apply electricity.

> Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events?

I don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. But I’m sure you can imagine how to express “opinion” as a subjective experience of a brain state that is wholly determined by deterministic factors.

> In which case, you don't really have an opinion, any more than the way a dead frog jerks his legs when we apply electricity.

You’re right, I’m convinced that belief in “free will” is the default naive psychological reaction to awareness of one’s own nature as a physical system, but I try to be mindful that one day someone could express “free will” as a concept that is both meaningful and coherent.

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

#103

Post by konschubert »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #102
coldtea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? In which case, you don't really have an opinion, any more than the way a dead frog jerks his legs when we apply electricity.

> Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? I don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. But I’m sure you can imagine how to express “opinion” as a subjective experience of a brain state that is wholly determined by deterministic factors. > In which case, you don't really have an opinion,…

The Copenhagen-Style quantum collaps isn't really Physics. Other than that, where is Physics probabilistic?

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

#104

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #34
B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's quite a bit of historical philosophical, and theological, debate on the topic. Boils down to "there is an immutable, foreordained destiny" vs. "each actor chooses freely and history is the sum of those vectors".

This needle is threaded by contemplation of what it means for someone to “choose.” If one freely chooses whatever one wants, then one has free will but one will always choose their desires.

... and if the desires were foreordained ...

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

#105

Post by forgotmypw17 »

mcguire wrote: post #11

This kind of research shows how deeply dualism is ingrained in philosophy and the cognitive sciences. Picture this: You decide to move your hand, then you move your hand. An observer using fMRI or somesuch notes that they observe neural activity before you report making the decision, and they can even predict where and how you are going to move from observations of neural behavior. If you are a materialist, how is th…

But who is making the decision, is it "you", or is it the fabric of the Universe itself, the quarks, which is making the "decision" for you?

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

#106

Post by coldtea »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #102
coldtea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? In which case, you don't really have an opinion, any more than the way a dead frog jerks his legs when we apply electricity.

> Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? I don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. But I’m sure you can imagine how to express “opinion” as a subjective experience of a brain state that is wholly determined by deterministic factors. > In which case, you don't really have an opinion,…

>You’re right, I’m convinced

I don't think you are convinced. You were just meant to say so.

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

#107

Post by Thiez »

Trasmatta wrote: post #62
LatteLazy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same as intelligence or pornograph: you can't measure or really define it, you just know it when you see it. Aka, it's not within the realm of science and people should stop pretending it is.

I never really liked that quote because of course you can define pornography. Just because it exists on a spectrum and there are grey areas doesn't mean you can't define it. That's the case for just about everything.

It's a lot like Loki's wager. We can't decide where the head ends and the neck begins, so these things must be outside the realm of science.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager

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

#108

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #102
coldtea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? In which case, you don't really have an opinion, any more than the way a dead frog jerks his legs when we apply electricity.

> Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? I don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. But I’m sure you can imagine how to express “opinion” as a subjective experience of a brain state that is wholly determined by deterministic factors. > In which case, you don't really have an opinion,…

The parent comment has exactly demonstrated that is already meaningful. Coherence is tricky, because there are a lot of concepts and words already that we use every day, that are certainly meaningful and useful, but that would have a hard time to pass your "coherence" test.

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

#109

Post by weinzierl »

esperent wrote: post #95
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a modern dualist would view this as hardware vs software. If all were able to measure were voltage levels on a CPU, you would say all computing is inevitably bound to changing electrical voltages/currents. However, you would miss out on all the math and algorithms and the beauty and richness that is software. A dualist might see the “soul” as the software that the physical brain executes. Of course, if all yo…

> A dualist might see the “soul” as the software that the physical brain executes. I don't think so (although there are multiple definitions of "dualist"). In the software/hardware analogy, the software still exists, physically. It's described directly in electrical impulses going though the hardware. For dualists, the soul is strictly non-physical.

The hardware is the plastic, the metal and the silicon, software is ultimately the fleeting electrical signals. That's how I see it too and a pretty common view, I think.

What I read from the parent comment is different though. It's more akin to electricity belongs to the physical world, software is the non-physical.

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

#110

Post by pjc50 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #15
mcguire wrote: post #11

This kind of research shows how deeply dualism is ingrained in philosophy and the cognitive sciences. Picture this: You decide to move your hand, then you move your hand. An observer using fMRI or somesuch notes that they observe neural activity before you report making the decision, and they can even predict where and how you are going to move from observations of neural behavior. If you are a materialist, how is th…

I think a modern dualist would view this as hardware vs software. If all were able to measure were voltage levels on a CPU, you would say all computing is inevitably bound to changing electrical voltages/currents. However, you would miss out on all the math and algorithms and the beauty and richness that is software. A dualist might see the “soul” as the software that the physical brain executes. Of course, if all yo…

The question of interest is are these two separate things (dualism), or the same thing seen at different scales? The Earth is beautiful when seen from space: you can see entire oceans. That doesn't mean that the ocean isn't made out of water molecules or that we must impute some special non-physical "oceanness" to it.
Post reply on HN