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

On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 172 posts

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#131

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #127
pdonis wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't respect someone's freedom to murder without approving of said murder. Sorry, but I disagree. > You actually do not believe what you are saying or are being intentionally obtuse. No, I just have a viewpoint that you apparently can't understand. > Your implementation of that forced choice is currently handled by the law. This is obvious nonsense since having a law against murder does not prevent someone fro…

So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone? I understand it fine. It's objectively wrong. Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action. The threat of being thrown in jail or even executed is not to retroactively deal with the situation, but to give people an incentive to not murder. If it didn't discourage murder, then people would find a different way to dissuade…

> So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone?

I have never claimed any such thing.

> Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action.

Punishing murderer A can certainly deter potential murderer B. But punishing murderer A obviously can't change the fact that murderer A committed a murder. And it might not deter potential murderer C, who either thinks they can escape punishment or has what they think is such a good reason to murder that they don't care about the punishment. So if your goal is to prevent all murders, punishment doesn't achieve that goal.

If your goal is simply to decrease the number of murders, then punishment can do that, yes. But you seem to be taking the position that just decreasing the number is not enough; that only preventing all murders is acceptable.

> How is it tyranny to curb a person's ability to murder?

It's not tyranny to put a murderer on trial and imprison them if they are found guilty. (This assumes that the trial is fair, which in our society is often not the case. But I don't want to go off on another tangent.)

It is tyranny to force a person who has not murdered anyone to go through some kind of brain surgery which is claimed to remove their propensity to murder. Which is what you appear to be proposing.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#132

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #128
pdonis wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not free will in the sense that you can spontaneously decide it for yourself. If "spontaneously" means "outside of the laws of physics", then of course I agree. I just don't think that kind of "free will" is the only possible kind of free will, nor do I think that impossible kind of free will is the kind of free will that matters. > I can choose to eat vanilla yogurt or plain yogurt. That is the narrative my…

You can't redefine what free will means and expect people to take you seriously. Free will means you have the ability to choose, and if you agree with me that the universe is deterministic, then you have to admit that making a choice is only an illusion. I can make choices in the same way that a neutron chooses to move toward more massive objects. I eat vanilla ice cream over dirt because I have taste buds that allow…

Please stop getting hung up on the term "free will" as an excuse to avoid answering my actual question.

You proposed a perfectly clear scenario, and I proposed a perfectly clear second scenario. In scenario A, causal processes in your brain determine that you eat vanilla yogurt. In scenario B, causal processes in your brain determine that you want to eat vanilla yogurt, but causal processes in my brain determine that I force you to eat plain yogurt instead.

I see an important difference between these two scenarios: the first allows your brain processes to determine what kind of yogurt you eat; the second does not, it has my brain processes determining what kind of yogurt you eat.

Do you think that difference is important? Yes or no.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#133

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #130
pdonis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in your society, the one we live in right now, it is already happening. People have others choices imposed on them. Oh, for goodness' sake. I've already agreed that this is the case. I just don't think it means our society is based on respecting other people's freedom to choose. Are you not even reading what I post? > In a society I'm proposing, those kind of choices aren't able to be thrusted on a person because t…

I did there. Let's consolidate our discussion to just a back and forth on that thread if you want to continue the discussion, which I thoroughly hope you do.

Fair enough, I'll respond there.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#134

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #129
pdonis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would rearrange your brain if you had cancer and I was capable of removing it. With my consent, or without it? Does that make a difference to you? It does to me. If it does to you, we probably agree more than it seems like we do from this discussion. But if consent doesn't matter to you, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think any amount of discussion will resolve.

Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would. If I had to physically do it via surgery like our best attempts in science can do today, I would operate if you came to the hospital for the procedure. When it comes to altering your brain so that you like vanilla instead of chocolate, I would not do that. Some things require consent absolutel…

> Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would.

Am I not even aware of it because I'm unconscious and incapacitated, and you're asking the consent of someone else who is empowered (say by my medical power of attorney) to give consent on my behalf?

Or am I not even aware of it because you have a stealthy way of doing it that I can't perceive even though I'm conscious?

I suspect it's the latter, but I'd like you to confirm.

> If I had to physically do it via surgery like our best attempts in science can do today, I would operate if you came to the hospital for the procedure.

Is this because you think it's important that I consent to the procedure, or just because our limited technology of today won't let you do it in a way I can't perceive at all?

Again, I suspect it's the latter, but I'd like you to confirm.

> When it comes to altering your brain so that you like vanilla instead of chocolate, I would not do that. Some things require consent absolutely. Some things do not, like resuscitating a person if you are an EMT and sworn to do no harm.

Oh, so you do think consent is important in some cases? Then where do you draw the line? I get the EMT resuscitating a person, that's an easy case--but it's an easy case because there is a default presumption that if the person were able to consent to being resuscitated, they would. But you are also saying (I think--see above) that you would cure my brain cancer without my consent if you could. Where's the line between that and you not being willing to alter my brain so I like vanilla instead of chocolate?

> do you ask the murder to consent to going to jail or do you put the murderer in jail against their will?

The murderer has already harmed others. That's where I am drawing the line about when consent is no longer required to imprison them.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#135

Post by pdonis »

Layke1123 wrote: post #120
pdonis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not advocating for a violent person to not be stopped. You're advocating for "stopping" them by having someone else rearrange their brain so they won't be violent any more. And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that that someone else is making a choice that has consequences; to you it's all just particles reacting to their environment. Yet you also seem to think suffering is bad--but if it's all just particles…

Absolutely! Re-education, rehabilitation is exactly THAT! It's altering the synaptic connections in the brain to bring their behavior in line with what we view should be the case in civilized society. You just seem to have a problem with making that process more efficient. And it is all just particles moving around, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore what is very likely an unpleasant experience from your subject…

To add to my previous response to this: while I do think it's justified to imprison a convicted murderer, I do not think it's justified to force someone imprisoned for murder to undergo, say, brain surgery that is claimed to remove their propensity to murder.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#136

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #131
Layke1123 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone? I understand it fine. It's objectively wrong. Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action. The threat of being thrown in jail or even executed is not to retroactively deal with the situation, but to give people an incentive to not murder. If it didn't discourage murder, then people would find a different way to dissuade…

> So you think it is value added to society for a person to be able to murder someone? I have never claimed any such thing. > Imposing a punishment is PRIMARILY a preventative action. Punishing murderer A can certainly deter potential murderer B. But punishing murderer A obviously can't change the fact that murderer A committed a murder. And it might not deter potential murderer C, who either thinks they can escape p…

Then if you could change a person and make them incapable of murder, would you not do it? If you could prevent murder, why aren't you morally compelled to? If you chose to let it happen, that means you approve of it.

My position is that reducing murder as much as you can is the correct position, to include making that number zero, just like stopping all rape is better than just reducing the number of rapes.

Is it OK for a parent to have their child circumcised? Or have their ears pierced? If thats OK, I don't see why removing your ability to murder someone is seen as so drastic. Would you not elect to have your ability to murder removed?

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#137

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #132
Layke1123 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't redefine what free will means and expect people to take you seriously. Free will means you have the ability to choose, and if you agree with me that the universe is deterministic, then you have to admit that making a choice is only an illusion. I can make choices in the same way that a neutron chooses to move toward more massive objects. I eat vanilla ice cream over dirt because I have taste buds that allow…

Please stop getting hung up on the term "free will" as an excuse to avoid answering my actual question. You proposed a perfectly clear scenario, and I proposed a perfectly clear second scenario. In scenario A, causal processes in your brain determine that you eat vanilla yogurt. In scenario B, causal processes in your brain determine that you want to eat vanilla yogurt, but causal processes in my brain determine that…

In both scenarios, no free will exists. I didn't trigger my brain processes, only observed them. Neither did you.

You are trying to paint a single scenario in which there is an important distinction and then ignore any other scenario where your reasoning fails.

For instance, if I chose to kill myself, and you stop me, and I later thank you for stopping me from killing myself, is that difference important? Yes or no?

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#138

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #134
Layke1123 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would. If I had to physically do it via surgery like our best attempts in science can do today, I would operate if you came to the hospital for the procedure. When it comes to altering your brain so that you like vanilla instead of chocolate, I would not do that. Some things require consent absolutel…

> Theoretically, if I could fix your brain without you even being aware of it so that you don't die from brain cancer, I would. Am I not even aware of it because I'm unconscious and incapacitated, and you're asking the consent of someone else who is empowered (say by my medical power of attorney) to give consent on my behalf? Or am I not even aware of it because you have a stealthy way of doing it that I can't percei…

The later for both, yes, and the line is when you make a judgment for what is likely to happen as a result of current events. If you have the power to make a better outcome happen 90 percent of the time versus 80 percent of the time, you choose 90 percent even if you are wrong some of the time. No ones has perfect information, yet we still make decisions that alter things despite perfect information. We just do the best we can, and sometimes that means we get ot wrong but should be moving in the better direction whenever possible.

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#139

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #122
Layke1123 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't fight it unless it happens right in front of us? We can donate to organizations that do have the stated purpose. We can vote for politicians who propose laws and policies that make it extremely difficult for it to happen. How are you powerless to do anything about it unless it happens "right in front of you"? And I'm pointing out how in my capacity I am doing everything I can to fight it. Part of that is con…

> We can donate to organizations that do have the stated purpose. We can vote for politicians who propose laws and policies that make it extremely difficult for it to happen. Sure, if we think such organizations and politicians actually exist. (I'm skeptical that they actually do, but I'm willing to assume they do for the sake of this discussion.) But to me, that doesn't count as "drop everything you're doing and fig…

Exactly how redefining what most people take to mean free will and changing the definition of it is poor wording?

Re: On the dangers of seeing human minds as predictive machines

#140

Post by Layke1123 »

pdonis wrote: post #135
Layke1123 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely! Re-education, rehabilitation is exactly THAT! It's altering the synaptic connections in the brain to bring their behavior in line with what we view should be the case in civilized society. You just seem to have a problem with making that process more efficient. And it is all just particles moving around, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore what is very likely an unpleasant experience from your subject…

To add to my previous response to this: while I do think it's justified to imprison a convicted murderer, I do not think it's justified to force someone imprisoned for murder to undergo, say, brain surgery that is claimed to remove their propensity to murder.

So forcing them to do everything else is fine, just as long as no one touches the brain. Removing a foot ok though? What about the death penalty? That can be done without rearranging the brain.
Post reply on HN