Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand • Hacker News Board

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#191

Post by mcv » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

endominus wrote: post #6

From the Github description, a quote: "In a class I taught at Berkeley, I did an experiment where I wrote a simple little program that would let people type either “f” or “d” and would predict which key they were going to push next. It’s actually very easy to write a program that will make the right prediction about 70% of the time. Most people don’t really know how to type randomly. They’ll have too many alternation…

I just typed randomly and got 50%. Does that mean I've got more free will than you? Is my will random? I've got my doubts, but I don't have anything better either.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#192

Post by mapcars » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:47 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #142

withinboredom wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have two choices ... and I always predict the wrong one ... another way to say that is: "I always predict the one you won't choose." If I can't actually predict which one you choose, then statistically, I should be right 50% of the time.

So? If I can reliably lose every basketball game, that doesn't make be perfect at basketball. To put it more plainly: if you were wagering on the outcome, would you rather win 50% of the time (EV=0) or 100% of the time (EV=max)? 100% misprediction is only relevant if a 3rd party adversary is observing the game. In the absence of such an adversary, being reliably wrong it worthless.

> If I can reliably lose every basketball game, that doesn't make be perfect at basketball

What they are saying is that when you have an algorithm you can reverse it to do the opposite. If you could reverse your basketball skills exactly that would be true for your statement.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#193

Post by mcv » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:48 PM UTC

dmd wrote: post #122

I don't really understand what's going on here. I got 52%. My 6 yo daughter got 54%. My 9 yo daughter got 53%. What are people doing who are getting much higher scores?

I think they type less randomly and stick to some repeating patterns.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#194

Post by jtbayly » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:51 PM UTC

brvsft wrote: post #179

withinboredom wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have two choices ... and I always predict the wrong one ... another way to say that is: "I always predict the one you won't choose." If I can't actually predict which one you choose, then statistically, I should be right 50% of the time.

Okay, I get you. And you're right, if I pitted a 'random' program against this site, the outcome would tend toward 50%.

Yes, but...

50% prediction rate would indicate that half of the time you are predictable, meaning you don't have much free will.

0% prediction rate would indicate that you have 100% free will.

Randomness is not a good measure of free will.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#195

Post by superb-owl » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:52 PM UTC

karmakaze wrote: post #128

In what way is being unpredictable considered "free will"? Of course it's just being clickbaity but worth mentioning. I've seen this better used to show that humans are poor sources of randomness. Is there a difference between non-determinism and a free will choice? The latter seems to be a contradiction. A choice implies a reason which would be a cause, thus determinism. This test is asking to make random 'choices'.…

There is actually a large philosophical debate on the relationship between determinism and free will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#196

Post by marcusverus » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:52 PM UTC

IggleSniggle wrote: post #178

The whole concept of free will is ridiculous; it implies that a person is isolated to themselves, when of course we are a soup of ecosystems inside of a soup of ecosystems. Asking the question "do we have free will" is really just an encoded way of defending your sense of ego. Even if you answer "no, there is no free will," it still presupposes the concept of "I".

How does free will imply that a person is isolated to themselves?

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#197

Post by LanceH » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:53 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #142

withinboredom wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have two choices ... and I always predict the wrong one ... another way to say that is: "I always predict the one you won't choose." If I can't actually predict which one you choose, then statistically, I should be right 50% of the time.

So? If I can reliably lose every basketball game, that doesn't make be perfect at basketball. To put it more plainly: if you were wagering on the outcome, would you rather win 50% of the time (EV=0) or 100% of the time (EV=max)? 100% misprediction is only relevant if a 3rd party adversary is observing the game. In the absence of such an adversary, being reliably wrong it worthless.

In the case of this test, 0% means you're defeating the prediction algorithm.

50% means (if you're predicting their prediction) means you're achieving random.

"Free will" is a bit strong, it's more about whether people can produce randomness, which they generally can't.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#198

Post by mapcars » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 2:54 PM UTC

legacynl wrote: post #135

karmakaze wrote: post #128

In what way is being unpredictable considered "free will"? Of course it's just being clickbaity but worth mentioning. I've seen this better used to show that humans are poor sources of randomness. Is there a difference between non-determinism and a free will choice? The latter seems to be a contradiction. A choice implies a reason which would be a cause, thus determinism. This test is asking to make random 'choices'.…

It's hard to come up with a scientifically valid test for something as wide and vague as 'free will'. So what happens is that the tests are designed to test for very specific things that are then used to reason better about vague things like 'free will'. What this test is actually focused on is decision making. The participant in the test is asked to randomly press either button A or B. The cognitive/mental experienc…

> even though it feels like we humans are able to dictate and direct our thoughts, it seems that it doesn't entirely works that way.

Because it's not a binary thing, the thought process is more complex but we can take our body for example. We all control our body, right? But now you take an average office worker vs profession sportsman and see that one can do way more precise and measured movements.

Thoughts are similar, you take some buddhist monk who recites 5 hour long mantras by memory for dozen of years and their thought control would be on another level. It is just the question of training and developing the skill.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#199

Post by eigenket » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 3:00 PM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #182

eigenket wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free will is equivalent to randomness with many (asymptotically infinite) degrees of freedom. I don't think this is obviously true. I can make a random number generating device with as many degrees of freedom as you like by producing a bunch of vertically polarised photons and measuring their horizontal polarisation. I don't think anyone would describe this system as having "free will". Conversely humans with "free…

> I can make a random number generating device with as many degrees of freedom as you like by producing a bunch of vertically polarised photons and measuring their horizontal polarisation. Unless I misunderstand you, this is simply not true. Your device will be exceedingly easy to model, it's just a simple sum of i.i.d. random variables and subject to central limit theorems. (While humans definitely aren't.)

While the sum of many i.i.d. random variables may be easy to model, that doesn't mean that everything involving i.i.d. random variables is easy to model.

Re: Can you use your "free will"? Try your hand

#200

Post by alphazard » Tue, Oct 31, 2023, 3:08 PM UTC

karmakaze wrote: post #128

In what way is being unpredictable considered "free will"? Of course it's just being clickbaity but worth mentioning. I've seen this better used to show that humans are poor sources of randomness. Is there a difference between non-determinism and a free will choice? The latter seems to be a contradiction. A choice implies a reason which would be a cause, thus determinism. This test is asking to make random 'choices'.…

Most arguments about free will are arguments about a definition. If you taboo "free will", and let the discussion continue, it turns into much more tractable discussions about determinism, neurology, and control or lack there of.