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

What You (Want to)* Want

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 189 posts

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#21

Post by solarist »

sph wrote: post #10

I probably don't have much to contribute, but I wanted to share some thoughts on the concept of free will Paul seems to brush against. I found the concept of free will at odds with my opinion that the brain and physics are very deterministic. But one thing the "free will doesn't exist" people tend to forget, is that the brain rewires and changes itself. You are destined to do what your brain is wired to do, but doing…

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

(But personally I don’t think that your argument holds)

Also http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/10/you-dont-have-free-...

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#22

Post by klpolg »

distcs wrote: post #11

Why is PG writing these pseudo-scientific metaphysical posts? His last post on Alien Truth was a disaster. Now this? I normally enjoy PG's writings! His writings on Lisp had good influence on me. But these recent posts are embarrassing. How can someone who has had so much influence in tech communities bring themselves to write these pseudo-scientific posts so glibly?

He's currently on the AI train. Humans are made of matter, neural networks, etc.

Many of his recent essays are pushing a company or a group of companies. The original essays were much better.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#23

Post by squaredot »

It happened to me to think about this (but from another perspective). It seems to me that the sentences "I want [A]", where A is an object outside me, and "I want [to want A]" are essentially different. But the sentences "I want [to want A]" and "I want [to want to want A]" are not really different since both have as object my own will. Or said in another way: wanting to want something is already wanting something.

Moreover an essential differentiation that is not addressed is the difference between desire and will (not easy).

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#24

Post by sph »

oezi wrote: post #19
sph wrote: post #10

I probably don't have much to contribute, but I wanted to share some thoughts on the concept of free will Paul seems to brush against. I found the concept of free will at odds with my opinion that the brain and physics are very deterministic. But one thing the "free will doesn't exist" people tend to forget, is that the brain rewires and changes itself. You are destined to do what your brain is wired to do, but doing…

As far as we know the universe isn't deterministic.

Do we know it is non-deterministic, or do we not have any proof it's one way or the other?

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#26

Post by wodenokoto »

sph wrote: post #10

I probably don't have much to contribute, but I wanted to share some thoughts on the concept of free will Paul seems to brush against. I found the concept of free will at odds with my opinion that the brain and physics are very deterministic. But one thing the "free will doesn't exist" people tend to forget, is that the brain rewires and changes itself. You are destined to do what your brain is wired to do, but doing…

> I found the concept of free will at odds with my opinion that the brain and physics are very deterministic.

Physics don't have to be deterministic in order to be at odds with free will. Whether neurons fire due to a predefined pattern, or they fire with some probabilities do not change the equation for "how can a biological machine have free will?" Choice is at odds with both predefined rules and drawing from a random variable.

> You are destined to do what your brain is wired to do, but doing anything rewires your brain. Some say even thought is able to rewire your brain. The number of possible brain states at T+n increases exponentially. So our constant reconfiguration of the brain is our way out of determinism. That is, free will does exist in a completely deterministic universe.

I completely fail to see how you ended up at that conclusion from that argument. A recursive function, that mutates itself is still bound by it's rules for mutation and recursiveness. Choice doesn't grow out of an exponentially growing number of possible states.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#27

Post by qsort »

distcs wrote: post #11

Why is PG writing these pseudo-scientific metaphysical posts? His last post on Alien Truth was a disaster. Now this? I normally enjoy PG's writings! His writings on Lisp had good influence on me. But these recent posts are embarrassing. How can someone who has had so much influence in tech communities bring themselves to write these pseudo-scientific posts so glibly?

It's a long-standing tradition in the hacker community to delve into stuff one only has a cursory understanding of.

At times it's productive, as it helps uncover intellectual impostures. At times it's just embarrassing.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#28

Post by api »

sph wrote: post #24
oezi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as we know the universe isn't deterministic.

Do we know it is non-deterministic, or do we not have any proof it's one way or the other?

AFAIK hidden variable models have been ruled out in many quantum scenarios. It really does appear that the universe is not deterministic.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#29

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

In the context of startups maybe he's referring to those that want to want something which I take to mean as a poser. It would be like someone starting a club for a favorite color and someone wants to want that favorite color to be their favorite color but the reality is you can't want to want a favorite color, you either want or don't.

Or it could be any number of things being referred to. People wanting to want to work in tech. People want to want control of a social media company.

Re: What You (Want to)* Want

#30

Post by jagrsw »

api wrote: post #28
sph wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know it is non-deterministic, or do we not have any proof it's one way or the other?

AFAIK hidden variable models have been ruled out in many quantum scenarios. It really does appear that the universe is not deterministic.

It opens itself up to interesting interpretations ;). god(s) aka the simulation developer(s) playing with outcomes of quantum events in order to manipulate your/my behavior, punish the bad, reward the good, make the bushes burn etc.

Since quantum events can have macroscopic outcomes, this should be possible? :)

Post reply on HN