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

Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#51

Post by nitrogen »

pjc50 wrote: post #23
onion2k wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would…

interactions between particles is a deterministic process But this isn't even deterministic on its own terms. Particle decay is stochastic. Quantum tunneling is stochastic. There's a constant, silent rain of neutrinos that don't interact nearly all the time. Fully deterministic analog electronic computing is impossible because we cannot eliminate Johnson noise and shot noise. Why do people then think that neural comp…

Unpredictability != dualistic free will.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#52

Post by spacehome »

Natanael_L wrote: post #50
spacehome wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.

In what way? There's no one canonical MW either way, my version with growing parallel universe bubbles that merge or split is just my interpretation, as the other versions I've seen seem to be unable to address various issues

There is a canonical MW interpretation. The MW hypothesis is just that reality is the evolution of the Schrodinger PDE on a configuration space with no other modification such as pilot waves or collapse required. The math is really quite simple (this simplest of any QM interpretation). It doesn't have parallel universes or bubbles as fundamental objects.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#53

Post by Natanael_L »

spacehome wrote: post #52
Natanael_L wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way? There's no one canonical MW either way, my version with growing parallel universe bubbles that merge or split is just my interpretation, as the other versions I've seen seem to be unable to address various issues

There is a canonical MW interpretation. The MW hypothesis is just that reality is the evolution of the Schrodinger PDE on a configuration space with no other modification such as pilot waves or collapse required. The math is really quite simple (this simplest of any QM interpretation). It doesn't have parallel universes or bubbles as fundamental objects.

And by what mechanics does that happen? How do the universe "know" which particles should behave how in delayed eraser experiments, for example? It just... Happens? How are the particles "separated" and "merged" (in lack of better terms) in the configuration space?

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#54

Post by spacehome »

Natanael_L wrote: post #53
spacehome wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a canonical MW interpretation. The MW hypothesis is just that reality is the evolution of the Schrodinger PDE on a configuration space with no other modification such as pilot waves or collapse required. The math is really quite simple (this simplest of any QM interpretation). It doesn't have parallel universes or bubbles as fundamental objects.

And by what mechanics does that happen? How do the universe "know" which particles should behave how in delayed eraser experiments, for example? It just... Happens? How are the particles "separated" and "merged" (in lack of better terms) in the configuration space?

Particles are not fundamental, either, and thinking in classical terms will yield only confusion. You'll find a good non-technical introduction to the MW interpretation here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#55

Post by narag »

Amezarak wrote: post #49
narag wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!! describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will" That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric c…

Maybe I misunderstand, but your definition of free will seemed to me to be a tautological "free will is the freedom to choose among possible alternatives." To my reading, you did not address what it actually means to choose, which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another. > And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of cours…

Maybe I misunderstand

Yes you do.

which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another

"Implies". Hmmm... no. You're stubbornly insisting in the wrong mental frame that muds the waters, where the self is outside nature. That's a relic of religious thought. That vision has no support from science at all.

Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact event

That doesn't follow my question, just returned to your absurd premises and described what you think it happens based on them.

What does that mean?

We're not free in a vacuum means that we don't get to choose that we like food, sex or games. It means that we get to choose our behaviour to feed, have sex or play at different times or delay gratification to optimize satisfaction for our whishes.

Actually we're also free, to a certain extent, to change ourselves, to refine our tastes, to train our body, to increase our will power observing how it works and controling our reactions predicting them.

Do you have any evidence that, given the same circumstances, I could have chosen to do something differently?

The same circumstances!!! Do you realize how absurd is what you're asking for? So freedom for you consist in the ability to contradict nature laws? No wonder you think it doesn't exist.

The Stanford encyclopedia link is a great read.

Fine, you're not going to get bored.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#56

Post by Amezarak »

narag wrote: post #55
Amezarak wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misunderstand, but your definition of free will seemed to me to be a tautological "free will is the freedom to choose among possible alternatives." To my reading, you did not address what it actually means to choose, which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another. > And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of cours…

Maybe I misunderstand Yes you do. which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another "Implies". Hmmm... no. You're stubbornly insisting in the wrong mental frame that muds the waters, where the self is outside nature. That's a relic of religious thought. That vision has no support from science at all. Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact…

> It means that we get to choose our behaviour to feed, have sex or play at different times or delay gratification to optimize satisfaction for our whishes.

That's still tautological. What does it mean to choose? What is the "I" that is doing the choosing? Those are the crucial questions that underpin the whole idea which you aren't explaining.

Even taking what you said at face value, almost every animal exihbits this behavior. Do all animals have free will? And what makes these a free choice? If you're saying that, assuming I have food and sex readily available, and I choose food, that I could have chosen otherwise given the same circumstances?

> So freedom for you consist in the ability to contradict nature laws? No wonder you think it doesn't exist.

Of course not. I'm merely restating the problem.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#57

Post by AnimalMuppet »

onion2k wrote: post #8
narag wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…

that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would…

> Pretty huge 'just' there because it discounts God, souls, etc. Many people think that the brain isn't just atomic particles. But there's no evidence that they're right. We've cut brains up and looked.

But if the mind (note wording change) were not just atomic particles (that it, God, souls, or some such was involved), when you cut brains up and looked, what would you see?

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#58

Post by narag »

Amezarak wrote: post #56
narag wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I misunderstand Yes you do. which implies some kind of unmoored Cartesian ego selecting one alternative or another "Implies". Hmmm... no. You're stubbornly insisting in the wrong mental frame that muds the waters, where the self is outside nature. That's a relic of religious thought. That vision has no support from science at all. Quite the opposite: that what we experience as will is actually an after-the-fact…

> It means that we get to choose our behaviour to feed, have sex or play at different times or delay gratification to optimize satisfaction for our whishes. That's still tautological. What does it mean to choose? What is the "I" that is doing the choosing? Those are the crucial questions that underpin the whole idea which you aren't explaining. Even taking what you said at face value, almost every animal exihbits thi…

That's still tautological. What does it mean to choose? What is the "I" that is doing the choosing? Those are the crucial questions that underpin the whole idea which you aren't explaining.

From here it seems that you're being deliberately obtuse. You reply to a phrase in my comment without considering the thread of questions and answers that led to it and ignoring the rest of the comment where I previously answered the very same question.

The "crucial" questions have no interest at all. I use the terms in their common colloquial sense. There's no explanation needed: we are intelligent animals, complex machines that select the options that we perceive as more favourable for us and reject the worse ones. Choosing is the fact that we selected lemon ice cream instead of orange ice cream. "I" means the 80 kg of biomass, the brain in particular, that is typing this comment.

Do all animals have free will? And what makes these a free choice?

Freedom is the absence of obstacles. Compared to humans, animals have a more limited set of choices, a lot more obstacles to overcome and less understanding of what they are and who they are. So they're less free.

If you're saying that, assuming I have food and sex readily available, and I choose food, that I could have chosen otherwise given the same circumstances?

Again? You asked for a definition of choosing and it's you who's mixing two different concepts to reach confusing conclusions.

"Giving the same circumstances" is the trap. If I get to choose food or sex, the outcome will depend on my tastes and the circumstances: Do I like the sex partner? Had I any sex in the last month or year? Am I really hungry? Do I like that food? Is it any good?

Freedom means that if presented with an attractive partner and disgusting food I can choose sex. Nobody forces me to do what I don't want to do. Your frame is so absurd that you try it to mean the opposite: that I'm free to eat disgusting food instead of having sex with an nice attractive woman.

We're not "free from ourselves", we're free (or not) from external interference. We weren't free to choose our rising environment and once the circumstances of it internalize, that's part of us and our will.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#59

Post by Amezarak »

narag wrote: post #58
Amezarak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that we get to choose our behaviour to feed, have sex or play at different times or delay gratification to optimize satisfaction for our whishes. That's still tautological. What does it mean to choose? What is the "I" that is doing the choosing? Those are the crucial questions that underpin the whole idea which you aren't explaining. Even taking what you said at face value, almost every animal exihbits thi…

That's still tautological. What does it mean to choose? What is the "I" that is doing the choosing? Those are the crucial questions that underpin the whole idea which you aren't explaining. From here it seems that you're being deliberately obtuse. You reply to a phrase in my comment without considering the thread of questions and answers that led to it and ignoring the rest of the comment where I previously answered…

> "I" means the 80 kg of biomass, the brain in particular, that is typing this comment.

That's very different from what most people when they say "I", because they're thinking of their ego, the little voice narrating to them their thoughts. If you're willing to reduce "I" to this definition, then yes, that solves a lot of problems.

> "Giving the same circumstances" is the trap. If I get to choose food or sex, the outcome will depend on my tastes and the circumstances: Do I like the sex partner? Had I any sex in the last month or year? Am I really hungry? Do I like that food? Is it any good?

The reason I asked the question was to pin down the variant of compatibilism you were subscribing to. You seem to be effectively arguing for a minimalist compatibilist view.

When you say things like:

> Freedom means that if presented with an attractive partner and disgusting food I can choose sex. Nobody forces me to do what I don't want to do.

> We're not "free from ourselves", we're free (or not) from external interference. We weren't free to choose our rising environment and once the circumstances of it internalize, that's part of us and our will.

You are redefining the definitions of "free" and "will" such that of course it is obviously compatible with determinism, because you have (rightly) watered down the words "freedom" and "will" until they were much, much weaker than most people who believe in free will at all. It doesn't make much sense to call it free will anymore, at that point. And that's what my original post was about: I prefer to call a spade a spade, while some compatibilists prefer to argue down from the old superstitions until they rationalize the history of thought down to an approximation of reality, and still call that by the old "free will" term.

Re: Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

#60

Post by Natanael_L »

spacehome wrote: post #54
Natanael_L wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by what mechanics does that happen? How do the universe "know" which particles should behave how in delayed eraser experiments, for example? It just... Happens? How are the particles "separated" and "merged" (in lack of better terms) in the configuration space?

Particles are not fundamental, either, and thinking in classical terms will yield only confusion. You'll find a good non-technical introduction to the MW interpretation here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/

My basic justification for my interpretation: either entanglement of two photons makes all of spacetime branch out into two instantaneously (however that's represented in the configuration space - Pluto wouldn't wait for the event to enter its light cone to now diverge into two "branches");

Or every point in the universe is essentially an independent configuration space, linked in a kind of matrix, in which the fact that the photon we sent to Pluto had spin X on measurement propagates outwards back to us and upon reaching us causes our configuration space to react accordingly in two different branches. After all the knowledge couldn't be available to you before it came back. Functionally equivalent to my bubble description above, only the terminology differs. Or is the configuration space infinite to the degree that all possible future outcomes is accounted for and represented in every point at once already, practically making it into a growing complex infinite web of interactions when following the time line forwards?

Post reply on HN