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

It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

theamericanscholar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#71

Post by thatswrong0 »

md224 wrote: post #62

> there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum. I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions.…

> It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions.

Or maybe it's just that all of my experience, memories, thoughts, and sensory input leading up to this exact moment in time leave me involuntarily with the belief I don't have free will.

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#72

Post by dwaltrip »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #10

This is true even at a personal level. If you think you know why you act the way you do but you have never done an experiment to validate it you have a pretty good chance of being wrong. Even for simple things, like how fast you drive, is it the speedometer and you are looking at it, or is it how your engine sounds, and if turn up your music do you drive faster and is that because you are more aroused/excited, or is…

Everyone is living in fairytale narratives that we spend decades crafting for ourselves. And doing so has some great benefits! But it is also can be very problematic at times.

I've been trying to figure out how to live while minimizing the extent of my personal fabricated narrative. It's a bit tricky... As with many things, I think basic awareness of the phenomenon is the first productive step.

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#73

Post by adjkant »

md224 wrote: post #62

> there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum. I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions.…

So your belief in free will comes from "It's going to turn out to come from something really weird"? That's not convincing either.

I don't believe in free will, but I believe that there will always be the illusion because the computing needed to know anything before it happens is far too much, and if you knew, it would add another layer of things you'd need to compute, meaning you still wouldn't know your choice ahead of time.

I agree that the infinite regress argument is not convincing - it proves nothing. I would point to science, physics, etc, which is much more factually supportive of it. Of course you can point out quarks, quantum computing, etc, but my argument is that the "randomness" is simply a system we have yet to understand.

More importantly, you highlight something else - choice is not the same as free will. Yes, we all have choices we make every day. They seem to be our will because we don't understand how they were made down to the particles. Whether or not there is free will, there is always choice. So the question is, when is the lack of free will actually relevant? I find that a lot of people apply it in ways that don't make sense when it actually does offer insight in certain interesting areas such as ethics.

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#74

Post by dwaltrip »

adjkant wrote: post #73
md224 wrote: post #62

> there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum. I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions.…

So your belief in free will comes from "It's going to turn out to come from something really weird"? That's not convincing either. I don't believe in free will, but I believe that there will always be the illusion because the computing needed to know anything before it happens is far too much, and if you knew, it would add another layer of things you'd need to compute, meaning you still wouldn't know your choice ahea…

> More importantly, you highlight something else - choice is not the same as free will. Yes, we all have choices we make every day. They seem to be our will because we don't understand how they were made down to the particles. Whether or not there is free will, there is always choice. So the question is, when is the lack of free will actually relevant?

Great point. This should be brought up more often. Many discussions of free will completely skip over this angle.

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#76

Post by md224 »

d23 wrote: post #65
md224 wrote: post #62

> there is no homunculus (or soul, or separate entity) calling the shots for you, but even if there were a mini-me inside of you making choices, that mini-me would need a mini-mini-me inside of it, ad infinitum. I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions.…

> I find it kind of amusing that people think free will is an illusion. It's a great illustration of how you can get people to believe anything, including things that violate their most fundamental perceptions. And yet, my own fundamental perceptions say otherwise. If I sit here and try to decide to do something, how do I do it? I kind of... wait. Wait for some idea to pop into my head. Wait for something to appear b…

And yet you still choose. You're trying to dissect your agency, but it's too fundamental to be analyzed like that. It isn't a decision-making process: it is the decision itself.

Writing that reply to me required a series of decisions on your part. Do you feel like your words are under your control? Communication requires choice... if we have no free will, then we're mute prisoners. I'm pretty sure I'm not a mute prisoner, and if I am, then whoever is controlling my typing is making a cruel mockery of my plight. :(

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#77

Post by taurath »

If you haven't seen the lecture from Robert Sapolsky (author of the book the article is summarizing) on Depression, do yourself a favor and see it now! He's wonderfully eloquent and approachable even to the laymen in giving the neurobiological underpinnings of what is a terrible illness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOAgplgTxfc

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#78

Post by taurath »

tucif wrote: post #2

What would be a good book to read before this book? Or is it friendly enough for someone new to behavioral science?

You can see his lecture in my post here and decide whether he has too many underpinnings for you - I would guess not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14591520

Re: It’s Complicated: Unraveling the mystery of why people act as they do

#80

Post by ak4g »

77pt77 wrote: post #70
amasad wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree with the following: - Mainstream science operates on the assumption of physicalism. - Mainstream science operates on the assumption that mind/consciousness is reducible to the brain organ. - Mainstream science operates on the principle of causation. What follows from that is that libertarian free-will is impossible. What you're left with is determinism (and compatibilism which isn't a scientific view, bu…

> What you're left with is determinism Not true even at a fundamental level. Why should it be true at a macro/aggregate one?

Can you clarify what you mean? How are we not left with determinism at a fundamental level?

(And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's possible that it's not deterministic. It's perfectly compatible with determinism, just not (AIUI) (and IANATP) currently known whether or not it is the case.)

Post reply on HN