Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#74
Here's my take on it:

-You experience events.

-You seem to have control over some events, and other events seem to be outside of your control.

-The process that determines this feeling of control is chemical, and has nothing to do with whether or not you actually do have any control.

In other words, even though control is entirely an illusion, it is the illusion that defines our existence. Understanding it is NOT useless - most people who you would describe as "assholes" are just people with control issues.

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#76
I view the debate over free will as missing the point about context. Context is everything.

An analogy would be rolling a dice with your hand onto a table. Is this random? A physicist could say, "no", how you roll it, what the speed it's going, how hard the table is, etc, etc, determine exactly what number will come up. But we don't know all that. To the context of our experience, that dice roll is random.

Similarly, everything we think or do is predetermined by the current state of the universe and our own nature, but to us, we are making choices. In the context of our human experience, we do have free will. Just like it could be theoretically possible to predict the dice roll, it is theoretically possible to predict any persons future action. But we don't have access to that information, so for us, that information, and thus the determination of the future might as well not exist.

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#77

  Moreover, there's scientific evidence against it [..]
No, there isn't. All the interpretations of the results of the experiments since Libet make one crucial unsupported assumption: that rationality and free will must always be exercised by the conscious mind.

This assumption is unwarranted and a gross underestimation of the importance and abilities of our subconsciousness. There is no reason to suppose that your subconscious mind can't make a score of rational, and free, decisions, upon which your conscious mind gets to reflect only some time later. The fact that your mind came upon a conclusion in a subconscious manner does not mean it is irrational or 'unfree': it just means you didn't get the time to reflect on it, before it was acted upon.

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#79
post #15

I have yet to hear a definition of free will that isn't circular. I am not convinced the term means anything.

This. Let's say you had free will. In most definitions, this means you can do what you want, without being forced by anything. But are you really free in your choices? You still can not decide against anything you want. Your mind (or soul, or whatever) will decide what you want to do, and then do that. You may be in the mood to deliberately choose something that is bad for you, but again, this is influenced by your mood. This is actually something I often hear as a reason for free will: If we did not have it, we would never do something that is against our interests. But this will only work if you assume a mind that is both very simple (always trying to choose the best) and extremely smart (so that it can differentiate between bad and good decisions). There is no reason to think that we are like that.

Re: Ask HN: How can you be rational and still believe in free will?

#80
post #54
post #21

I say this every time this topic comes up, which seems to be often, so I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but y'all need to read 'Freedom Evolves' by Dan Dennett, followed up by his longer more important work, 'Consciousness Explained.' You might not agree with his conclusions, as they're fairly radical, but it answers the question of the original post.

Since you've read both books would you mind just summing up the jist of it.

Yes, the gist of both books is "There is no mysterious stuff out there, we don't need God or even physics to explain the mind, it's all just computation happening in your brain. Both consciousness and free will are ways of describing some of the stuff that your brain does."

He's essentially a Functionalist. But he makes his arguments convincing. The convincing-ness cannot be summed up more briefly than he does in his books.

Post reply on HN