Live data from Hacker News

The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

theguardian.com

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#81
post #80
post #79

> “That’s free will: were you to rewind the tape of world history, to the instant just before you made your decision, with everything in the universe exactly the same, you’d have been able to make a different one.” Huh? Why? Shouldn't it be the opposite? As much as I have a personal will, I will continue to will the same thing if we replay the situation -- all other things being exactly the same. I don't chose someth…

Some people will argue that you are not so exceptional, which is the whole thing about the snowflake argument. You share most of your specificities with other homo sapiens. Individualism is a thought system that is centered on liberalism. Watch "the century of the self".

>You share most of your specificities with other homo sapiens.

Sure, but that's neither here, nor there - and totally orthogonal to the discussion.

Free will is about expressing the self, not about the self being unique.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#82
This article brings about the perfect oportunity to share with the HNews community what I share with my friends when I feel edgy.

Consider a human as a function of a ton of variables... infinitely many. Our whole life defined as a function of a lot of variables. Now... when you think about what makes you, you, this includes the moment of your birth, and the configuration of your genes. So when your parents decided to have sex. Furthermore, the sperm that turned into you, came from a reservoir that replenishes itself from time to time, so even that is a function of how many times that reservoir has been replenished.

So basically, you are a function of how many times your dad masturbated in his life up until your conception, amongst others. Nobel here I come.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#83
I'm surprised at an article on free will that mentions neither Skinner nor Kahnemann. Skinner's studies on behaviourism and operational conditioning led him to question free will in quite a dramatic fashion - in some ways I think akin to how Darwin was able to reason from "reproduction with modification" to evolution, without ever having a mechanism for modification in mind (gene theory came along much later).

More recent studies of cognition and reaction have provided some of the counter-mechanisms, the things we do without deciding to do them, such as reflex arcs (the mechanism in action that causes us to withdraw our hands from something hot before our brains have realized it was hot, e.g.,), and, more importantly for the free-will discussion, Kahnemann's (and Tversky)'s two-systems model.

The basic idea of that model is that our body and brain do a lot of prefiltering, dealing with much of what we encounter and manage without ever involving the conscious mind. Think of driving on a familiar, quiet road. You never think about it, you might not even be aware of much of the drive, but you drove safely.

That "fast", low-energy-requirement system only flags things to the conscious mind - the slow, high-energy-system that we identify as ourselves - when it cannot make sense of what it encounters or when there are surprising happenings.

The workings of the fast (aconscious) system are inaccessible to the slow (conscious) system.

So we have within us a system that decides a great deal without our being involved, at least not consciously, and that only presents for our conscious consideration things it needs help with.

We make conscious, free-will-like decisions, based on filtered and reduced information. How free is that, really?

Of course, the definition of consciousness is a question all its own.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#84
“Were free will to be shown to be nonexistent – and were we truly to absorb the fact – it would “precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution”, Harris has written.“

I guarantee you that nobody outside of a tiny group of academics would care at all. The only reason that people care about evolution is that they feel insulted at being called monkeys. Call them mammals instead and you’ll get no response, because it doesn’t trigger the same emotional reaction. Call them animals, they’ll protest. Call them vertebrates, shrug. There’s no logic involved. People just react to the connotation of what an “animal” or an “ape” is and then rationalize that reaction after the fact. If you just the word “hominids” instead of apes they wouldn’t care. People are idiots, it takes years of training to be able to think the way a scientist does.

Free will is an airy abstraction. Nobody cares about that. Only someone like Harris could possibly think they would.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#85
post #57

From what I understand of the Many-Worlds Theory, if it's correct, we can have both 'free will' and 'determinism': a man orders pizza, in 90% of possible futures he chooses a Margherita which is his favorite, but in 10% he orders something else.

Those are just statistics or hypotheticals. It's only facts after the action is made.

  It's only facts after the action is made.
My understanding of Many Worlds is probably wrong then. I assumed that every outcome exists (every possible world in the — relative to you right now — past, present, and future), and that any particular outcome is only 'special' to the copy of you in that universe.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#86

I personally find it highly likely that the decision mechanism emerges from physical computation in the brain. However, when we talk about decision mechanisms, we inevitably introduce the question of whether this decision mechanism can work better or worse. “Free will” may be seen as a computational notion of “health” for this decision mechanism, similar to how we use the term health for our physical bodies. A free w…

Excellent to note that it is in fact not a scientific question. You know your epistemology:)

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#87

Things either have a cause, and then they are causal. Or they have no cause, and then they are random. But in the opinions of some, the laws of physics stop at the neck, beyond which things are neither causal nor non-causal nor random nor non-random but 'free'. Whatever that might mean. (Apparently it's some sort of unmoving mover which moves itself and interacts with the universe without being interacted upon by the…

> Things either have a cause, and then they are causal. Or they have no cause, and then they are random. This is probably the most succinct statement that sums up the problem with "free will". As soon as you start to try to define "free will" in terms of the natural sciences you run into insurmountable contradictions that suggest that it must be an illusion. Edit: I wonder what proportion of posters here believe both…

We have no ethical framework to turn the scientific method towards what is going on at the deepest levels of the brain without some crazy cloning stuff or a horrible dystopian future.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#88

“Were free will to be shown to be nonexistent – and were we truly to absorb the fact – it would “precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution”, Harris has written.“ I guarantee you that nobody outside of a tiny group of academics would care at all. The only reason that people care about evolution is that they feel insulted at being called monkeys. Call th…

Free will is not an airy abstraction.

Why does my cloud of atoms disagree with yours? ;)

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#89
post #32

I think self consciousness is the sticking point for a mechanical or probabilistic universe. It exists. It eludes quantifiable definition. It makes no sense in a mechanism. It is central to free will.

This is true. It’s obvious we have free will, it’s obvious that an atomistic body can’t support that alone, but no one wants to talk about it ;)

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#90
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the body-mind is said to be the vehicle of the soul. These are all very ancient ideas, determinism especially. As you suspect, people discussing this misses out on how it's all relative, not so absolute.

Well, I still don't think there's any souls/free will etc in the academic or "objective world" that is provably out there. However I don't think we're living there. We live in our own minds with a limited view and understanding, mostly dealing with social problems day to day, and emotions coloring that view however they see fit. So IMO the "soul" and "free will" (or whatever other beliefs one may have) are ultimately…

I’m glad your will has an opinion. This all seems miraculous.
Post reply on HN