8 ms·

Free will is back, and maybe we can measure it

47 points by xenophon 11y ago

Roritharr 11y ago
So basically: The world is deterministic, so free will just means to be able to weigh options and delay gratification for a bit longer? That's a sad definition in my book.
- ccvannorman 11y ago
  Agree. From the article: "If you are able to imagine a number of options for yourself, weigh them with regard to your interests, and then commit yourself to the one that seems the best, you are exercising your free will." So .. if the number of options you CAN imagine is arbitrary (which it by definition is), you've just described a computer program written for optimisation.
- Natsu 11y ago
  That depends on exactly what idea of determinism you have. If you mean something like phenomena can be described by the standard model, that's fine, but if it's something like local realism, that's been busted pretty hard. This might prove more interesting than the linked article, though it was on HN previously: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a... Local realism is the idea that objects have definite properties whether or not they are measured, and that measurements of these properties are not affected by events taking place sufficiently far away1. [...] Many experiments1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 have since been done that are consistent with quantum mechanics and inconsistent with local realism. But these conclusions remain the subject of considerable interest and debate, and experiments are still being refined to overcome ‘loopholes’ that might allow a local realistic interpretation. Here we have measured correlations in the classical properties of massive entangled particles (9Be+ ions): these correlations violate a form of Bell's inequality. Our measured value of the appropriate Bell's ‘signal’ is 2.25 ± 0.03, whereas a value of 2 is the maximum allowed by local realistic theories of nature. In contrast to previous measurements with massive particles, this violation of Bell's inequality was obtained by use of a complete set of measurements. Moreover, the high detection efficiency of our apparatus eliminates the so-called ‘detection’ loophole.
  - spacehome 11y ago
    The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      True, but it makes Occam spin in infinitely many graves.
      - spacehome 11y ago
        I'm not sure why people believe this. I would address it here again, but better people than me have written on it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/.
    - Natanael_L 11y ago
      What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be? And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled particles you get two waves that meet where X+X and Y+Y don't interact, but X+Y and Y+X does and thus create new universes. I don't see how the wave-less versions hold up when there for example are orientation-dependent probability and a ton of other crap like that. What else makes the particles interact with exactly the right universe? Edit: Not to mention how complex MW would have to be to explain the delayed quantum eraser experiment.
      - spacehome 11y ago
        You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.
        Natanael_L 11y ago
        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
onion2k 11y ago
We desperately need a new way of thinking about free will. We really don't. The author of the article has written off hundreds of years of philosophical debate about determinist free will versus indeterminism and decided that his interpretation of free will, which falls firmly in the causal indeterminism camp, is the right way to think about things. Admittedly that's the nice one, because determinism is hard when it comes to things like ethics and morality, but we don't need to redefine 'free will' to have the discussion. Especially when it's a low redefinition[1]. The fact is whether or not we have free will is largely irrelevant. There's a really interesting Philosophy Bites podcast with Daniel Dennett about what's important in the free will question[2]. It's well worth a listen if you're interested in philosophical stuff. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html [2] http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Daniel_Dennett_on_Free_Will_Worth_Wanting.mp3 http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Daniel_Dennett_on_...
- narag 11y ago
  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 finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. The opposite to freedom is slavery, either from external circumstances or from own instincts that, in turn, is caused by external circumstances: arrested development, physiological defects or the mental illness. So lack of freedom has causes and freedom has causes too (configuration of our brain and a favorable environment). The opposite of freedom is not "uncaused". Requiring no determinism is one more example of the not true scottman fallacy. Or moving goal posts.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    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 make the exact same decisions as that person. In other words, we don't actually make any decisions for ourselves. It's all determined by chemistry. If that's true then someone could argue that the path of their life was predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time, so the fact they shot their wife was actually nothing they could have had any control over, and it's very unfair to lock them away for 30 years if they couldn't have changed anything. It's just the latest outcome of a chemical reaction that started at the Big Bang. It's actually a very compelling argument. The counter argument requires 'magic' in the form of something that we can control that can't be measured. That's a big ask for any rational scientist. [1] 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.
adrianN 11y ago
All discussions about free will are completely useless without first defining what exactly "free will" is. Is your definition of free will compatible with the assumption that the brain has to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe that free will is somehow magic?
- Schiphol 11y ago
  In general, it's far from useless to investigate the nature of X before having a clear definition of X. Perhaps the definition will come as a result of the investigation. Perhaps there will never be a clear definition, but paradigm cases are easy to come by (that's arguably the case with free will).
- cLeEOGPw 11y ago
  "Free will" is the output of your fully developed (25+ years) frontal cortex (brain region operating on most abstract concepts) under normal chemical conditions (level of hormones, no affecting drugs, etc.) At least that's how legal system uses free will and I think it is pretty correct.
frobozz 11y ago
"We must believe in free will — we have no choice." (Isaac Bashevis Singer)
frobozz 11y ago
Is he saying that because other animals also seem to exhibit free will, and because some humans appear to be more impulsive than others, that makes it possible without a "supernatural ability to transcend the laws of nature"? Buried in the article, rather than in an introductory definition of the terms used, is the line: "for some, a really free will is one that is not determined by anything – one that stands outside the causal chains of nature. Such a person might feel cheated when offered instead a set of capacities that we share (to a degree) with cats and chickens." Surely there's nothing at all novel here. We've long known that other animals have varying degrees of autonomy. I also don't think that any determinists would argue (or even ever have argued) against the existence of this kind of free will. Just that it is only free if you also accept that Bertrand Russell's table is "oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard", and choose to go no deeper.
paulsutter 11y ago
Focusing on actual processes in the brain may be a more objective discussion than discussing "free will". For example, is the human brain driven by reinforcement learning? is dopamine part of the reward loop? how does curiosity fit in? Are there tipping point effects in neural networks? What about noise, or even quantum effects if you were trying to model and predict an outcome? Regardless of one's position, that's an objective discussion with questions that can be tested, with useful results that could help develop a general AI. Contrast that with a discussion about "free will", a suitcase word with numerous polarizing definitions. It's like walking into a minefield of bias and enmity. And frankly just as much strident opinion from "rationalists" as from the religious. And I ask, where is that going? What's the result such discussion is driving towards? Is the discussion really analyzing a real physical process in the brain or is this a values discussion masquerading as logic?
nefitty 11y ago
Once you have a grasp of the fundamental mechanisms of the universe(cause/effect, logic, etc) you quickly see that certain, socially-defined terms are irreconcilable with the facts of reality. Namely they, the three major and thorny ones, are ideas of God or gods, supernatural phenomenon and ideas of free will. These three ideas just don't fit with the facts. If an entity was powerful enough to create everything, what created IT? If supernatural phenomenon were real, why isn't there solid evidence of its existence, and if it exists on a plane beyond the material then how could it ever affect the material plane we inhabit? Finally, if you accept that the universe follows certain predictable, immutable laws then you must agree that with enough information any future or past state could be predicted or recreated. Humans and their minds live within the constraints of this physical universe, thus any potential future state of mind or behavior could be predicted from the previous state(s) that human was in. All moments arise from the moments before them. There is absolutely no gap there to shimmy in ideas of "free will". I was born at a certain time, place and in a certain community. I had no choice there, but the die was cast and everything I ever become will be constrained by those facts. I will never be able to magically pull myself out of this causal chain. I would like to add one more thing, to counteract the possible easy pessimism that a realization like this could have on an individual. One day I realized that ghosts weren't real. As a child, this was a burden lifted from my shoulders, as I could rest easier knowing no unpredictable and unfathomable force was going to accost me as I slept. One day I realized that there was no God. I suddenly felt freer than ever, and less self-conscious in solitude. I don't live every day in anxiety about the "lack" of these two delusions. It happened once more with free will. I realized all things belong to a causal chain possibly extending into infinity, and I was just a pattern at the tail end of this chain in time. I suddenly felt more compassionate for every other human, lodged as they are in their station . You and I can't help what we have become, what we came from or what we will be. Even knowing this, I live intentionally, not drowning in a sea of slavish fatalism, but instead with the keen knowledge that I too belong to the causal chain, and that through evolutionary machinations, my mind can suspend disbelief and still feel it is directing the future toward a desired state. The paradox is difficult to rest in, but it has given me a powerful tool, another paradoxical belief, that I can control my future by knowing that I simply arise from what has past.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jstanley 11y ago
This article is complete nonsense. Just because it looks like animals are solving problems doesn't mean they have free will, any more than humans solving problems means humans have free will. There is no reason these things can't come about through a deterministic universe.
cousin_it 11y ago
Free will is how a decision-choosing algorithm feels from inside. Not much more to it, IMO. When a decision-choosing algorithm says "I can't predict my own decisions, therefore they must be unpredictable in principle", that strikes me as unfounded.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Free will is a scalar dimension along which decision choosing algorithms can vary. With high free will, human can adapt, customize, and innovate situationally optimized responses to an unpredictable environment. With low free will, a Sphex wasp can reactively activate one of its stored patterns and use very little expensive cognitive processing to react optimally in a predictable environment.
zogwarg 11y ago
I read the article about being less about free will and more about delayed gratification. Which seems ironic, since from a neural standpoint, can be one of the most addictive things possible. Not really that compatible with free will in my view. To slightly contradict myself, I don't think it's quite fair too say that the ability to wait for something can be an indicator of free will, since that characteristic can vary a lot, even among healthy adults. And describing some humans as having more free will than others appears very dangerous to me.

47 points by xenophon 11y ago

So basically: The world is deterministic, so free will just means to be able to weigh options and delay gratification for a bit longer? That's a sad definition in my book.

ccvannorman 11y ago
Agree. From the article: "If you are able to imagine a number of options for yourself, weigh them with regard to your interests, and then commit yourself to the one that seems the best, you are exercising your free will." So .. if the number of options you CAN imagine is arbitrary (which it by definition is), you've just described a computer program written for optimisation.
Natsu 11y ago
That depends on exactly what idea of determinism you have. If you mean something like phenomena can be described by the standard model, that's fine, but if it's something like local realism, that's been busted pretty hard. This might prove more interesting than the linked article, though it was on HN previously: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a0.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409791a... Local realism is the idea that objects have definite properties whether or not they are measured, and that measurements of these properties are not affected by events taking place sufficiently far away1. [...] Many experiments1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 have since been done that are consistent with quantum mechanics and inconsistent with local realism. But these conclusions remain the subject of considerable interest and debate, and experiments are still being refined to overcome ‘loopholes’ that might allow a local realistic interpretation. Here we have measured correlations in the classical properties of massive entangled particles (9Be+ ions): these correlations violate a form of Bell's inequality. Our measured value of the appropriate Bell's ‘signal’ is 2.25 ± 0.03, whereas a value of 2 is the maximum allowed by local realistic theories of nature. In contrast to previous measurements with massive particles, this violation of Bell's inequality was obtained by use of a complete set of measurements. Moreover, the high detection efficiency of our apparatus eliminates the so-called ‘detection’ loophole.
- spacehome 11y ago
  The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    True, but it makes Occam spin in infinitely many graves.
    - spacehome 11y ago
      I'm not sure why people believe this. I would address it here again, but better people than me have written on it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/.
  - Natanael_L 11y ago
    What would happen if a particle measurement had a probability with irrational numbers (in every base)? What would the outcome be? And I feel that MW would need a pilot wave that carries the information for every parallel possible outcome for entanglement to work, wherein certain pilot waves cause universe splits starting from the point where they overlap and others merge - if you measure the spin of two entangled particles you get two waves that meet where X+X and Y+Y don't interact, but X+Y and Y+X does and thus create new universes. I don't see how the wave-less versions hold up when there for example are orientation-dependent probability and a ton of other crap like that. What else makes the particles interact with exactly the right universe? Edit: Not to mention how complex MW would have to be to explain the delayed quantum eraser experiment.
    - spacehome 11y ago
      You're thoroughly confused about what MW is.
      - Natanael_L 11y ago
        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

onion2k 11y ago

We desperately need a new way of thinking about free will. We really don't. The author of the article has written off hundreds of years of philosophical debate about determinist free will versus indeterminism and decided that his interpretation of free will, which falls firmly in the causal indeterminism camp, is the right way to think about things. Admittedly that's the nice one, because determinism is hard when it comes to things like ethics and morality, but we don't need to redefine 'free will' to have the discussion. Especially when it's a low redefinition[1]. The fact is whether or not we have free will is largely irrelevant. There's a really interesting Philosophy Bites podcast with Daniel Dennett about what's important in the free will question[2]. It's well worth a listen if you're interested in philosophical stuff. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html [2] http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Daniel_Dennett_on_Free_Will_Worth_Wanting.mp3 http://traffic.libsyn.com/philosophybites/Daniel_Dennett_on_...

narag 11y ago
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 finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. The opposite to freedom is slavery, either from external circumstances or from own instincts that, in turn, is caused by external circumstances: arrested development, physiological defects or the mental illness. So lack of freedom has causes and freedom has causes too (configuration of our brain and a favorable environment). The opposite of freedom is not "uncaused". Requiring no determinism is one more example of the not true scottman fallacy. Or moving goal posts.
- onion2k 11y ago
  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 make the exact same decisions as that person. In other words, we don't actually make any decisions for ourselves. It's all determined by chemistry. If that's true then someone could argue that the path of their life was predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time, so the fact they shot their wife was actually nothing they could have had any control over, and it's very unfair to lock them away for 30 years if they couldn't have changed anything. It's just the latest outcome of a chemical reaction that started at the Big Bang. It's actually a very compelling argument. The counter argument requires 'magic' in the form of something that we can control that can't be measured. That's a big ask for any rational scientist. [1] 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.

adrianN 11y ago

All discussions about free will are completely useless without first defining what exactly "free will" is. Is your definition of free will compatible with the assumption that the brain has to obey the laws of physics? Do you believe that free will is somehow magic?

Schiphol 11y ago
In general, it's far from useless to investigate the nature of X before having a clear definition of X. Perhaps the definition will come as a result of the investigation. Perhaps there will never be a clear definition, but paradigm cases are easy to come by (that's arguably the case with free will).
cLeEOGPw 11y ago
"Free will" is the output of your fully developed (25+ years) frontal cortex (brain region operating on most abstract concepts) under normal chemical conditions (level of hormones, no affecting drugs, etc.) At least that's how legal system uses free will and I think it is pretty correct.

frobozz 11y ago

"We must believe in free will — we have no choice." (Isaac Bashevis Singer)

frobozz 11y ago

Is he saying that because other animals also seem to exhibit free will, and because some humans appear to be more impulsive than others, that makes it possible without a "supernatural ability to transcend the laws of nature"? Buried in the article, rather than in an introductory definition of the terms used, is the line: "for some, a really free will is one that is not determined by anything – one that stands outside the causal chains of nature. Such a person might feel cheated when offered instead a set of capacities that we share (to a degree) with cats and chickens." Surely there's nothing at all novel here. We've long known that other animals have varying degrees of autonomy. I also don't think that any determinists would argue (or even ever have argued) against the existence of this kind of free will. Just that it is only free if you also accept that Bertrand Russell's table is "oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard", and choose to go no deeper.

paulsutter 11y ago

Focusing on actual processes in the brain may be a more objective discussion than discussing "free will". For example, is the human brain driven by reinforcement learning? is dopamine part of the reward loop? how does curiosity fit in? Are there tipping point effects in neural networks? What about noise, or even quantum effects if you were trying to model and predict an outcome? Regardless of one's position, that's an objective discussion with questions that can be tested, with useful results that could help develop a general AI. Contrast that with a discussion about "free will", a suitcase word with numerous polarizing definitions. It's like walking into a minefield of bias and enmity. And frankly just as much strident opinion from "rationalists" as from the religious. And I ask, where is that going? What's the result such discussion is driving towards? Is the discussion really analyzing a real physical process in the brain or is this a values discussion masquerading as logic?

nefitty 11y ago

Once you have a grasp of the fundamental mechanisms of the universe(cause/effect, logic, etc) you quickly see that certain, socially-defined terms are irreconcilable with the facts of reality. Namely they, the three major and thorny ones, are ideas of God or gods, supernatural phenomenon and ideas of free will. These three ideas just don't fit with the facts. If an entity was powerful enough to create everything, what created IT? If supernatural phenomenon were real, why isn't there solid evidence of its existence, and if it exists on a plane beyond the material then how could it ever affect the material plane we inhabit? Finally, if you accept that the universe follows certain predictable, immutable laws then you must agree that with enough information any future or past state could be predicted or recreated. Humans and their minds live within the constraints of this physical universe, thus any potential future state of mind or behavior could be predicted from the previous state(s) that human was in. All moments arise from the moments before them. There is absolutely no gap there to shimmy in ideas of "free will". I was born at a certain time, place and in a certain community. I had no choice there, but the die was cast and everything I ever become will be constrained by those facts. I will never be able to magically pull myself out of this causal chain. I would like to add one more thing, to counteract the possible easy pessimism that a realization like this could have on an individual. One day I realized that ghosts weren't real. As a child, this was a burden lifted from my shoulders, as I could rest easier knowing no unpredictable and unfathomable force was going to accost me as I slept. One day I realized that there was no God. I suddenly felt freer than ever, and less self-conscious in solitude. I don't live every day in anxiety about the "lack" of these two delusions. It happened once more with free will. I realized all things belong to a causal chain possibly extending into infinity, and I was just a pattern at the tail end of this chain in time. I suddenly felt more compassionate for every other human, lodged as they are in their station . You and I can't help what we have become, what we came from or what we will be. Even knowing this, I live intentionally, not drowning in a sea of slavish fatalism, but instead with the keen knowledge that I too belong to the causal chain, and that through evolutionary machinations, my mind can suspend disbelief and still feel it is directing the future toward a desired state. The paradox is difficult to rest in, but it has given me a powerful tool, another paradoxical belief, that I can control my future by knowing that I simply arise from what has past.

wodenokoto 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jstanley 11y ago

This article is complete nonsense. Just because it looks like animals are solving problems doesn't mean they have free will, any more than humans solving problems means humans have free will. There is no reason these things can't come about through a deterministic universe.

cousin_it 11y ago

Free will is how a decision-choosing algorithm feels from inside. Not much more to it, IMO. When a decision-choosing algorithm says "I can't predict my own decisions, therefore they must be unpredictable in principle", that strikes me as unfounded.

JulianMorrison 11y ago
Free will is a scalar dimension along which decision choosing algorithms can vary. With high free will, human can adapt, customize, and innovate situationally optimized responses to an unpredictable environment. With low free will, a Sphex wasp can reactively activate one of its stored patterns and use very little expensive cognitive processing to react optimally in a predictable environment.

zogwarg 11y ago

I read the article about being less about free will and more about delayed gratification. Which seems ironic, since from a neural standpoint, can be one of the most addictive things possible. Not really that compatible with free will in my view. To slightly contradict myself, I don't think it's quite fair too say that the ability to wait for something can be an indicator of free will, since that characteristic can vary a lot, even among healthy adults. And describing some humans as having more free will than others appears very dangerous to me.