6 ms·

"there is also agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and d

"there is also agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams." is quite a strong argument against mental dualism and traditional ideas about free will. But research also supports the plasticity of the brain/mind and we know that we can build/change habits and personality traits (apparently) through conscious effort. Perhaps "free will" should be defined more specifically as the ability to consciously shape the deterministic systems that are our minds?

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
Exactly, which is why this article is tripe. It basically boils down to, "the driver does not control the car, the steering wheel controls where the car goes, not the driver". That's true, but the driver controls the steering wheel, or at least has influence over it.
- jsmith0295 10y ago
  A self-driving car is probably a better thing to compare to. And in that case, most people would probably argue that it's behavior would be deterministic, even if it could learn in some capacity. Although, after making that point, is there really a difference between a self driving car and a car and a driver in your example? Probably not. They're both being driven by something, and the answer shouldn't change based on what the driver is.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  It's a self-driving car. There is no driver. You are indeed conscious, and do indeed have thoughts. What the article discusses is that the overwhelming evidence seems to show your thoughts are generated by deterministic/proabilistic physical processes, and that in fact your conscious thoughts occur after your decisions are already made and often serve only as post-hoc justifications of what you already did. Consciousness is just another component in the car. It doesn't determine or influence where the car is going. Perhaps the most valuable part of consciousness is it provides an effective way to use reflection which can communicate data about the internal state of the car to the other cars. (Often this data is objectively inaccurate, but still serves the interest of the car or the fleet.)
  - Phithagoras 10y ago
    How can we be certain that consciousness does or does not have an effect on this car? Assuming it is appropriate to stretch Tarski's undefinability theorem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem to problems of consciousness, it would be impossible to prove which is true (without breaking your mind).
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    > deterministic/proabilistic... You do realize those aren't the same thing, right? In fact, they're basically opposites. Deterministic is "if/then", while probabilistic is "maybe". Something is either deterministic or probabilistic, and it matters which it is. In your metaphor, consciousness is the learning system which is used to generate the model which drives the car. Our brains are semi-supervised learning, and our models get retrained when they drift far enough.
    - Amezarak 10y ago
      > You do realize those aren't the same thing, right? In fact, they're basically opposites. Deterministic is "if/then", while probabilistic is "maybe". Something is either deterministic or probabilistic, and it matters which it is. I say "deterministic/probabilistic" because I am thinking about physical laws; i.e., what we know of physics and quantum mechanics. The intent is to exclude the idea that consciousness is somehow above the rules of cause and effect. It probably would be safer to just say "deterministic" to prevent all the magic-shoehorning people sometimes attempt with QM, but I was being pedantic. > In your metaphor, consciousness is the learning system which is used to generate the model which drives the car. Our brains are semi-supervised learning, and our models get retrained when they drift far enough. No, in my metaphor, consciousness is totally unrelated to learning, as the article suggested. In my metaphor consciousness is basically just part of the network stack.
      - SAI_Peregrinus 10y ago
        Of course, there's Chaos theory. That deals entirely with deterministic processes so complex their outcomes can only be determined via probabilistic methods.
druddha 10y ago
"...through conscious effort." Which is the aforementioned firing of neurons. Consciousness is not supernatural.
- ythl 10y ago
  > Consciousness is not supernatural. Prove it. And update the wiki while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Burden of proof error, those claiming it is supernatural must prove it. "not supernatural" is the null hypothesis and is backed by mountains of evidence in the field of neuroscience.
    - ythl 10y ago
      That's like OP saying: "The NSA is not spying on anybody" "Prove it" "Burden of proof error, those claiming the NSA is spying on somebody must prove it. Not spying is the null hypothesis and backed by mountains of evidence" The problem is that I wasn't making a claim either way. I only requested proof of a definitive statement made by OP.
      - dang 10y ago
        > That's bullcrap. Please review the HN guidelines, which include this: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        ythl 10y ago
        I appreciate the concern, and I'm sorry, but I can't control my actions. Everything I do is deterministic. It doesn't matter what the "HN guidelines" say, my current actions have already been prescribed millions of years ago. I was destined to call OP's statement bullcrap since the beginning of time. Like the article says, I have no free will.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

Exactly, which is why this article is tripe. It basically boils down to, "the driver does not control the car, the steering wheel controls where the car goes, not the driver". That's true, but the driver controls the steering wheel, or at least has influence over it.

jsmith0295 10y ago
A self-driving car is probably a better thing to compare to. And in that case, most people would probably argue that it's behavior would be deterministic, even if it could learn in some capacity. Although, after making that point, is there really a difference between a self driving car and a car and a driver in your example? Probably not. They're both being driven by something, and the answer shouldn't change based on what the driver is.
Amezarak 10y ago
It's a self-driving car. There is no driver. You are indeed conscious, and do indeed have thoughts. What the article discusses is that the overwhelming evidence seems to show your thoughts are generated by deterministic/proabilistic physical processes, and that in fact your conscious thoughts occur after your decisions are already made and often serve only as post-hoc justifications of what you already did. Consciousness is just another component in the car. It doesn't determine or influence where the car is going. Perhaps the most valuable part of consciousness is it provides an effective way to use reflection which can communicate data about the internal state of the car to the other cars. (Often this data is objectively inaccurate, but still serves the interest of the car or the fleet.)
- Phithagoras 10y ago
  How can we be certain that consciousness does or does not have an effect on this car? Assuming it is appropriate to stretch Tarski's undefinability theorem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem to problems of consciousness, it would be impossible to prove which is true (without breaking your mind).
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  > deterministic/proabilistic... You do realize those aren't the same thing, right? In fact, they're basically opposites. Deterministic is "if/then", while probabilistic is "maybe". Something is either deterministic or probabilistic, and it matters which it is. In your metaphor, consciousness is the learning system which is used to generate the model which drives the car. Our brains are semi-supervised learning, and our models get retrained when they drift far enough.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    > You do realize those aren't the same thing, right? In fact, they're basically opposites. Deterministic is "if/then", while probabilistic is "maybe". Something is either deterministic or probabilistic, and it matters which it is. I say "deterministic/probabilistic" because I am thinking about physical laws; i.e., what we know of physics and quantum mechanics. The intent is to exclude the idea that consciousness is somehow above the rules of cause and effect. It probably would be safer to just say "deterministic" to prevent all the magic-shoehorning people sometimes attempt with QM, but I was being pedantic. > In your metaphor, consciousness is the learning system which is used to generate the model which drives the car. Our brains are semi-supervised learning, and our models get retrained when they drift far enough. No, in my metaphor, consciousness is totally unrelated to learning, as the article suggested. In my metaphor consciousness is basically just part of the network stack.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 10y ago
      Of course, there's Chaos theory. That deals entirely with deterministic processes so complex their outcomes can only be determined via probabilistic methods.

druddha 10y ago

"...through conscious effort." Which is the aforementioned firing of neurons. Consciousness is not supernatural.

ythl 10y ago
> Consciousness is not supernatural. Prove it. And update the wiki while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Burden of proof error, those claiming it is supernatural must prove it. "not supernatural" is the null hypothesis and is backed by mountains of evidence in the field of neuroscience.
  - ythl 10y ago
    That's like OP saying: "The NSA is not spying on anybody" "Prove it" "Burden of proof error, those claiming the NSA is spying on somebody must prove it. Not spying is the null hypothesis and backed by mountains of evidence" The problem is that I wasn't making a claim either way. I only requested proof of a definitive statement made by OP.
    - dang 10y ago
      > That's bullcrap. Please review the HN guidelines, which include this: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - ythl 10y ago
        I appreciate the concern, and I'm sorry, but I can't control my actions. Everything I do is deterministic. It doesn't matter what the "HN guidelines" say, my current actions have already been prescribed millions of years ago. I was destined to call OP's statement bullcrap since the beginning of time. Like the article says, I have no free will.