4 ms·

I'm sad that this article is on the front page of HN. It's clever in a few places, but makes basic errors. In short, it's not a competent presentation of the to

I'm sad that this article is on the front page of HN. It's clever in a few places, but makes basic errors. In short, it's not a competent presentation of the topic. What he calls the "free will camp" sounds like a weird mishmash of libertarianism (determinism is false, and we have free will) and hard-determinism (determinism is true, therefore we don't have free will). It completely ignores compatibilism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/). Moreover, the argument he gives regarding Leopold and Loeb is baffling. That a jury has no free will to listen to your argument for hard-determinism is prima-favor irrelevant. A hard-determinist holds that some people are determined to believe in free will, and moral responsibility, but they're incorrect. Any graduate student in philosophy would be expected to note these distinctions. As for the view that free will is an illusion, he presents one of the canonical arguments uncharitably. Leaving aside the question of whether the invocation of NP actually establishes what he says it does (something non-determined but non-random), the opponent of libertarianism doesn't need the claim that determinism and randomness are our only options. They just need (something like) the premise that if our actions don't follow from our reasons/emotions/volition, they can't be considered free, and that anyone proposing some status between randomness and determinism needs to account for the sense in which decisions flowing from that status are free.

RangerScience 10y ago
I'm sad your comment seems to be at the top. The linked lecture is a solid, engaging and informative discussion of an issue, bringing together many different fields of though, science, and engineering. That sounds like a great thing to have on the front page.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  Well, perhaps it was a bit much to say I'm sad. But while the piece was engaging, it wasn't informative, which is precisely my complaint.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Hmm. I can see that. It referenced (without much explanation) many other ideas, and provided amazing and novel combinations of those ideas, but if you wanted "informative" you'd need to google the parts you don't know. Edit: That is, it "taught" me little outside of amazing and novel new perspectives on things I already know.
- WikipediasBad 10y ago
  It's probably in between. It's incredible how he does not talk about compatibilism in a serious post about different possibilities of free will. I don't understand how that can be missed on purpose. But, his arguments and content were coherent and interesting. I don't think it hurts HN to have this on the front page.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Can you explain compatabilism, particularly how you see it relating to what he's talking about? The wikipedia explanation is... underwhelming, and the next best thing I saw was practically a textbook. Near as I can tell, from the Wikipedia explanation, compatabilism is an ethical consideration of free will. Most other philosophy is on a metaphysical level; Scott Aaronson appears to be talking about free will as a physical phenomenon. It make sense that he would't bring up an ethical framework.
    - hyperpape 10y ago
      Have you seen the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Some articles are too technical to read without a background, but many are good for anyone: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/. Here's my take, which is slightly different in emphasis than the SEP one (which I guess means I am probably wrong/idiosyncratic): Compatibilism is a metaphysical theory. What is counter-intuitive about the free will debate is that there are two entwined but distinct questions. The first is (roughly) what is the full physical/causal/predictive/descriptive* story about human decision making. Is it deterministic? Almost deterministic but with some random noise? Something else? Second, given that description, do we have free will? That is a metaphysical question, though many people are interested because they believe that there are ethical implications (compare: whether God exists is a metaphysical or perhaps empirical question, but it might have some ethical implications). Compatibilism is primarily an answer to the second question. It says roughly "you might have thought free will means not being determined, but that is an illusion. Actually, free will is completely compatible with determinism. It is something like being able to act on the things that you take to be reasons, even if it's fully deterministic which things you think are reasons." Talking about free will as a physical phenomenon (which is not quite what I'd describe Aaronson as doing) typically indicates that you've assumed some answer to the second question, so that you're only considering the first. Btw: one point of view is that the first question makes sense, but the second doesn't. I don't have a developed opinion, as I didn't really work on this topic when I studied philosophy, but I lean that way. * (none of these terms is perfect, and there's lots of debate about the right characterization here)
mrkgnao 10y ago
As always when I see this kind of comment on HN: any references you recommend for someone who's looking to read some philosophy? (Eek, weird sentence. No awkward grammar fixes welcome.)
- mrkgnao 10y ago
  I meant non-awkward. :(
- hyperpape 10y ago
  This is a really hard question without knowing what your area of interest is. However, I find Descartes Meditations gripping for the way he poses the question of whether there can be any solid foundation for knowledge and the resulting skeptical worries (though his solution is somewhat disappointing). Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is also wonderful. If you find free will interesting, Kane's "A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will" is solid--it was the text a professor assigned when I ta'd for his course.
  - mrkgnao 10y ago
    I'm very interested in math, and would say I'm fairly comfortable with abstraction (e.g. categorical thinking). I don't find philosophy of math or foundations very engaging, though. Thanks for the recommendations!

RangerScience 10y ago

I'm sad your comment seems to be at the top. The linked lecture is a solid, engaging and informative discussion of an issue, bringing together many different fields of though, science, and engineering. That sounds like a great thing to have on the front page.

hyperpape 10y ago
Well, perhaps it was a bit much to say I'm sad. But while the piece was engaging, it wasn't informative, which is precisely my complaint.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Hmm. I can see that. It referenced (without much explanation) many other ideas, and provided amazing and novel combinations of those ideas, but if you wanted "informative" you'd need to google the parts you don't know. Edit: That is, it "taught" me little outside of amazing and novel new perspectives on things I already know.
WikipediasBad 10y ago
It's probably in between. It's incredible how he does not talk about compatibilism in a serious post about different possibilities of free will. I don't understand how that can be missed on purpose. But, his arguments and content were coherent and interesting. I don't think it hurts HN to have this on the front page.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Can you explain compatabilism, particularly how you see it relating to what he's talking about? The wikipedia explanation is... underwhelming, and the next best thing I saw was practically a textbook. Near as I can tell, from the Wikipedia explanation, compatabilism is an ethical consideration of free will. Most other philosophy is on a metaphysical level; Scott Aaronson appears to be talking about free will as a physical phenomenon. It make sense that he would't bring up an ethical framework.
  - hyperpape 10y ago
    Have you seen the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? Some articles are too technical to read without a background, but many are good for anyone: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/. Here's my take, which is slightly different in emphasis than the SEP one (which I guess means I am probably wrong/idiosyncratic): Compatibilism is a metaphysical theory. What is counter-intuitive about the free will debate is that there are two entwined but distinct questions. The first is (roughly) what is the full physical/causal/predictive/descriptive* story about human decision making. Is it deterministic? Almost deterministic but with some random noise? Something else? Second, given that description, do we have free will? That is a metaphysical question, though many people are interested because they believe that there are ethical implications (compare: whether God exists is a metaphysical or perhaps empirical question, but it might have some ethical implications). Compatibilism is primarily an answer to the second question. It says roughly "you might have thought free will means not being determined, but that is an illusion. Actually, free will is completely compatible with determinism. It is something like being able to act on the things that you take to be reasons, even if it's fully deterministic which things you think are reasons." Talking about free will as a physical phenomenon (which is not quite what I'd describe Aaronson as doing) typically indicates that you've assumed some answer to the second question, so that you're only considering the first. Btw: one point of view is that the first question makes sense, but the second doesn't. I don't have a developed opinion, as I didn't really work on this topic when I studied philosophy, but I lean that way. * (none of these terms is perfect, and there's lots of debate about the right characterization here)

mrkgnao 10y ago

As always when I see this kind of comment on HN: any references you recommend for someone who's looking to read some philosophy? (Eek, weird sentence. No awkward grammar fixes welcome.)

mrkgnao 10y ago
I meant non-awkward. :(
hyperpape 10y ago
This is a really hard question without knowing what your area of interest is. However, I find Descartes Meditations gripping for the way he poses the question of whether there can be any solid foundation for knowledge and the resulting skeptical worries (though his solution is somewhat disappointing). Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is also wonderful. If you find free will interesting, Kane's "A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will" is solid--it was the text a professor assigned when I ta'd for his course.
- mrkgnao 10y ago
  I'm very interested in math, and would say I'm fairly comfortable with abstraction (e.g. categorical thinking). I don't find philosophy of math or foundations very engaging, though. Thanks for the recommendations!