3 ms·

So the argument is basically "there appears to be free will so long as you don't look at the details, so free will is not an illusion, so long as you ignore the

by c3534l 7y ago

So the argument is basically "there appears to be free will so long as you don't look at the details, so free will is not an illusion, so long as you ignore the details." Even if you accept the argument that unpredictability implies free will (which I don't, a mindless algorithm which behaves according to a pseudorandom number generator no more has free will than one that uses quantum noise for it's RNG), is basically equivalent to saying "I don't understand how free will could arise from simple atoms, so I'm just going to ignore the atomic nature of the universe."

darioush 7y ago
I enjoyed ^ this articulation a lot.
atemerev 7y ago
From the outside point of view, free will is indistinguishable from the stochastic algorithm. As a functionalist, I believe that free will is not some mystical property of living organism -- it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex stochastic systems with feedback loops and reflectivity; someday, we'll create machines capable of free will.
- sametmax 7y ago
  This assume there is such a thing as chaos, and not just a state with so many variables it seems chaotic to our limited eyes. I'm open to it, but let's not pretend we have certitudes.
  - chr1 7y ago
    The chaos is not related to the number of variables, it is sensitivity to initial conditions. Even system with one variable, and the simplest evaluation rule can be chaotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map. The only requirement is that after some time all the points in the phase space are mixed so heavily that to find one you need to do exactly the same calculations the system itself had to do. And btw this gives a plausible explanation of free will, it is not that the future behavior of the system is not completely predictable from the past, but the fact that to predict it you need to simulate the system faithfully, which is equivalent to that system living and making its own choice.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      If you want to make the case that complexity => free will, you need to demonstrate it, not just say it is.
      - chr1 7y ago
        My hypothesis is: computational irreducibility => free will. Unfortunately i don't see any way to prove it other than creating a simulation that contains a real human that can pass turing test. But perhaps arguments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944362 can convince you that the hypothesis is not a total bs)
sametmax 7y ago
Exactly. A very strong title. And big phrases like: > This does not necessitate that the world is also deterministic at some higher level of description. But basically nothing to back it up and if you pretend to know something on a topic that big, you better have more consistent than "Indeterminism at the level of psychology is required for free will and alternative possibilities.". Claims are not facts. We are expecting some kind of demonstration here.
balfirevic 7y ago
> a mindless algorithm which behaves according to a pseudorandom number generator no more has free will than one that uses quantum noise for it's RNG Absolutely! It's the mindful algorithms (such as humans) that have it .

by c3534l 7y ago

darioush 7y ago

I enjoyed ^ this articulation a lot.

atemerev 7y ago

From the outside point of view, free will is indistinguishable from the stochastic algorithm. As a functionalist, I believe that free will is not some mystical property of living organism -- it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex stochastic systems with feedback loops and reflectivity; someday, we'll create machines capable of free will.

sametmax 7y ago
This assume there is such a thing as chaos, and not just a state with so many variables it seems chaotic to our limited eyes. I'm open to it, but let's not pretend we have certitudes.
- chr1 7y ago
  The chaos is not related to the number of variables, it is sensitivity to initial conditions. Even system with one variable, and the simplest evaluation rule can be chaotic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map. The only requirement is that after some time all the points in the phase space are mixed so heavily that to find one you need to do exactly the same calculations the system itself had to do. And btw this gives a plausible explanation of free will, it is not that the future behavior of the system is not completely predictable from the past, but the fact that to predict it you need to simulate the system faithfully, which is equivalent to that system living and making its own choice.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    If you want to make the case that complexity => free will, you need to demonstrate it, not just say it is.
    - chr1 7y ago
      My hypothesis is: computational irreducibility => free will. Unfortunately i don't see any way to prove it other than creating a simulation that contains a real human that can pass turing test. But perhaps arguments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19944362 can convince you that the hypothesis is not a total bs)

sametmax 7y ago

Exactly. A very strong title. And big phrases like: > This does not necessitate that the world is also deterministic at some higher level of description. But basically nothing to back it up and if you pretend to know something on a topic that big, you better have more consistent than "Indeterminism at the level of psychology is required for free will and alternative possibilities.". Claims are not facts. We are expecting some kind of demonstration here.

balfirevic 7y ago

> a mindless algorithm which behaves according to a pseudorandom number generator no more has free will than one that uses quantum noise for it's RNG Absolutely! It's the mindful algorithms (such as humans) that have it .