4 ms·

> Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? I don’t think it determ

> Are you really "of the opinion", or you were just made to write that as an automaton, due to a deterministic causual chain of events? I don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. But I’m sure you can imagine how to express “opinion” as a subjective experience of a brain state that is wholly determined by deterministic factors. > In which case, you don't really have an opinion, any more than the way a dead frog jerks his legs when we apply electricity. You’re right, I’m convinced that belief in “free will” is the default naive psychological reaction to awareness of one’s own nature as a physical system, but I try to be mindful that one day someone could express “free will” as a concept that is both meaningful and coherent.

konschubert 6y ago
The Copenhagen-Style quantum collaps isn't really Physics. Other than that, where is Physics probabilistic?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpreation. The thing being interpreted has probabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Uncertainty_...
  - konschubert 6y ago
    The uncertainty principle is a pretty high-level compaction and it gets it probabilities only through the Copenhagen Interpretation.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Thats not really true, the probabilities are the literal explanation that precedes any interpretation.
coldtea 6y ago
>You’re right, I’m convinced I don't think you are convinced. You were just meant to say so.
- garmaine 6y ago
  What is your point?
  - coldtea 6y ago
    There is no point, it was a causal chain that made it inevitable for me to write the above comment
    - garmaine 6y ago
      Trolling is not appreciated on HN.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in, to rudely ask "what's my point", failed to understand the exchange that followed, and continued by throwing the "rulebook" at me. Is being a spiteful busybody appreciated on HN?
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in Thats a loaded way to phrase “you posted a reply on hacker news”
        coldtea 6y ago
        If the posted reply takes the form of meddling in a discussion you weren't involved to question why one party dared to write what they wrote and scold them, it's somewhat apt though. Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
The parent comment has exactly demonstrated that is already meaningful. Coherence is tricky, because there are a lot of concepts and words already that we use every day, that are certainly meaningful and useful, but that would have a hard time to pass your "coherence" test.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > The parent comment has exactly demonstrated that is already meaningful. Would you mind explaining? I don’t see that they have done that. > Coherence is tricky, because there are a lot of concepts and words already that we use every day, that are certainly meaningful and useful, but that would have a hard time to pass your "coherence" test. Perhaps so but the existence of day-to-day commonplace irrationality is no justification for importing irrational specters into philosophy.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    > Would you mind explaining? Alright. They pointed to how you used the concept of "of the opinion". This is the phrase that you have used yourself in the previous comment. Even if the conversation wasn't about free will, that phrase would indicate something meaningful about your thought process, which is why you used it. Also we all, who read your comment had no trouble interpreting your phrase, and neither why you used it that way, what exactly you meant, and why it was meaningful to use it in that way. Now, the poster who answered to you, pointed to that exact phrase, to ironically show to you that while you (one part of your mind) is sitting here and trying pretend that free will is a meaningless thing (~ to talk about), another part of your mind, uses the very concept of free will, to communicate to us about the first part. To make it clear: you saying "I am of the opinion of..." already implies that you assume that you have free will, to have opinions. Now, as I am sure you are already preparing to congest about this point, there are many various definitions of free will, where some of them will be used in the concept of "I am of the opinion", and some of them will not be related to it, it is safe to say that there is at least a number of them that are usefully related to your claim. The ones that are related go something like that: "if you truly had no free will, if you are a simple list of if/thens, or a dumb version of GPT-3, then why would we care that you had this opinion? rulesets cannot have opinions. If you did not have free will, there is no point in talking to you, your "opinion" doesn't matter, it's a meaningless term. But since we choose (consciously or subconsciously) to communicate with you, to discuss your "opinion", it means that we are taking a chance that you do have free will so that we can communicate with you". Now, that line of reasoning - it's not 100% ironclad, there are presuppositions and assumptions, and this is partly what I meant when I said "coherence of the concept of free will is icky", but I think it is safe to say that you could at least follow it. To do that, you had to use the concept of free will, at least subconsciously, because the concept of "I am of the opinion" is based on it in some form. And since you used that phrase from the beginning, it is already assumed to be useful to you. (Why would you use it otherwise? Do you just type words into ether for no reason?) It is not the best or most useful explanation of the usefulness of the term free will in general, but it is one of the best that I can see that can directly relate to the funny thing that happened between you and that poster, which you didn't seem to get. Hopefully, if you get the humor, that will tell you much more about the deeper intuitions about the term "free will", than what the logical overthinking about it can. I am not saying that we can't understand free will with logic. I am saying that in this specific case, the interesting point was the irony and the intuitive connection, instead of logical explanations. > Perhaps so but the existence of day-to-day commonplace irrationality is no justification for importing irrational specters into philosophy. How do you equate "usefulness" with "irrationality"? I said there are useful, meaningful (well-seving as tools of thinking and awareness-ing) concepts that don't have coherent, well-defined borders or black-and-white definitions. That is not the same as them being irrational. A lot of concepts can't be put in very limited contraints of a-b-c logic. And yet we have other faculties that allow us to reason about these concepts. Meaning, we use those concepts because they help us understand the world and pursue our goals.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
>xI don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. Probability doesn't get you free will. Sorry.

konschubert 6y ago

The Copenhagen-Style quantum collaps isn't really Physics. Other than that, where is Physics probabilistic?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
The Copenhagen interpretation is an interpreation. The thing being interpreted has probabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Uncertainty_...
- konschubert 6y ago
  The uncertainty principle is a pretty high-level compaction and it gets it probabilities only through the Copenhagen Interpretation.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Thats not really true, the probabilities are the literal explanation that precedes any interpretation.

coldtea 6y ago

>You’re right, I’m convinced I don't think you are convinced. You were just meant to say so.

garmaine 6y ago
What is your point?
- coldtea 6y ago
  There is no point, it was a causal chain that made it inevitable for me to write the above comment
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Trolling is not appreciated on HN.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in, to rudely ask "what's my point", failed to understand the exchange that followed, and continued by throwing the "rulebook" at me. Is being a spiteful busybody appreciated on HN?
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in Thats a loaded way to phrase “you posted a reply on hacker news”
        coldtea 6y ago
        If the posted reply takes the form of meddling in a discussion you weren't involved to question why one party dared to write what they wrote and scold them, it's somewhat apt though. Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

The parent comment has exactly demonstrated that is already meaningful. Coherence is tricky, because there are a lot of concepts and words already that we use every day, that are certainly meaningful and useful, but that would have a hard time to pass your "coherence" test.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> The parent comment has exactly demonstrated that is already meaningful. Would you mind explaining? I don’t see that they have done that. > Coherence is tricky, because there are a lot of concepts and words already that we use every day, that are certainly meaningful and useful, but that would have a hard time to pass your "coherence" test. Perhaps so but the existence of day-to-day commonplace irrationality is no justification for importing irrational specters into philosophy.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > Would you mind explaining? Alright. They pointed to how you used the concept of "of the opinion". This is the phrase that you have used yourself in the previous comment. Even if the conversation wasn't about free will, that phrase would indicate something meaningful about your thought process, which is why you used it. Also we all, who read your comment had no trouble interpreting your phrase, and neither why you used it that way, what exactly you meant, and why it was meaningful to use it in that way. Now, the poster who answered to you, pointed to that exact phrase, to ironically show to you that while you (one part of your mind) is sitting here and trying pretend that free will is a meaningless thing (~ to talk about), another part of your mind, uses the very concept of free will, to communicate to us about the first part. To make it clear: you saying "I am of the opinion of..." already implies that you assume that you have free will, to have opinions. Now, as I am sure you are already preparing to congest about this point, there are many various definitions of free will, where some of them will be used in the concept of "I am of the opinion", and some of them will not be related to it, it is safe to say that there is at least a number of them that are usefully related to your claim. The ones that are related go something like that: "if you truly had no free will, if you are a simple list of if/thens, or a dumb version of GPT-3, then why would we care that you had this opinion? rulesets cannot have opinions. If you did not have free will, there is no point in talking to you, your "opinion" doesn't matter, it's a meaningless term. But since we choose (consciously or subconsciously) to communicate with you, to discuss your "opinion", it means that we are taking a chance that you do have free will so that we can communicate with you". Now, that line of reasoning - it's not 100% ironclad, there are presuppositions and assumptions, and this is partly what I meant when I said "coherence of the concept of free will is icky", but I think it is safe to say that you could at least follow it. To do that, you had to use the concept of free will, at least subconsciously, because the concept of "I am of the opinion" is based on it in some form. And since you used that phrase from the beginning, it is already assumed to be useful to you. (Why would you use it otherwise? Do you just type words into ether for no reason?) It is not the best or most useful explanation of the usefulness of the term free will in general, but it is one of the best that I can see that can directly relate to the funny thing that happened between you and that poster, which you didn't seem to get. Hopefully, if you get the humor, that will tell you much more about the deeper intuitions about the term "free will", than what the logical overthinking about it can. I am not saying that we can't understand free will with logic. I am saying that in this specific case, the interesting point was the irony and the intuitive connection, instead of logical explanations. > Perhaps so but the existence of day-to-day commonplace irrationality is no justification for importing irrational specters into philosophy. How do you equate "usefulness" with "irrationality"? I said there are useful, meaningful (well-seving as tools of thinking and awareness-ing) concepts that don't have coherent, well-defined borders or black-and-white definitions. That is not the same as them being irrational. A lot of concepts can't be put in very limited contraints of a-b-c logic. And yet we have other faculties that allow us to reason about these concepts. Meaning, we use those concepts because they help us understand the world and pursue our goals.

deeeeplearning 6y ago

>xI don’t think it deterministic, at the lowest levels the physics is probabilistic. Probability doesn't get you free will. Sorry.