5 ms·
Ask HN: What does it matter if we have no free will?
The recent Robert Sapolsky articles and Sam Harris - they promote the notion of no free will.
I’ve been thinking about this from a computer science perspective. A psuedo-random number generator is deterministic too. In the grand scheme of things _everything_ is deterministic, even cosmic background radiation all having originated from a set of initial conditions no differently than a human’s brain wiring and the consequences therein.
So, what does it matter if we have no free will? It doesn’t matter to most programmers (aside from cryptographers) that pseudo random number generators are deterministic. They just “work” and have consequence, just like people.
- turtleyacht 3y agoConsider so much of what we've learned in multiple fields concerns the progression from determinism to probability. Free will may end up a "probability cloud," where most things shake out as you'd expect. But in that tiny, infinitesimal percent of the improbable lies all of human tactics: the wily brain, its spirit and courage, some element that defies, shouts "I" at the unfeeling universe, dares to against the space of nothing, and prove things merely for being there. So I put AGI by this definition: while it takes the test behind the observer's glass, and promptly throws a chair at it. Isn't that what we would do, treated as mice?
- serf 3y ago>Isn't that what we would do, treated as mice? I don't think that human demonstrable intelligence is the be-all and end-all of intelligence; I just think that it's what we're experienced with -- human-flavored intelligence; thus I think that may be a poor test criteria. -- as far as free will goes : the demonstration of free will or lack thereof means little to nothing to the individual -- and I agree with the theory put forward by user turtleyacht that the concept itself will likely be understood as a cloud of probabilities, much like just about anything in our universe.
- johnwheeler 3y agoI like this. Thank you for commenting.
- bediger4000 3y agoIt's important to society. If we don't have a lot of free will, then blaming work ethic or some morality thing for people being poor doesn't make a lot of sense. That's just a simple example. There's lots of other consequences that make conventional opinions invalid.
- johnwheeler 3y agoSo, we’re saying it’s not the person’s fault when they do something bad. So what? Wouldn’t the threat of punishment factor into the outcome still; thus making punishment valid and valuable? I understand the logic behind not getting angry with people and considering them a “force of nature” as Harris says, but that seems somehow different than not holding people accountable for their actions-free will or not.
- bediger4000 3y agoHolding accountable is fine, but it does tend to be abused. I was thinking along the lines of overall harm reduction. Are a lot of people overweight? Telling them to exercise free will and eat less demonstrably doesn't work. Same with various addictions, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, gambling, consequences don't seem to have much effect.