3 ms·

> Also, people are made up of particles that behave deterministically. Agency is an illusion. I like to slap people talking this to my face. Why? I was predete

by yetihehe 11mo ago

> Also, people are made up of particles that behave deterministically. Agency is an illusion. I like to slap people talking this to my face. Why? I was predetermined to slap them, the universe was set up that way. But I had only one occasion to really do this. The guy was thinking about this for two days. And when I say about this every proponent of "Agency is an illusion" then has some cop-out about responsibility, because in truth they use "no agency" as an excuse to explain their bad behavior.

balamatom 11mo ago
Sounds fun - I'd slap back!
h33t-l4x0r 11mo ago
Most people will accept a brain tumor as an excuse for bad behavior, but not low blood sugar. I have successfully convinced people that hungry judges have less agency than full ones, though. (google hungry judge effect if you're curious).
- ozzydave 11mo ago
  The original study was flawed I’m afraid https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41091803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41091803
  - h33t-l4x0r 11mo ago
    Someone always brings that up. I guess you couldn't help it?
- yetihehe 11mo ago
  As a person who would like to excuse my overeating on confirmed problems with blood sugar, I agree with you fully. We have different amount of willpower in different situations and in the same situation between different times of day. But we still have some agency, it's not fully predetermined. And like being overweight, training can help. I would even say that combating fat needs willpower and increases your available willpower too.
  - h33t-l4x0r 11mo ago
    That's not my position at all. Obviously you had no agency in your genetics. I assume you don't believe you had agency in pre-natal nutrition or the circumstance of your upbringing. The rest of your life is just reacting to things downstream from that with an algorithm based on your nature and your nurture. If it weren't for quantum effects you could model the outcome and it would be the same every time.
    - yetihehe 11mo ago
      > That's not my position at all. I would like to understand your position more. Most people believe that they have choice. They could for example do more work or lie on a couch. You mean they have no choice and whichever decision they took is not from their will, but only from their circumstances? I agree that a lot of the weights in such decision is a result of previous happenstances, but "no agency" model suggests to me that we can't make any serious changes in our life, because whatever happens, happens and maybe we were not destined to change our life. This further suggests: "why even try".
      - txrx0000 11mo ago
        I believe OP's original implied position was "the universe is deterministic, so why even try", but I was able to convince them that trying is worth it regardless. In fact, the universe being deterministic would mean that it's always worth it to believe that you can accomplish something (if you want to increase the probability of accomplishing that thing). > You mean they have no choice and whichever decision they took is not from their will, but only from their circumstances? It is from their will, but a person's will is either completely or partially derived from circumstances. If you believe that the universe is deterministic, then a person's will (brain and body state) is completely derived from their circumstances (prior interactions with the rest of the world).
        txrx0000 11mo ago
        Wait, no, there's no "increasing the probability" if you really had faith in determinism. That was my lack of faith leaking through while trying to emulate the thought process of a person that has faith in determinism. Instead it's more like, "if you're reading this already, your brain state is destined to change this way." Whatever I say is just a necessary process to get you to that brain state. Be glad that you're there now because you're no longer doomed to an undesirable future, or at least you can't tell anymore even if you are.
Dilettante_ 11mo ago
"No agency" doesn't mean "no consequences". If there's an asteroid flying towards earth, we may blow it up, instead of going "well it's not the poor rocks' fault it's gonna wipe out humanity, so we should just let it."
- yetihehe 11mo ago
  "No agency" for me means pretty much that. What does "no agency" mean for you?
  - Dilettante_ 11mo ago
    Difficult to accurately give expression to "the absence of this particular illusion". In the asteroid metaphor: It means that if you can very clearly see the asteroid coming towards you, instead of going "no, the asteroid is going to do the right thing", you make preparations knowing that there is no do-er inside the asteroid. And after getting hit by it, you do not go "if only the asteroid had had more willpower it would not have hit us. The next time for sure I'll convince it!" So by agency, in this context, I mean the ability to change the way reality is into what one thinks it ought to be. (But reality is only ever one way, disregarding quantum mechanical magic for a minute)
    - yetihehe 11mo ago
      > And after getting hit by it, you do not go "if only the asteroid had had more willpower it would not have hit us. I don't understand this. You tell me that not having agency is not applicable to asteroids? > (But reality is only ever one way, disregarding quantum mechanical magic for a minute) I think we can't really disregard quantum mechanics when talking about very complicated systems operating on the edge of being too noisy for any recognisable transmission in our neurons.
      - Dilettante_ 11mo ago
        You tell me that not having agency is not applicable to asteroids? The opposite: Having agency is not applicable to non-asteroids, any more than to asteroids. The asteroid was a metaphor for humans. I recognize I am not at my best at explaining right now. I think we can't really disregard quantum mechanics Then we can allow that there is a magical being outside our observable reality that is influencing the result of random-seeming quantum processes, itself unbound by deterministic physics. You may call this being "your self" and this being would indeed have agency that transcends "chain-of-dominoes" causality. I cannot disprove such a theory. But is that an interesting conversation to have?

balamatom 11mo ago

Sounds fun - I'd slap back!

h33t-l4x0r 11mo ago

Most people will accept a brain tumor as an excuse for bad behavior, but not low blood sugar. I have successfully convinced people that hungry judges have less agency than full ones, though. (google hungry judge effect if you're curious).

ozzydave 11mo ago
The original study was flawed I’m afraid https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41091803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41091803
- h33t-l4x0r 11mo ago
  Someone always brings that up. I guess you couldn't help it?
yetihehe 11mo ago
As a person who would like to excuse my overeating on confirmed problems with blood sugar, I agree with you fully. We have different amount of willpower in different situations and in the same situation between different times of day. But we still have some agency, it's not fully predetermined. And like being overweight, training can help. I would even say that combating fat needs willpower and increases your available willpower too.
- h33t-l4x0r 11mo ago
  That's not my position at all. Obviously you had no agency in your genetics. I assume you don't believe you had agency in pre-natal nutrition or the circumstance of your upbringing. The rest of your life is just reacting to things downstream from that with an algorithm based on your nature and your nurture. If it weren't for quantum effects you could model the outcome and it would be the same every time.
  - yetihehe 11mo ago
    > That's not my position at all. I would like to understand your position more. Most people believe that they have choice. They could for example do more work or lie on a couch. You mean they have no choice and whichever decision they took is not from their will, but only from their circumstances? I agree that a lot of the weights in such decision is a result of previous happenstances, but "no agency" model suggests to me that we can't make any serious changes in our life, because whatever happens, happens and maybe we were not destined to change our life. This further suggests: "why even try".
    - txrx0000 11mo ago
      I believe OP's original implied position was "the universe is deterministic, so why even try", but I was able to convince them that trying is worth it regardless. In fact, the universe being deterministic would mean that it's always worth it to believe that you can accomplish something (if you want to increase the probability of accomplishing that thing). > You mean they have no choice and whichever decision they took is not from their will, but only from their circumstances? It is from their will, but a person's will is either completely or partially derived from circumstances. If you believe that the universe is deterministic, then a person's will (brain and body state) is completely derived from their circumstances (prior interactions with the rest of the world).
      - txrx0000 11mo ago
        Wait, no, there's no "increasing the probability" if you really had faith in determinism. That was my lack of faith leaking through while trying to emulate the thought process of a person that has faith in determinism. Instead it's more like, "if you're reading this already, your brain state is destined to change this way." Whatever I say is just a necessary process to get you to that brain state. Be glad that you're there now because you're no longer doomed to an undesirable future, or at least you can't tell anymore even if you are.

Dilettante_ 11mo ago

"No agency" doesn't mean "no consequences". If there's an asteroid flying towards earth, we may blow it up, instead of going "well it's not the poor rocks' fault it's gonna wipe out humanity, so we should just let it."

yetihehe 11mo ago
"No agency" for me means pretty much that. What does "no agency" mean for you?
- Dilettante_ 11mo ago
  Difficult to accurately give expression to "the absence of this particular illusion". In the asteroid metaphor: It means that if you can very clearly see the asteroid coming towards you, instead of going "no, the asteroid is going to do the right thing", you make preparations knowing that there is no do-er inside the asteroid. And after getting hit by it, you do not go "if only the asteroid had had more willpower it would not have hit us. The next time for sure I'll convince it!" So by agency, in this context, I mean the ability to change the way reality is into what one thinks it ought to be. (But reality is only ever one way, disregarding quantum mechanical magic for a minute)
  - yetihehe 11mo ago
    > And after getting hit by it, you do not go "if only the asteroid had had more willpower it would not have hit us. I don't understand this. You tell me that not having agency is not applicable to asteroids? > (But reality is only ever one way, disregarding quantum mechanical magic for a minute) I think we can't really disregard quantum mechanics when talking about very complicated systems operating on the edge of being too noisy for any recognisable transmission in our neurons.
    - Dilettante_ 11mo ago
      You tell me that not having agency is not applicable to asteroids? The opposite: Having agency is not applicable to non-asteroids, any more than to asteroids. The asteroid was a metaphor for humans. I recognize I am not at my best at explaining right now. I think we can't really disregard quantum mechanics Then we can allow that there is a magical being outside our observable reality that is influencing the result of random-seeming quantum processes, itself unbound by deterministic physics. You may call this being "your self" and this being would indeed have agency that transcends "chain-of-dominoes" causality. I cannot disprove such a theory. But is that an interesting conversation to have?