 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Depends on what you mean by "know",
Being aware that you have made a decision is "know" here.
> but it's pretty common to predict other
> people's decisions and reactions.
Yeah, but not when it's "pick a random number from 1 to 2." This isn't
really what most people would call a "decision."
> which will be hopeless,
I disagree.
> we should define what "I" is.
Yep. Interestingly, that's not that difficult either. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:4b5fbf4d$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Depends on what you mean by "know",
> Being aware that you have made a decision is "know" here.
I was more concerned about the degree of confidence, or maybe correlation.
One can claim that meteorologists know tomorrow's weather as well as he can
claim that they do not. Both can be correct depending on what one
understands from the term.
> > but it's pretty common to predict other
> > people's decisions and reactions.
> Yeah, but not when it's "pick a random number from 1 to 2." This isn't
> really what most people would call a "decision."
Why? That's the least of human faculties. A coin can do better than me in
making a random picks. For whatever reason, if there were a RNG in our
brains, would that prove that we have free will? Would you say a computer
program controlling a robot that spits out random binary decisions (say,
based on a radioactive source and geiger counter) as to the next direction
to take, has free will?
If we define free will as ability to make non-predictable (or without 100%
certainty) decisions, any quantum system can be said to have free will. Then
the term becomes meaningless.
But therein lies the problem - how can we define it so it's meaningful if
both deterministic and probabilistic decisions are out?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
>> Being aware that you have made a decision is "know" here.
>
> I was more concerned about the degree of confidence, or maybe correlation.
I'm pretty sure you're 100% certain that you know when you've made a
decision which button to push. :-)
As for how often the MRI disagrees with the eventual button push, I don't
know, but apparently not very often.
>>> but it's pretty common to predict other
>>> people's decisions and reactions.
>
>> Yeah, but not when it's "pick a random number from 1 to 2." This isn't
>> really what most people would call a "decision."
>
> Why? That's the least of human faculties.
Because there's no external information on which you could base your
analysis. If you tell me you can confidently predict whether your spouse
will enjoy a particular christmas present, sure. If you tell me you can
confidently win every hand of scissors-paper-stone with your spouse because
you know that person so well, I'll ask to see proof.
> If we define free will as
I haven't defined free will as anything.
> But therein lies the problem - how can we define it so it's meaningful if
> both deterministic and probabilistic decisions are out?
JOOST. Jump Out Of The System. It's usually useful in these circumstances.
Free will isn't about making decisions. It's about knowledge.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Depends on what you mean by "know",
>
> Being aware that you have made a decision is "know" here.
>
Still undefined, because you are basing the meaning of "know" on self
observation of the conscious mind. Without a solid definition of self,
and an understanding of the separation of conscious and unconscious,
there is no meaning to "know".
I "know" that my cat will chase a piece of string across the floor if it
moves, does that mean I have recognized his decision before he has made it?
>> but it's pretty common to predict other
>> people's decisions and reactions.
>
> Yeah, but not when it's "pick a random number from 1 to 2." This isn't
> really what most people would call a "decision."
>
Actually, that would be a fairly easy prediction if you know the person.
Introverts are more likely to pick 1, extroverts would be more likely
to pick 2. You could easily get above 50%, maybe as high as 75% with
people you know well. With a few leading questions to set it up, you
could get even higher.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Still undefined, because you are basing the meaning of "know" on self
> observation of the conscious mind.
Not at all. It's a subjective process. The meaning is quite well defined.
It's just not (yet) amenable to scientific verification.
However, if you follow the instructions of "push the button as soon as you
decide which to push", chances are good you aren't aware of your choice six
seconds before you push the button.
> Without a solid definition of self,
> and an understanding of the separation of conscious and unconscious,
> there is no meaning to "know".
I disagree.
> I "know" that my cat will chase a piece of string across the floor if it
> moves, does that mean I have recognized his decision before he has made it?
No. But you know things about your internal state. Here you're conflating
"know" with "predict". The very fact that you put the word in quotes
evidences that it isn't the usual meaning of the word.
Do you know what a word is? Do you know whether you're hungry right now? Do
you know whether your left hand hurts?
> Actually, that would be a fairly easy prediction if you know the person.
> Introverts are more likely to pick 1, extroverts would be more likely
> to pick 2. You could easily get above 50%, maybe as high as 75% with
> people you know well. With a few leading questions to set it up, you
> could get even higher.
I don't believe you. Certainly not if you repeat the experiment a few dozen
times.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Still undefined, because you are basing the meaning of "know" on self
>> observation of the conscious mind.
>
> Not at all. It's a subjective process. The meaning is quite well
> defined. It's just not (yet) amenable to scientific verification.
>
> However, if you follow the instructions of "push the button as soon as
> you decide which to push", chances are good you aren't aware of your
> choice six seconds before you push the button.
>
In that case, the observer does not know which button you will push
either, they are only predicting it. They know as soon as you actually
push the button. Accounting for the speed of light and distance between
them and you.
>> Actually, that would be a fairly easy prediction if you know the person.
>> Introverts are more likely to pick 1, extroverts would be more likely
>> to pick 2. You could easily get above 50%, maybe as high as 75% with
>> people you know well. With a few leading questions to set it up, you
>> could get even higher.
>
> I don't believe you. Certainly not if you repeat the experiment a few
> dozen times.
>
Behavioral psychology. Granted, I am not going to be able to pull off
this stunt online. No facial clues, and no way to set up the
conversation ahead of time to see whether the respondent is planning to
go against their first reaction. But if humans really were random enough
to not be predictable, then human generated random numbers would not be
such a bad thing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> However, if you follow the instructions of "push the button as soon as
>> you decide which to push", chances are good you aren't aware of your
>> choice six seconds before you push the button.
>
> In that case, the observer does not know which button you will push
> either, they are only predicting it.
But if they predict with 100% accuracy, I'd say they know it.
>>> Actually, that would be a fairly easy prediction if you know the person.
>>> Introverts are more likely to pick 1, extroverts would be more likely
>>> to pick 2. You could easily get above 50%, maybe as high as 75% with
>>> people you know well. With a few leading questions to set it up, you
>>> could get even higher.
>> I don't believe you. Certainly not if you repeat the experiment a few
>> dozen times.
>>
>
> Behavioral psychology.
I still don't believe you. Shelton is funny for always picking Spock exactly
because he's so predictable. If you could actually pick my number 75% of the
time, I'd be shocked.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> In that case, the observer does not know which button you will push
> either, they are only predicting it.
Or, to put it another way, they are aware of what choice you're going to
make before you are aware of what choice you're going to make.
Do you agree that you can know whether you're hungry or not?
Do you agree that if I ask you to write down 100 random numbers from one to
one hundred, you don't right now know what the 80'th number is going to be?
And you will know after you write it down?
I don't understand how you can say "know" is meaningless.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> However, if you follow the instructions of "push the button as soon as
>>> you decide which to push", chances are good you aren't aware of your
>>> choice six seconds before you push the button.
>>
>> In that case, the observer does not know which button you will push
>> either, they are only predicting it.
>
> But if they predict with 100% accuracy, I'd say they know it.
>
Have been trying to find a published report on this. I doubt it was 100%
but will keep looking till I find something. I only doubt it because
100% would have been a major jump that I think would have made a bigger
impact, or at least stuck in my brain for longer.
>>>> Actually, that would be a fairly easy prediction if you know the
>>>> person.
>>>> Introverts are more likely to pick 1, extroverts would be more likely
>>>> to pick 2. You could easily get above 50%, maybe as high as 75% with
>>>> people you know well. With a few leading questions to set it up, you
>>>> could get even higher.
>>> I don't believe you. Certainly not if you repeat the experiment a few
>>> dozen times.
>>>
>>
>> Behavioral psychology.
>
> I still don't believe you. Shelton is funny for always picking Spock
> exactly because he's so predictable. If you could actually pick my
> number 75% of the time, I'd be shocked.
>
Crossed meanings here, I think. I was talking about predicting the
choices, once per person, for a group. For an individual, picking
repeatedly, I dunno what the odds would be. People have a tendency to
favor one number over the other in choices like that, but if they know
what the experiment is they have the choice to try to throw it.
It works easier in large groups, picking from 1 to 10. Just predict that
everyone will pick the lucky number for that culture, and you will be
right more than 10% of the time, simply because more than 10% of people
will pick that number.
Shelton and Spock. . . I think I am missing something here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Crossed meanings here, I think.
I got your meaning. It just wasn't relevant to the experiment in the video.
They didn't do that whole thing for one button push.
> Shelton and Spock. . . I think I am missing something here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iapcKVn7DdY
Sheldon is in the blue t-shirt.
Also, whenever they play charades, the first question is "Are you Spock?"
and he always goes "How do you guess?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
