andrel wrote:
> I had never heard of this guy and twice within 24 hours made me suspicious.

Oh, no. I just got the link off a social site, so maybe someone else was 
interested because of that.

-- 
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:
> Why it is important to define the term "free will" before arguing 
> whether we have it:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM
> 
> For the zinger, start five minutes in. :-) But it's worth watching the 
> whole thing. Creepy.
> 
I have noticed that when I walk to and from a destination on a city grid 
I always take a different route to and from because each time I take the 
route that arcs a little to the right of the destination.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I thought the idea that someone else knows your decision significantly
> sooner than you do is a pretty strange idea.
> 

Then you have to define 'when you know' and, even stranger, 'you'. The
brain, obviously, 'knows' at the time that the firings show up on the
FMRI or PET which ever they are using. Perhaps it knows even before
that, and we just do not know what to look for. From a biological point
of view with out the possibility for an outside 'self', you 'know' when
the neurons start firing. That there is a delay may be nothing more than
the filtering that the brain does with vision prediction. [1]

Alternatively, allowing for a possible outside 'self', the firing of
neurons may just be the initial 'handshake' between the self and the body.

Define free will how you like, that is only the middle step of the whole
problem.


[1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1081006/84-cent-tennis-points-wrong-umpires-tricked-optical-illusion--reveals-study.html

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b5f5a71$1@news.povray.org...
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> > Which means that 'I' still has free-will.
>
> I don't think they waved anything off at all. That's why I said you have
to
> ask what the words "free will" mean before you can discuss whether you
have
> it. I would think there are people who would say that the ability to
predict
> what choice you're going to make before you yourself even know what that
> choice is indicates a lack of free will.  *I* don't agree with that
stance,
> but that's because that isn't how I define free will.
>
> I thought the idea that someone else knows your decision significantly
> sooner than you do is a pretty strange idea.

Depends on what you mean by "know", but it's pretty common to predict other
people's decisions and reactions. The closer you are to a person and the
more you study him, the better you can predict his decisions, which means
his decision making process is complex, but understandable/predictable in
principle. But even that's small potatoes, people can actually *affect*
other's decisions and behaviour by giving them chemicals/drugs. Even before
trying to define "free will", which will be hopeless, we should define what
"I" is. Am I something completely isolated from my environment? If I drink
coffee or alcohol that will likely affect my decision making, do they become
part of me?

Post a reply to this message

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] sanrrcom> 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