Hacker News Reader

Comment by delecti | Hacker News Reader

For free will to exist, there must be something capable of non-deterministic behavior. In absence of that it seems prudent to view "free will" as a useful but ultimately inaccurate model.

View on HN

So it's highly suggestive that at its most fundamental, the universe appears to be non-deterministic. No theory predicts exactly when this neutron will decay.

Wouldn't determinism have been "easier?" If there is no free will, non-determinism seems like a lot of trouble to go to for nothing!

(You might be joking, but I'll give my po-faced reaction anyway.)

>Wouldn't determinism have been "easier?"

This question doesn't really have any meaning. Easiness is a concept imagined by humans in the context of our own endeavours. And even if you suppose a sentient creator similar to ourselves, we still have no means to judge what kinds of universes would be easier or harder to create.

I think he/she means "easier to grasp", not to design.

Yes, much like how "atoms" are a useful but ultimately inaccurate (because subatomic physics) model.

Exactly. There are loads of theories and models that are incredibly useful until you look at them from just the right angle and see how weird they really are.

Yes, that's basically what I think actually happens. That physical particles in the brain don't behave according to currently accepted physical model – but the non-physical mind has the ability to "push them". For example, the supposedly random quantum phenomena may not be random but affected by our mind. It probably sounds crazy but I believe there is a reasonable argument backing this. A very brief summary – 1) mind is non-physical (see hard problem of consciousness) but physics can affect the mind 2) and the mind can affect the brain because otherwise I wouldn't be realize that mind is non-physical.

Hard problem of consciousness is no doubt hard. But it seems odd to take that, then jump to a rather unsupported conclusion. Seems a bit reminiscent of people a long time ago not understanding something, then declaring it to be governed by another set of laws.

Well, like I said, it was just a brief summary, point 1) would be much longer if I had time, what I said is basically no or very weak argument.

It seems that 1. the ability of drugs to warp the mind and 2. the ability of researchers to implant memories into the minds of rats by altering proteins both suggest that the mind is a strictly materialistic phenomenon.

What I said is compatible with 1. and 2. Like I said, physics (state of physical particles in the brain) can affect the mind.

What evidence exists that there is more to the mind than "just" physics (which is already pretty cool)?

It seems a jump to say the contents of mind and the awareness of mind are the same thing.

How is that a jump? The contents and behavior of everything else are the same thing. We just think our minds are special because we have no external reference frame. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the most likely explanation by far is that our minds are vastly complex chemical reactions, computers with some of our outputs connected back to our inputs giving us the illusion of dualistic self awareness.

With as many neurons and synapses as we have, there is more than enough complexity to expect the mind to be purely physical. I don't see why that bothers so many people; I think it's incredibly awesome.

I don't think your second argument necessarily holds.

Is it not possible that the brain simulates the experience of qualia (itself a philosophical zombie) but that this process is what causes the non-physical mind to exist, and to experience those qualia?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com