I’d be interested in seeing a trial run of this kind of post. Do you have an interesting belief that you think you could communicate in a compact manner?
Here is a try:
If I had to summarize my view on free will it would be: Free will is what deterministic decision making feels like from the inside. Humans are capable of considering alternative courses of action, eventually deciding what to do. The process of choosing occurs deterministically and is what we call free will.
If this were my first introduction to this idea, I would not have a very good idea of what this means. Unpacking “what deterministic decision making feels like from the inside” means would be absolutely necessary for this, and would probably require an example to explain.
Yes, free will is a good example of a subject that is often made ridiculously complicated. (Edit: Removed the bit that was wrong). Here’s my quick (edited) attempt on free will:
What does it mean to have Free will? Presumably it means that “you” decide your actions freely. If “you” is your conscious brain, then clearly you do affect your decisions for if this were not the case you would not have evolved a conscious brain in the first place. The fact that it can be predicted what decision you will make does not make it any less your decision, so this is irrelevant. However, your actions are restrained by your environment and influenced by instincts and unspoken thoughts and feelings as well. All in all, it can be said that we have limited free will, though the concept itself is confusing and better done away with.
I was actually thinking about writing and posting a Mini Meta-ethics Q&A in this style. There is so much overly convoluted writing and general confusion on the subject that I feel there would be added value in this. What do you (and others) think?
If that’s representative, I think what you’ll end up writing is something that people who already share your reasoning and/or conclusion can recognize and validate/feel validated by, and everyone else will gain nothing of value from.
Is that intended to be a summary of what Eliezer wrote, or a summary of your own view? I don’t recognise it as a summary of Eliezer’s writing on the subject, which is much more than a single article. (Non-spoiler posts; spoiler posts).)Either way, there is nothing in that summary that would move me to update in any direction.
Oops. That’s what I get for basing a reply on memory alone. I have to say, 11 blog posts does seem kind of ridiculous for what Yudkowsky calls “the easiest ‘hard’ question”. Not sure why I thought it was only one.
Free Willis not conscious volition. There is a puzzle about the co existence of free will an determinism. There is no such puzzle about conscious volition. A few minutes uses ago, I made choice between chicken curry and beef curry. I chose chicken. Could I have chosen beef? You simple answer doesn’t tell me.
Sure you could have, in the sense that IF you had desired beef more strongly, you WOULD have made that decision. The fact that it’s deterministic does not make it any less your choice. I honestly don’t think answering this requires more than one line, since it’s in principle a really simple issue. Convincing someone of this is a lot harder and would take much longer of course, but that’s not really the aim of a terse post. The fact that you don’t feel convinced doesn’t mean the question hasn’t been answered.
It’s not a simple issue. It seems intuitive to me that I have ownership of actions that I originate in a way that I don’t over events that were originated by the Big Bang
Answering questions catechistically is easy. Justifying an answer as being the one true answer, and meeting objections is difficult.
The world does not abound with simple answers to complex problems, because they are hard to achieve—genuinely.
The typical failure modes are:
1 answering a different, easier question.
2 taking sides on an issue without sufficient justification, ie coming up with doctrine.
A lot of the problemisthe ambiguity of “answer” between “solution” and “response to a question”.
If “you” is your conscious brain, then clearly you do affect your decisions for if this were not the case you would not have evolved a conscious brain in the first place.
I pattern-match this to attributing agency to evolution?
Also, there is an obvious distinction between your deciding an action freely and affecting a decision (second and third sentences).
I appreciate the example, but I think the terseness here significantly lowers the informational value.
Admittedly, a one sentence explanation of identity was always going to be confusing (even assuming I didn’t screw it up)
I pattern-match this to attributing agency to evolution?
Ah, no. I was saying that if a conscious brain didn’t do anything useful, we wouldn’t have a conscious brain. Survival of the fittest and all that. Therefore, the claim that our conscious selves have no control over our actions at all is silly. (unless our consciousness is merely an accidental by-product of something that does have a function… but that seems unlikely) There is indeed a difference between deciding an action freely and affecting it, which is why I ended with “it can be said that we have limited free will”.
I appreciate the example, but I think the terseness here significantly lowers the informational value.
I appreciate the input you and others are giving me here. I agree that covering Free will in one paragraph is too optimistic. One post instead of 11, however, still seems quite reasonable to me.
Determinism means that you were not the creator of the circumstances that led to the decision you made. So, in a sense, it does make it not really “your” decision.
It’s really hard to convincingly counter all possible objections in just a few lines. The above was meant to give an instance of a hypothetical list of “things rationalists believe and why”, not something that could replace an actual sequence . Obviously you one cannot hope to clear up all possible confusion in so short a post.
If I were to make a serious terse post about free will, I’m thinking I would at least have to take some time to try and dissolve the concepts of ‘identity’ and what it means to be ‘responsible’ first. This would still keep the information/effort ratio high by explaining multiple related concepts simultaneously. I’ve edited this in above to make it a little clearer, but there’s only so much space to work with...
I’d be interested in seeing a trial run of this kind of post. Do you have an interesting belief that you think you could communicate in a compact manner?
Here is a try: If I had to summarize my view on free will it would be: Free will is what deterministic decision making feels like from the inside. Humans are capable of considering alternative courses of action, eventually deciding what to do. The process of choosing occurs deterministically and is what we call free will.
If this were my first introduction to this idea, I would not have a very good idea of what this means. Unpacking “what deterministic decision making feels like from the inside” means would be absolutely necessary for this, and would probably require an example to explain.
Yes, free will is a good example of a subject that is often made ridiculously complicated. (Edit: Removed the bit that was wrong). Here’s my quick (edited) attempt on free will:
I was actually thinking about writing and posting a Mini Meta-ethics Q&A in this style. There is so much overly convoluted writing and general confusion on the subject that I feel there would be added value in this. What do you (and others) think?
If that’s representative, I think what you’ll end up writing is something that people who already share your reasoning and/or conclusion can recognize and validate/feel validated by, and everyone else will gain nothing of value from.
Is that intended to be a summary of what Eliezer wrote, or a summary of your own view? I don’t recognise it as a summary of Eliezer’s writing on the subject, which is much more than a single article. (Non-spoiler posts; spoiler posts).)Either way, there is nothing in that summary that would move me to update in any direction.
Oops. That’s what I get for basing a reply on memory alone. I have to say, 11 blog posts does seem kind of ridiculous for what Yudkowsky calls “the easiest ‘hard’ question”. Not sure why I thought it was only one.
He isn’t a terse writer. And I’m not sure if you want terse expression or simplification of concepts themselves.
Free Willis not conscious volition. There is a puzzle about the co existence of free will an determinism. There is no such puzzle about conscious volition. A few minutes uses ago, I made choice between chicken curry and beef curry. I chose chicken. Could I have chosen beef? You simple answer doesn’t tell me.
Sure you could have, in the sense that IF you had desired beef more strongly, you WOULD have made that decision. The fact that it’s deterministic does not make it any less your choice. I honestly don’t think answering this requires more than one line, since it’s in principle a really simple issue. Convincing someone of this is a lot harder and would take much longer of course, but that’s not really the aim of a terse post. The fact that you don’t feel convinced doesn’t mean the question hasn’t been answered.
Could I have desired beef more strongly?
It’s not a simple issue. It seems intuitive to me that I have ownership of actions that I originate in a way that I don’t over events that were originated by the Big Bang
Answering questions catechistically is easy. Justifying an answer as being the one true answer, and meeting objections is difficult.
The world does not abound with simple answers to complex problems, because they are hard to achieve—genuinely.
The typical failure modes are:
1 answering a different, easier question.
2 taking sides on an issue without sufficient justification, ie coming up with doctrine.
A lot of the problemisthe ambiguity of “answer” between “solution” and “response to a question”.
I find this bit incredibly confusing:
I pattern-match this to attributing agency to evolution?
Also, there is an obvious distinction between your deciding an action freely and affecting a decision (second and third sentences).
I appreciate the example, but I think the terseness here significantly lowers the informational value.
Admittedly, a one sentence explanation of identity was always going to be confusing (even assuming I didn’t screw it up)
Ah, no. I was saying that if a conscious brain didn’t do anything useful, we wouldn’t have a conscious brain. Survival of the fittest and all that. Therefore, the claim that our conscious selves have no control over our actions at all is silly. (unless our consciousness is merely an accidental by-product of something that does have a function… but that seems unlikely) There is indeed a difference between deciding an action freely and affecting it, which is why I ended with “it can be said that we have limited free will”.
I appreciate the input you and others are giving me here. I agree that covering Free will in one paragraph is too optimistic. One post instead of 11, however, still seems quite reasonable to me.
Determinism means that you were not the creator of the circumstances that led to the decision you made. So, in a sense, it does make it not really “your” decision.
It’s really hard to convincingly counter all possible objections in just a few lines. The above was meant to give an instance of a hypothetical list of “things rationalists believe and why”, not something that could replace an actual sequence . Obviously you one cannot hope to clear up all possible confusion in so short a post.
If I were to make a serious terse post about free will, I’m thinking I would at least have to take some time to try and dissolve the concepts of ‘identity’ and what it means to be ‘responsible’ first. This would still keep the information/effort ratio high by explaining multiple related concepts simultaneously. I’ve edited this in above to make it a little clearer, but there’s only so much space to work with...