TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Science's Assault on Free Will

10 点作者 johntfella超过 1 年前

6 条评论

taneq超过 1 年前
Can we start these kinds of discussions with a definition of the core concert we’re trying to discuss? What do they mean when they say “free will”? Are they talking about the ability to choose behaviour based on predictions of potential outcomes? Or about some non-deterministic ability to act contrary to the laws of nature?
评论 #39066342 未加载
评论 #39067688 未加载
MoSattler超过 1 年前
&gt; For, there is clearly bound up in such arguments the assumption that those being reasoned with are free to change their minds based on the merits (or demerits) of the evidence presented.<p>I understand that the author is arguing sincerely, but certain statements raise concerns about whether they fully grasp the concept of determinism.<p>Why is it necessary to assume the existence of free will for a person to be capable of evaluating new evidence and have a subsequently revised opinion based on this new information?
评论 #39070310 未加载
hliyan超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ve been struggling with this idea myself, but along these lines:<p>1. All events we know of are either caused by other preceding events, or are random.<p>2. One could reasonably claim that <i>all</i> events can ultimately be traced through their causal lineage to a random event, be it a random motion of a particle, the primordial quantum fluctuation that led to the universe, or subsequent fluctuations that broke the &quot;smoothness&quot; (symmetry) of the expanding universe and gave it detail.<p>3. For free will to exist, we have to posit another primary origin of events -- we don&#x27;t know whether it&#x27;s a particle, a field or some other entity and we can apply whatever label we want to it, but it will necessarily be another primary origin of events alongside random fluctuations.<p>4. If we disallow (3) as too &quot;spooky&quot;, then what we&#x27;re left with is the idea that what we perceive as free will and&#x2F;or consciousness is an epiphenomenon that arises around randomness, especially randomness in large complex structures of connected, interacting nodes such as neurons.
评论 #39066891 未加载
jemmyw超过 1 年前
Funny this subject came up on yesterday&#x27;s BBC QI show. I liked the poetic description of consciousness not as the driver of thought but as a compass needle that points the way the thoughts were going anyway.<p>I&#x27;ve not believed in free will for a long time, I think the idea is quite problematic at many levels. It implies that people would act out of character, that we don&#x27;t make decisions based on inputs and internal feedback borne of experience, and that our brains don&#x27;t follow known physics.<p>However, it&#x27;s fine to act as if you have free will and so do others around you, even if one doesn&#x27;t believe in it. You still need to run the universe to find out the future, so even disproving free will doesn&#x27;t pragmatically change life.
fxj超过 1 年前
Maybe the behaviour of LLMs can shed some light into this discussion. Does a LLM have free will? Obviously not because it is just a software running on a computer. But even when you ask an LLM exactly the same questions you will get totally different results. Sometimes it makes up things and sometimes you can push it to state that 1+1=3. It depends on the surroundings but also on some &quot;magical free&quot; will of the LLM to answer differently each time. Of course it is because of the random seeds that are needed to start the inference. Even though the human brain is not a LLM, we learn that there are systems that behave like having &quot;free will&quot;.<p>just my 2 ct
评论 #39067507 未加载
ericfrazier超过 1 年前
There is no such thing as free will if the big bang happened.