Rationality Quotes: February 2010
A monthly thread for posting rationality-related quotes you've seen recently (or had stored in your quotesfile for ages).
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
ETA: It would seem that rationality quotes are no longer desired. After several days this thread stands voted into the negatives. Wolud whoever chose to to downvote this below 0 would care to express their disapproval of the regular quotes tradition more explicitly? Or perhaps they may like to browse around for some alternative posts that they could downvote instead of this one? Or, since we're in the business of quotation, they could "come on if they think they're hard enough!"
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (322)
From a BBC interview with a retiring Oxford Don:
Don: "Up until the age of 25, I believed that 'invective' was a synonym for 'urine'."
BBC: "Why ever would you have thought that?"
Don: "During my childhood, I read many of the Edgar Rice Burroughs 'Tarzan' stories, and in those books, whenever a lion wandered into a clearing, the monkeys would leap into the trees and 'cast streams of invective upon the lion's head.'"
BBC: <long pause> "But, surely sir, you now know the meaning of the word."
Don: "Yes, but I do wonder under what other misapprehensions I continue to labour."
On utility:
--bash.org
also from bash.org (made as a reply since I'm already at my 5-quote limit):
The analysis fails to take into account the cost of buying and raising of cats.
Or at least of maintaining friendships with people who have cats.
While hilarious, and I upvoted it, I doubt economists would agree with the stated cost of the catpenny game, nor with its comparability to other forms of entertainment.
ETA: and catpenny seems likely to be subject to drastically diminishing returns.
I seriously can't decide if catpennies have diminishing marginal utility or not!
We should test this! Anyone got a cat? I've got 9 pennies I don't want.
Don't forget to consider the negative utility of an angry cat attacking the catpenny player, which will surely happen after x catpennies.
Anyone going to go looking for x? It would of course have to be statistical distribution, varying with cat age, breed, and so on.
Also, how hard you've managed to hit it with the pennies. I think you have to try to maximise the damage:irateness ration.
Doesn't catpenny cost less than a penny (in terms of dollars spent)? You can recover most, if not all, of the pennies.
also, don't forget to consider that the cat is conscious and might not like getting hit by pennies :)
Given yesterday's xkcd, I note that Google has no hits for "strip catpennies."
Huh; I know someone who made this same suggestions, only he was talking about throwing the pennies at people... I suppose it's worth noting that in this case, the pennies are not as recoverable.
-- Raving Atheist, found via the Black Belt Bayesian blog (props to Steven)
maybe 'tolerance' simply means: "the cost of settling our differences outweighs the benefits"
That makes sense, but knowing in advance which outweighs which is problematic.
Which suggests rationality may not be as purely instrumental as we would like to think. It can only practically happen between people who already have generally low preferences over beliefs, those who want truth for its own sake.
"Intuition only works in situations where neurology and evolution has pre-equipped us with a good set of basic-level categories. That works for dealing with other humans, and for throwing things, and for a bunch of other things that do not, unfortunately, include constructing viable philosophies."
-- Eric S. Raymond
Steven Pinker -- The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
I love this quote, and I plan to get around to reading this book soon, but I figured I should post this article which seems to say that we do have an innate instinct for numbers, addition, and subtraction, even if we may not completely realize it right away.
-- Bryan Caplan
Great quote, though it took me a minute to parse. I think it's the dashes that did it. Wouldn't this read a lot better with commas instead?
If you can't feel secure (and teach your children to feel secure) in nightmare scenarios with 1-in-610,000 odds, the problem isn't the world. It's you.
It works better with longer dashes -- I always get thrown off when someone uses a single hyphen instead of faking an en dash with two hyphens surrounded by spaces.
Should be an em-dash, really. You can get em-dashes — on a mac, at least — by typing option–shift–minus-sign.
Some people prefer en-dashes – option-hyphen, alt-0150 – when you're surrounding them with spaces, only using em-dashes without the spaces, but I don't think it's important. Hyphens are more Lynx-friendly, so I often use those.
"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." GK Chesterton
-- Peter's Evil Overlord List on how to be a less wrong fictional villain
Hear, hear! :D
Yeah, let me do it.
Sentient?
Fair 'nuff.
"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." --Randall Munroe, in the alt-text of xkcd 701
-- Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
-- Slavoj Žižek @ Google
I saw the Rumsfeld quote, immediately thought of that Zizek line and then instantly concluded no one at Less Wrong would like to hear from Slavoj Zizek. This must be the first time a continental philosopher has received upvotes here. I'm fascinated.
He noticed the blatantly missing corner in the field of possibilities and replied to it intelligibly. I have no idea what a continental philosopher is, much less who Zizek is, but the quote is appropriate.
Did no one check out the video?
I didn't - watching just now, as suggested by your comment, I bailed at the German type of toilet.
-- G.K. Chesterton
A "friend" of mine was a fan of using this to argue for Christianity. The idea of never changing one's mind doesn't seem very rational.
Your friend must be pretty hungry by now.
"Who are you?"
"Who am I? I'm not quite sure."
"I admire an open mind. My own is closed upon the conviction that I am Shardovan, the librarian of Castrovalva."
-- Doctor Who
To be fair, G.K. Chesterton was probably also using this to argue for Christianity.
Alfred Mander -- Logic for the Millions
On parsimony:
--John von Neumann, at the first national meeting of the Association for Computing Machinery
—H.P. Lovecraft, clearly talking about cryonic preservation
Yeats, on what he'll do when no longer "fastened to a dying animal".
Definitely cryonics. I never really understood why this phrasing applies to Cthulhu, although I haven't read very much of Lovecraft.
The Elder Gods and other nameless menaces are portrayed as unphysical quasi-extra-dimensional beings from elsewhere; as such, death does not apply to them. Astronomical/universal conditions merely allow or disallow their projects.
But what are strange aeons? Why will Death die?
Reading Lovecraft: You're doing it wrong.
Strange eons are many and long aeons; HPL thinks in a steady state cosmos where the universe is indefinitely old. Death will die in the Christian phrasing - the non-human menaces grow more powerful over time and their 'sleep' periods will shrink.
-- Isaac Asimov via Salvor Hardin, Foundation
"If the tool you have is a hammer, make the problem look like a nail."
Steven W. Smith, The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing
Bruce Schneier
Presumably not per unit exposure, which is the relevant measure when you're near a pig or shark. If he's talking about abstract worry, then he might have a point.
I've decided to spend today abstractly worrying about sharks.
Fake Jedi sharks, no doubt.
Is today silly comment day?
But what's the unit exposure? Does the exposure related to ocean swimming match the exposure of camping in Michigan wilderness? You have a point, though. Of course, most people should worry about neither pig nor shark attacks.
Ok, but most people who are more worried about sharks than pigs are going on vacation to the beach and don't work on a swine farm. And I don't think those people are wrong to worry about sharks more than pigs. It is also quite likely that swine farmers do worry about pigs more than the rest of us.
I googled for it but didn't find any evidence for pigs killing people.
I find 3 pig related occupational fatalities in the US from 1992-1997, and total US deaths at 4 from all marine animals, 2 of which were venomous from 1991 to 2001. So it looks like pigs have it, though it's not like the difference is statistically significant.
I heard recently that when The Wizard of Oz came out, more people would have realized how dangerous it was when Dorothy fell in the pig pen. Today, we watch that movie and think it was just about her losing her balance, and maybe wonder why the farmer who saved her was so visibly upset about it. (I contacted my source and he said it was 'just common knowledge', and that pigs have since been domesticated from the wild boars they were, and that I should google, "pigs aggression".)
Googled it too. You need to expand "pigs" to include "wild boar".
Still this "six times as many death from pigs as from sharks" sounds suspiciously like an urban legend, the precise multiplier implies that there should be a well known source and not finding it is a hint. The numbers are small enough that the ratio should be all over the map.
Average Number of Deaths per Year in the U.S
Bee/Wasp 53
Dogs 31
Spider 6.5
Rattlesnake 5.5
Mountain lion 1
Shark 1
Alligator 0.3
Bear 0.5
Scorpion 0.5
Centipede 0.5
Elephant 0.25
Wolf 0.1
Horse 20
Bull 3
Here
Not entirely sure of the accuracy of these, but still. I think 31x as many killed by dogs as by sharks is a much more important figure than deaths from pigs.
Looks like a slight mangling of the data from http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1080-6032&volume=016&issue=02&page=0067#i1080-6032-016-02-0067-t02
Since when is fear only about risk of death?
I suspect similar odds hold for non-fatal injuries.
Is there some fear associated with sharks other than the danger of injury or death?
The terrifying soundtrack that accompanies them when they approach.
-- The Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine
-- Mark Twain, excerpt from The War Prayer
And there was me thinking that The Shamen had written all that. Thanks.
Penn Jillette
Note to self: every day, eight million things happen in New York.
I'm guessing the number comes from the population of New York city: about 8 million.
Wow, New York must be a pritty boring place to live in.
Events with million-to-one odds of happening in one day to one person happen eight times a day in New York - on average.
Hm. And I thought I was being original when I liked to say 'billion to one odds happen 7 times a day on Earth'.
--- James Stephens
--Bryan Caplan
Reference: Guardians of Ayn Rand
--Jonothan Coulton
Perfecting my warrior robot race,
Building them one laser gun at a time.
I will do my best to teach them
About life and what it's worth,
I just hope that I can keep them
From destroying the Earth!
--SIAI
Interesting vid here.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
"We can get very confused, because we think that words must have some secret meaning that we have to figure out. They don't. They are just noises or marks, and they mean whatever experience you have learned to mean by them. People tend to use similar words in similar situations, but unless you have specifically agreed on what the words will mean, in terms of underlying experiences, there's no way to know what another person understands when you use them. The experience you attach to a word when you say it isn't automatically the same as the experience another person attaches to the same word when hearing it."
William T. Powers
I find this (the unspoken and un-agreed-upon array of connotations behind a word) is a major source of disagreement even on this site.
Johannes Kepler
"People are not complicated. People are really very simple. What makes them appear complicated is our continual insistence on interpreting their behavior instead of discovering their goals."
-- Bruce Gregory
-- Garfield
The original cartoon.
"Dad, the reason I like to shop and buy things is to get rid of my money"
8 year old Cayley Landsburg, quoted in Fair Play
edit. Link added to disambiguate citation...
"Fair Play" is somewhat ambiguous a citation...
"Cayley Landsburg Fair Play" is enough, though.
Why is this interesting? Money isn't inherently useful. Why say "than money" when "It's amazing the things people like" will serve?
'Nash equilibrium strategy' is not necessarily synonymous to 'optimal play'. A Nash equilibrium can define an optimum, but only as a defensive strategy against stiff competition. More specifically: Nash equilibria are hardly ever maximally exploitive. A Nash equilibrium strategy guards against any possible competition including the fiercest, and thereby tends to fail taking advantage of sub-optimum strategies followed by competitors. Achieving maximally exploitive play generally requires deviating from the Nash strategy, and allowing for defensive leaks in ones own strategy. -- Johannes Koelman
-Benoit Mandelbrot
While I agree, where could the earth be getting its strength from?
Also: if mathematics in contact only with mathematics becomes "less mathematical" than mathematics in contact with praxis, then how can praxis in contact with mathematics become more practical than praxis out of contact with mathematics?
If you have no mathematical techniques, you don't know how to think about your empirical evidence.
If you have no empirical evidence, you have nothing to use your mathematical techniques on.
You need both.
Circular reasoning. One chunk pushes against the next, which pushes against the next....until you're back where you started.
-- Han Solo
http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw2/force_skeptics.html
This page persuaded me, by the way - I am now a Force Skeptic with respect to the Star Wars universe.
That page sounded like banal propaganda. Yes, any magic is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology but it sounds to me like the author has a strong preference to blaming evidence on an invisible robotic dragon in his garage rather than uncover the actual explanation whatever it may be.
This is a world where you can hear sound in space and of light is more of a guideline than an actual rule. Your real world preconceptions just don't apply. Once there is any evidence whatsoever that Jedi are unwilling to subject the force to any scientific scrutiny then such skepticism beings to gain credibility. As things stand, however, I would expect the Jedi to be willing participants in Force research. I would, naturally, engage in such research myself. Partly out of a desire to understand the laws of the universe but mostly because I intended to harness the force to my own ends.
Rather, it sounds exactly like a humorous, ironic fan-written piece, with no intention to truthfully explain in-universe things...
... that should leave us all being highly amused Force Believers with respect to the Star Wars universe.
Sure, if you believe everything you see in the movies, but that seems like obvious Rebel propaganda to me.
Even worse, some senior imperial officers at the time of Yavin IV believed it!
From an EU perspective, that page is quite wrong, especially with assertions like
(EU introduced Force-detecting devices left over from the Jedi purges.)
or
(I think Lucas himself wrote in a blind Jedi or two.)
EU?
Expected utility. It's more powerful than the Force.
My initial thought was 'Eliezer Yudkowsky' until I realized that that would be EY and not EU... The way I assume your name is pronounced made that mistake possible.
Expanded universe.
Yet whenever I see that, I think "European Union". And when I first saw Star Wars fans talk about the OT, my first though was, "Old Testament". Actually, that's not far off, in a sense! (It's actually "Original Trilogy".)
ETA: A "Jew" of Star Wars would, I guess, be someone who accepts the OT, but rejects everything thereafter. There seem to be many...
Expanded Universe. All of the books, comics, etc outside of the movies.
-- PZ Myers
I wonder if people who upvoted this did so sincerely or as a "look how irrational elite scientists are" quote.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Freeman's case is not so clear-cut. From Skeptic Magazine:
The Trashing of Margaret Mead: How Derek Freeman Fooled Us All on an Alleged Hoax
That's odd. The Wilson quote in aausch's post heavily implies that Freeman spoke Samoan and Mead didn't. But Paul Shankman's Skeptic article says
Hmm. Wonder who's right.
In context, the closing paragraphs of the article are also relevant:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/20y/rationality_quotes_april_2010/1v7e
I'd like to buy each of those ladies a beer.
-- http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/
I'm interested to find that you read ribbonfarm.com, since along with lesswrong it's one of my two most-visited blogs.
I sometimes think Venkatash's way of thinking might be on a level above that of many of the posts here. As an engineer he seems to have internalized the scientific/rationalist way of thinking, but he's combined that with a metaphorical/narrative/artistic way of looking at the world. When it works well, it works really well. What do other people think?
Interestingly, he has PhD in an AI-related field (specifically, control theory), but thinks the Singularity is unlikely to happen: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/01/28/the-misanthropes-guide-to-the-end-of-the-world/
Another article that might contradict a common belief of this community: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/09/28/learning-from-one-data-point/
Anyway, certainly a blog I'd recommend to lesswrongers.
Erm, sorry, I was just linked there or Googled there or something, don't read it on a regular basis.
Among my favorites as well! Venkat and Eliezer's recommendations currently dominate my reading queue, and I'd be hard-pressed to pick which of their books I'm more eagerly anticipating.
Venkat's observations about group decision making and organizational dynamics are a big part of what made me write this proposal (which I've procrastinated following up on due to being uncertain how to proceed).
There's definitely some interesting contrast between Venkat and Eliezer's views/styles/goals. A Blogging Heads episode could be fascinating!
-- Nicolas Boileau
Rough translation: "What is well understood can be told clearly, and words to express it should come easily."
ETA: it is worth pondering the converse; just because something rolls off the tongue doesn't mean it's well understood. It could be that it's only well-rehearsed.
What the quote is aimed at is work of a supposedly high intellectual caliber, which just so happens to be couched in impenetrable jargon. Far more often, that is in fact evidence of muddled thought, not that the material is "beyond me".
It's obvious, but I must point out that giving the quote in the original French and providing a "rough translation" seems at odds with the message of the quote.
Why? I'm not an expert French->English translator, and I only invested a few minutes in the translation, so calling it "rough" seems appropriate. And saying something clearly in more than one language is more difficult than saying the same thing clearly in one language.
That a perfect, instant translation of a well-crafted quote by a talented French Enlightenment philosopher doesn't just roll off my fingertips in English shouldn't compromise the message.
Weird. I thought you'd posted it this way to be ironic. Anyway...
It compromises the message for precisely that reason. If you agree with the quote, then if you understand what it means, then it should be easy to express it clearly.
Which are you claiming: a) that I don't understand the quote, or b) that my rough translation is unclear?
Are you perhaps supposing that "rough" and "clear" are antonyms?
I think the translation is clear enough; what makes it "rough" is that a perfect translation would feel like it was a literal translation, all the while keeping the exact nuance of the original. If you will, it is the fact of its being a translation which makes it rough.
For more on the subtleties of translation, I'll direct you to Hofstadter's excellent Le Ton Beau de Marot.
"Seeing is believing, but seeing isn't knowing." -- AronRa
-- H. Ross Perot
To take advantage of professional specialization, gains from trade, capital infrastructure, comparative advantage, and economies of scale, the way grownups do it when they actually care, I'd say that the activist is the one who pays someone else to clean up the river.
If people don't realise that the river is dirty and that's causing problems, changing that is valuable work by itself.
The more I read this quote the more I hate it. It is an anti-rationality quote. It says, if you are not rich enough to run as an independent Presidential candidate, if you're not in a position to make a difference by yourself, if all the power you have is your voice, then shut up; leave action to the rich and powerful, without criticism. That your voice has power is part of the point of democracy, and it's not hard to see why a man like Perot might prefer to make that sound less legitimate.
I doubt that was the intended meaning. He's just encouraging you to do something. Doesn't have to be big.
No, in the first sentence he's explicitly denigrating those who speak up.
..for being all talk.
I can see how you might have come to your conclusion, but saying it's "explicit" is just not true.
That doesn't sound like an activist. That sounds like "sucker doing other people's work for free", which doesn't sound like an effective plan for bringing about positive change -- those people tend to "weed themselves out" over the long run.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do things to make the world a better place, like: not litter, drive courteously, etc. (Although you should be careful about which things actually accomplish a net good.) "Be the change you want in the world" (attr. Ghandi) is a good motto to keep. I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect major problems to get solved by Someone Else at no cost to you, nor complain about someone pointing out the dirty river instead of immediately cleaning it up.
Personally, I'm very good at discovering what's wrong with a process or situation. I can detect flaws easily and accurately. What I've found I need is someone who, after I've done my analysis, will look me in the eye and say, "OK. So how do we fix it?"
Without that simple question, I find that far too often I stop at the identification step, shaking my head at the deplorable state of affairs.
The question analogous to to the Perot quote would be "So why don't you fix it?".
So for example, it would make sense for me to try and personally swoop in and free Chinese political prisoners, but if I'm not prepared to do that, I shouldn't protest their incarceration.
I don't think this rule leads to the right kind of behavour.
It doesn't, and it annoys me. That makes me quite ambivalent about the quote.
How is this comment responsive to my point or supportive of the original post?
Does this work better for you?:
"The rationalist is not the man who complains about biases. The rationalist is the man who works to understand his biases."
(coin-flipped for male)
-- Groucho Marx
It's bad luck to be superstitious.
During a conversation with a Christian friend, during which my apostasy was challenged sincerely and politely but with the usual arguments and style...
Christian: And the Bible tells us that if we have Faith as small as a mustard seed...
Me: Yeah, we can move mountains. Matthew 17:20. So, tell me. Could God make an argument so circular that even He couldn't believe it?
Christian: Of course! He's God, God can do anything.
'Made in His Image' seems to apply all too well.
You're quoting yourself!
Excuse the cameo. I hope the extra context doesn't distract you too much from the SMBC quote or the reply.
-- Jsomers.net, How to be a loser (Relevance)
-- Ben Shahn, "The Shape of Content"
--Erwin Schrodinger, Mind and Matter
"In my experience, the most staunchly held views are based on ignorance or accepted dogma, not carefully considered accumulations of facts. The more you expose the intricacies and realities of the situation, the less clear-cut things become."
Mary Roach - from her book Spook
Marvin Minsky -- The Society of Mind
-- News of the Weird (relevance)
John Maynard Keynes
"Love God?" you're in an abusive relationship.
DLC, commenter at Pharyngula.
--Emanuel Derman
Marquis de Condorcet, 1794
(quoted in Beyond AI by JoSH Hall)
"Most people are more complicated than they seem, but less complicated than they think"
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I've always thought you can have more fun in New York than splashing around in the water. But I'm not a dolphin.
-- Karp
“He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher...or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.”
A bit of a meta-quote:
A Philosophy of Interior Design (1990) by Stanley Abercrombie, quoting "The Sitting Position - A Question of Method" (1958) by Joseph Rykwert.
For the record, I didn't downvote this below zero, but it did at one point downvote this back to zero (and did the same for the Open Thread). Not because I'd disagree with the tradition in any way, but because I don't think the first person to get around posting the month's thread should get tens of points of karma for simply being quick.
Rewarding people for prompt attention to housekeeping tasks seems more appropriate than punishing them.
I tend to vote such threads to around a couple of karma myself. 0 isn't unreasonable. < 0 is quite peculiar. But my confusion was resolved in this instance. Someone messaged me and explained that he was trying to work out why the votes were fluctuating so much (4 -> 0 in an hour) so was testing what would happen if he put down one more to -1.
As a side effect to these posts going up and down I've now started paying attention to only the last digit of the score. The 10s are mostly noise!
I certainly wouldn't want to punish them, which is why I'd also upvote any such thread that ended up with a negative score.
--Dr. Samuel Johnson
---Star Trek: Voyager, "Good Shepherd"
I really dislike the nature versus nurture false dichotomy. It grates on me to see it still taken seriously, even after the premise that our actions are shaped entirely by one or the other has been as scientifically discredited as phlogiston.
Oh, I agree with you that nature vs. nurture is a false dichotomy, but I was actually cheered to see this exchange. As terrible as it is by our epistemic standards, it's actually quite sophisticated by Star Trek standards. (So much of what gets called science fiction is actually technology fantasy.) I was similarly cheered to see the other exchange that I posted from that episode: he actually used the word hypothesis! Real philosophy of science! On Voyager! I love it! Best episode ever!
And you can see how this is still a rationality quote despite the conceptual confusion. Janeway is trying to break through Harren's contempt, but Harren resists her cliches and insists on (what he erroneously thinks is) accuracy.
So which of the two characters exemplifies rationalist virtues? It seems to me we've got one who's trying to use clichés to "break through" to the other, and one who's just stubbornly wrong.
...this was fiction! Star Trek moreover. Do not expect realism!
"In madness all sounds become articulate." -- "Language of the Shadows", Nile
[Connections to rationality: Focus, taking action, and conversation style.]
---Star Trek: Voyager, "Good Shepherd"
"To know something is to make this something that I know myself; but to avail myself of it, to dominate it, it has to remain distinct from myself." -- Miguel de Unamuno
No, curiosity seeks to annihilate itself.
-- Mark Chu-Carroll
Although I should note that I believe there to be phenomena that qualify to be defined as 'free will'. Specifically endogenous processes generating behavioral variability and thus non-linearity. Especially if you can show that the complexity of transformation by which a system shapes the outside environment, in which it is embedded, does trump the specific effectiveness of the environmental influence on the defined system. In other words, mind over matter. You are able to shape reality more effectively and goal-oriented and thus, in a way, overcome its crude influence it exerts on you. For example, children and some mentally handicapped people are not responsible in same the way as healthy adults. They can not give consent or enter into legally binding contracts. One of the reasons for this is that they lack control, are easily influenced by others. Healthy humans exert a higher control than children and handicapped people. You experience, or possess a greater extent of freedom proportional to the amount of influence and effectiveness of control you exert over the environment versus the environment over you. Though this definition of free will only works once you arbitrarily define a system to be an entity within an environment contrary to being the environment. Thus the neural activity, being either consciously aware and controlled by the system itself, or not, is no valid argument within this framework. Of course, in a strong philosophical sense this definition fails to address the nature of free will as we can do what we want but not chose what we want. But I think it might after all be a useful definition when it comes to science, psychology and law. It might also very well address our public understanding of being free agents.
I should have checked the lesswrong wiki before posting this. And of course read the mentioned posts here on lesswrong.com.
Anyway, for those who care or are wondering what I have been talking about I thought I should provide some background information. My above drivel is loosely based on work by Björn Brembs et al.
PLoS ONE: Order in Spontaneous Behavior
Maybe a misinterpretation on my side. But now my above comments might make a bit more sense, or at least show where I'm coming from. I learnt about this via a chat about 'free will'.
Hope you don't mind I post this. Maybe somebody will find it useful or informative.
There is more here: Brains as output/input devices
A man with one watch might have the wrong time; a man with two watches is more aware of his own ignorance.
I always liked this quote. I think I originally saw it in a Robert Anton Wilson book. I usually use it in the context of terminal values.