= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on The Smoking Lesion: A problem for evidential decision theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (100)
There is no decision-making process anyway, every decision is made, it's right there in the frontal/temporal/occipital/parietal lobe, right?
The red light blinking doesn't feel as a decision. According to the lesion scenario, the lesion-influenced decisions feel exactly like other decisions. It is an important difference. And I am not sure why you have included both happy feeling and explosion, by the way.
If you can point to a specific part of my brain that has no purpose other than to make me have bacon for breakfast on tuesday 24th of august, 2010? And that can't be over-ruled by any other parts of my brain?
That decision involved more than just one spot in my brain. All the parts of my brain involved do more than one thing.
So, no, the real world isn't like the lesion example.
Okay, let's change it slightly: Instead of the happy feeling, you get a feeling of "I decided to do this" when the light blinks red.
Is that a better analogy for you? Whether you think about it or not, you end up feeling like you made the decision. Just like in the lesion case.
I can't, however it doesn't imply that the decision about the breakfast is spread across the whole brain. Moreover, why it is so important to have it localised? What if the lesion is in fact only a slightly different concentration of chemicals spread across the whole brain, which I) leads to cancer, II) causes desire for smoking, which is nevertheless substantiated as a global coordinated action of neurons in different parts of the brain?
It is indeed a better example.
It's not particularly. Replace "part" with "aspect"; I hadn't actually thought about the option you propose.
Now we're getting back to the "correlates with smoking" scenario; not the 100% scenario. If it just causes desire for smoking, some people with it won't smoke. At which point it is a decision.
If this desire is irresistible, then you no more have a choice not to smoke than you have a choice not to sleep.
Do you have the option of not sleeping for the next year? (while still being alive)
No, I don't. However, feeling of irresistible temptation is not the same thing as 100% incidence within respective population. (There are people who claim they don't sleep.)
Imagine you lived in a lesion world where most of the smokers described their decision to start smoking as "free". Still, there was a 100% correlation between smoking and cancer. Do you find it impossible?
No, it's entirely possible.
It's also entirely possible in the lightbulb world. In the lightbulb world I suspect you'd agree it isn't a free decision, but it's entirely possible that the people of that world might claim that it was.
What is the lightbulb world?
The world I described, with the red, blinking, exploding, light; that makes you think you chose to have it blink.
For a second there I thought I'd somehow confused the conversations, but no, you are the one I've been discussing that with.
I'm sorry for being stupid.
Still, your original description of the scenario was
Now you have changed the "happy" feeling into a "decided" feeling. So the bulb has to be connected somehow to the brain to stimulate the feeling. I am not sure what "rest" refers to here.
But in general, if somebody said they decided freely, I take it as given. I don't know any better criterion how to judge whether the decision was free, whatever it means.
It's my mistake.
I meant: it's not connected to your brain at all except when making you happy/making you believe you decided.
ie. it's not taking any input from the brain at any point. Much like the lesion.
In the specific case of the bulb-world, would you consider their decisions free, if they did?