adamtpack comments on The Power of Reinforcement - Less Wrong

96 Post author: lukeprog 21 June 2012 01:42PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (467)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: adamtpack 23 June 2012 02:15:23AM -1 points [-]

I'm confused, not only by the beginning of this comment, but by several others as well.

I thought being a LessWronger meant you no longer thought in terms of free will. That it's a naive theory of human behavior, somewhat like naive physics.

I thought so, anyway. I guess I was wrong? (This comment still up voted for amazing analysis.)

Comment author: Vaniver 23 June 2012 03:21:46PM *  4 points [-]

I thought being a LessWronger meant you no longer thought in terms of free will. That it's a naive theory of human behavior, somewhat like naive physics.

Autonomy and philosophical free will are different things. Philosophical free will is the question "well, if physical laws govern how my body acts, and my brain is a component of my body, then don't physical laws govern what choices I make?", to which the answer is mu. One does not need volition on the level of atoms to have volition on the level of people- and volition on the level of people is autonomy.

(You will note that LW is very interested in techniques to increase one's will, take more control over one's goals, and so on. Those would be senseless goals for a fatalist.)

Comment author: adamtpack 23 June 2012 09:40:32PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for clarifying that. I should note that I am very interested in techniques for self-improvement, too. I am currently learning how to read. (Apparently, I never knew :( ) And also get everything organized, GTD-style. (It seems a far less daunting prospect now than when I first heard of the idea, because I'm pseudo-minimalist.)

I still am surprised at the average LWers reaction here. Probably because it's not clear to me the nature of 'volition on the level of people'. Not something to expect you to answer, clarifying the distinction was helpful enough.