FREE WILL

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (215 of them)

nah i got blasted back up to 60% and can't make my way back down

de l'asshole (flopson), Friday, 3 June 2016 19:58 (seven years ago) link

that's what happened to me try those short sequences of fdfd

it's p good tho isn't it

F♯ A♯ (∞), Friday, 3 June 2016 19:59 (seven years ago) link

ah sorry wasn't saying nah to you but to myself, got xp'd

yeah it's addictive

de l'asshole (flopson), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:06 (seven years ago) link

The algorithm is based on recording sequences of five or so key-presses, then predicting that the most often recurrent patterns you produce will reappear. Since pressing f or d is a pointless activity, the average brain will soon tire of producing novel sequences and begin to repeat itself out of boredom with the task. I would predict that the faster you press the keys, the more likely this unconscious boredom effect will assert itself. The more one consciously decides each keypress based on a good understanding of genuine randomness, together with a strong motivation to outwit the oracle by weeding out repetitive sequences, the less effective the oracle will be.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:23 (seven years ago) link

put your theory to the test and show us your results champ

F♯ A♯ (∞), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:26 (seven years ago) link

my results square with aimless's theory. going fast and just typing "randomly", the machine was almost 70% accurate. moving slowly and forcing myself to break patterns, i could keep it well under 60%. a good trick is to rotate your keyboard periodically.

A good strategy for lowering the number is to look away from the keyboard and just bash in the general area of D and F.

jmm, Friday, 3 June 2016 20:39 (seven years ago) link

I can't get it to give me any results, possibly it needs cookies, which I habitually block.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:45 (seven years ago) link

60% is not good btw

de l'asshole (flopson), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:52 (seven years ago) link

A good strategy for lowering the number is to look away from the keyboard and just bash in the general area of D and F.

― jmm, Friday, June 3, 2016 4:39 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha i like this

de l'asshole (flopson), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:52 (seven years ago) link

might try this later once everyone at the office is liquored up

F♯ A♯ (∞), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:56 (seven years ago) link

did this for a couple mins and hovered around 45-49%, some wills are freer than others

le Histoire du Edgy Miley (difficult listening hour), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:56 (seven years ago) link

by the time i got bored it had climbed to 51%, look out everyone i'm literally Joker

yellow despackling power (Will M.), Friday, 3 June 2016 20:57 (seven years ago) link

getting under 50% is impressive but paradoxically means your sequence may be less random??

de l'asshole (flopson), Friday, 3 June 2016 21:00 (seven years ago) link

teach me how to introduce a little anarchy

xp

F♯ A♯ (∞), Friday, 3 June 2016 21:01 (seven years ago) link

getting under 50% is impressive but paradoxically means your sequence may be less random??

my sequence is art and this algorithm is a philistine

le Histoire du Edgy Miley (difficult listening hour), Friday, 3 June 2016 21:02 (seven years ago) link

i had this about 35% for a while last night - played a lot of long sequences of mostly the same key and broke it up for a little bit when the program started guessing right

Noodle Vague, Friday, 3 June 2016 21:04 (seven years ago) link

dude you needed to screenshoot that

F♯ A♯ (∞), Friday, 3 June 2016 21:05 (seven years ago) link

i had no idea what a good score was last night tbh. or how many presses you guys have made altogether. i got bored of it fairly quickly, probably only played < 5 mins

Noodle Vague, Friday, 3 June 2016 21:06 (seven years ago) link

nine months pass...

Reviving this thread so maybe we can all choose to use it to discuss free will and return to properly slagging off Richard Dawkins in the Richard Dawkins - Anti-Christ or Great Thinker thread.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Saturday, 11 March 2017 20:27 (seven years ago) link

one's concept/definition of "free will" seems contingent on so many near-ineffable assumptions about the universe and stuff.. seems like it would be hard not to just be talking past each other

a but (brimstead), Saturday, 11 March 2017 20:41 (seven years ago) link

oh that was a dumb post, sorry

a but (brimstead), Saturday, 11 March 2017 20:42 (seven years ago) link

hey folks what's y'alls favourite freiwillige selbstkontrolle record

increasingly bonkers (rushomancy), Saturday, 11 March 2017 20:45 (seven years ago) link

Every debate on free will always fucks off because 1) People begin to use moral arguments in an ontological debate (but without free will, how can society...) and 2) People for some reason think completely free will or complete determinism are the only two possibilities.

Frederik B, Saturday, 11 March 2017 22:15 (seven years ago) link

otm

brat_stuntin (darraghmac), Saturday, 11 March 2017 22:54 (seven years ago) link

3) people who aren't interested in the discussion pile in to tell everybody how not interesting it is

snappy baritone (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 11 March 2017 22:58 (seven years ago) link

like they're somehow compelled to do so

snappy baritone (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 11 March 2017 22:58 (seven years ago) link

https://twitter.com/ilikemints/status/840645034978480130

^^^the secret vector of all human compulsions

mark s, Sunday, 12 March 2017 11:25 (seven years ago) link

Pretty sure the quote is from Kathleen McAuliffe's This Is Your Brain on Parasites.

The science on flu viri affecting animal behavior is rather weak, but there's tons on toxoplasmosis. Becoming attracted to cat piss in rodents, but in humans, higher testosterone, more risk taking and road accidents, etc.

Sanpaku, Sunday, 12 March 2017 18:26 (seven years ago) link

It would be crazy to argue that our individual wills exist godlike, floating serenely above all mere physical influence, controlling but never controlled. It is obvious that our will is predicated upon myriads of contributing factors, including the vagaries of vertebrate evolution and whether it is raining at the moment, and it can never be disentangled from them. But even if our will is heavily constrained, nevertheless if one can choose between two nearly indistinguishable actions and effectively act upon that choice, then one's will is not predetermined or predestined and the effects of that choice will propagate into the future.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Sunday, 12 March 2017 18:41 (seven years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.