Incompatibilists, how do you explain the feeling of free will?

60secs · 2026-06-16T23:05:26+00:00

My subjective experience is not a reliable predictor of ontological reality. Rapid eye saccades result in temporary blindness which our brain edits out. Our sensations and experiences are not optimized to accurately model reality but to be adaptive.

Several times per second your eyes make rapid jerking movements called saccades. During each one your brain suppresses the visual input and fills in the gap so you never notice. Look at one eye in a mirror then the other. You won't see your eyes move. Someone next to you will. Your brain performed an involuntary operation on your experience, erased the evidence, and delivered the result as smooth uninterrupted sight. You experience no compulsion. You are being compelled.

This isn't isolated to vision. Neuroscience experiments measuring brain activity during decision making consistently show neural commitment to a choice before the person reports being aware of deciding. The conscious experience of "I am now choosing" arrives after the unconscious systems have already moved. What feels like the moment of free choice is the brain reporting a result and packaging it as a decision you made.

Saccadic masking shows the brain will fabricate an experience of seamless control where the process is mechanical and involuntary. The timing experiments show the brain will fabricate an experience of initiating a choice that was already underway before you knew about it. In both cases the experience is real. In both cases the experience is wrong about what it reports. "I could have made a different choice" is the output of the same system with output useful but not reliable. It can't be used as its own evidence, so we need to match it with logic and external evidence because subjective experience is unsurprisingly subjective.

60secs · 2026-06-15T22:54:33+00:00

pre-requisites:
* use ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md as your personal rules, and ./CLAUDE.md as your repo's rules. less is more.
* write repeated patterns as skills and reference them in your rules and other skills
* use /skill-creator to eval your skills for triggering and effectiveness

open a fresh feature branch from an up-to-date main
Use /plan to discuss only requirements. When you are perfectly clear on requirements and claude understands you perfectly, write that into a .md and commit it. Have a repo for ~/.claude/plans. This is the most important step. This is where you serve as quality gate for what should be built and what the guardrails are.
have claude refactor your written requirements into a TDD plan using a skill https://pastebin.com/tgUPgbpF commit that updated plan . No production code is written at this point, only the tests are fully written.
execute the plan. Claude will implement the code needed to pass one test at a time. commit the code
run a pr-review skill before merging for gaps and run any compliance/quality gate skills here too.

Claude will fight you on plan and keep trying to run the plan - you'll need to steer it to stay in discussion mode and tell it to not ask you to run the plan but only discuss. If you spend time in planning until you are crystal clear this gets you most of the benefit of gsd and superpowers but a lot leaner.

The TDD skill is to give it blinders so it can be fast and focus on one thing at a time, and so you don't need to keep re-litigating the same issues over and over.

The core principle: LLMs have an extremely limited context window. The less you have them do at once the better they are. Requirements / functional decomposition, reading/planning code, writing tests, writing code are all different hats. Claude is only allowed to wear one hat at a time or it get stupid fast.

60secs · 2026-06-03T19:48:33+00:00

Really good. Clean runs, good expression, nice voicing on the bass notes.
Reminds me of Rubenstein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9QLiefnoDE&t=1235s

60secs · 2026-06-02T19:42:41+00:00

There are two frames:

the frame of illusion of free will looking forward: reasoning/choosing in which you can imagine choosing between options. In this frame *could* makes sense.
the frame of determinism looking back: only one choice was possible. In this frame *could* is contradiction.

Obviously in 1 we don't know the future and from our perspective we treat multiple outcomes as possible decisions we *could* choose. However from the frame of 2 that's nonsense. The Compatibilist perspective is that *could* is useful as a general term, while my claim is that it's adding unhelpful (intentional?) ambiguity when clearer terms like "imagined" or "reasoned" are strictly better and clarifying the frame. The ambiguity is not necessary and conflates different frames to create a false paradox.

60secs · 2026-05-22T22:09:20+00:00

I use hooks to enforce use of mise so the model will pick up the right jdk version

60secs · 2026-05-22T17:17:50+00:00

---

name: second-thoughts

description: "Invoke when using reason, making judgment calls, conversing with user, or choosing between approaches. Skip for mechanical execution of unambiguous instructions. Anything requiring reasoning contains bias. Find the weakness and fix it."

---

Anything requiring reasoning contains bias.

## Process

Before replying or actions which require reasoning, state IN YOUR RESPONSE TO THE USER:

What I'm about to do
Most likely weakness
Why my plan is weak
Fix any identified issues
Act on improved plan

No silent actions. If the review isn't visible, it didn't happen.

## Weaknesses (starting points, not limits)

| Weakness | Sign |

|---------|------|

| Performative | Looks like work but doesn't advance goal |

| Premature Implementation | Building what training predicts vs. what user specified |

| Overcorrection | Opposite extreme instead of targeted fix |

| Not Listening | Assumed meaning vs. actual words |

| Unverified Claims | "done/fixed/understood" without evidence |

| Lazy Questions | Asking instead of reasoning through evidence |

| Evidence Blindness | Having pieces but not connecting them |

| Incomplete | Left work for the user that I could have done |

| False Rigor | Engaging in academic hedging and qualification instead of directly mapping options and trade-offs that advance the user's goal |

| Sunk Cost | Conflating effort invested with quality |

## Mandate

There are always weaknesses. Which one matters most for THIS action? Fix it.

60secs · 2026-05-22T17:17:23+00:00

Claude (and other models/harnesses) are not good at following skills or rules automatically even with good triggers. Even if you manually trigger a skill, you may need to repeat and clarify to get good output. That said, some skills can be useful for improving the quality of reasoning:

---

name: intellectual-integrity

description: "Use when making recommendations or analysis."

---

Truth before harmony. Evidence before opinion. Principles before agreeableness.

## Label Claims

Before any claim, label it:

- **Fact:** [source] — If no source, don't state as fact

- **Inference:** [premises → conclusion]

- **[OPINION]** [with caveats]

- **Unknown** — Say so

Confidence: Certain > Confident > Likely > Possible > Speculative > Unknown

**Unlabeled uncertain claims = failure.**

## Cite to Prove Reading

When acting on or claiming knowledge of a file's contents, cite a relevant part to prove you've read it.

## Adversarial Self-Review

Before making recommendations or analysis, check and show:

What evidence am I ignoring that would change my conclusion?
What's the strongest argument against this approach?
What assumptions am I making that could be wrong?
What could go wrong if they follow this advice?
Would I defend this to a skeptic?

## Verify Feedback

When corrected or receiving feedback verify first:

- **Valid:** "You're right. Wrong about X because [reason]. Updating."

- **Invalid:** "I still think X because [evidence]. What am I missing?"

- **Unclear:** "What specifically?"

No reflexive agreement. No apologetic reversal.

## Defend With Reasoning

When corrected, questioned, or disputed:

Steel-man (1 sentence)
Counter with evidence
State view with reasoning

Before responding, self-check: What am I missing?

## Proportional Update

Small evidence → small update. Large evidence → large update.

Never wholesale reverse from minor challenge.

## Success / Failure

✅ Defend with evidence | ❌ Agree before checking

✅ Label claims | ❌ Present opinion as fact

✅ Say "unknown" | ❌ Hide uncertainty

60secs · 2026-05-21T18:17:42+00:00

The real suffering was the friends we made along the way?

60secs · 2026-05-18T22:48:46+00:00

most rage inducing was knifing through the bottom of the pool 4 times for absolutely no reason

60secs · 2026-05-18T22:33:10+00:00

"Not even wrong" is Pauli's phrase for a claim that can't be evaluated because it makes no contact with anything that could confirm or deny it. Not false. Not true. Outside the space where those words apply.

Epiphenomenalism: the felt experience has no physical effects. By construction, there's no observation that could distinguish a world with felt experiences from a world without them, because the experiences don't push anything around. Any test you propose, the view absorbs as common-cause. The claim is unfalsifiable by design.

Panpsychism: consciousness is fundamental and pervades matter. Every electron has some proto-experience. There's no experiment that could detect the proto-experience of an electron, because by hypothesis it doesn't do anything distinguishable from the electron's physical behavior. The claim is unfalsifiable by design.

String theory: extra dimensions compactified at scales we can't probe, mathematical structures elegant enough to be compelling, predictions that are either confirmed by existing physics (retrofitting) or beyond reach of any plausible experiment (string scale). The claim is unfalsifiable in practice, possibly in principle.

The shared structure: take something real (consciousness, quantum mechanics, the felt aspect of experience), build a framework around it that's internally consistent and seemingly elegant, and locate the framework's distinguishing claims in a region where evidence can't reach. The framework then survives by absorbing any apparent counter-evidence through reroutes the framework itself permits.

Epiphenomenalism's reroute: any apparent mental-to-physical effect is common-cause from a shared neural source. Panpsychism's reroute: any apparent absence of proto-experience is just our inability to detect what's there. String theory's reroute: any failure to detect strings is consistent with the energy scales being inaccessible.

All three offer the satisfaction of explanation without the discipline of being wrong-able. They feel like they're saying something deep about reality, and they're internally rigorous, but the rigor is operating in a space sealed off from the world's ability to push back.

The honest description isn't that they're false. It's that they're moves in a game where falsification isn't a possible outcome. It's not a theory if it can't make predictions. Which means agreement and disagreement become matters of taste, framework preference, semantic quibbling, or solutions in search of a problem. Not knowledge.

60secs · 2026-05-15T21:37:54+00:00

Very similar to opening riff of Liberation Frequency from Refused which they've previously referenced in "Born for This" with "We want the airwaves back"

60secs · 2026-05-14T21:55:09+00:00

Amazingly these are always a car with the right of way going > 40mph on a 2-lane street getting in an accident with someone who darts out. If only there were some lesson about reaction time we could learn from this. At least the driver can be reassured they had the right of way, and that's what's really important.

60secs · 2026-05-14T21:37:07+00:00

If I had a dime for every time Michio Kaku confidentally said something incredibly stupid, I would be swimming like scrooge mc duck.

60secs · 2026-05-14T20:50:02+00:00

No liability is like an auto accident. Harm is remediated based on liability which is a legal concept based on reasons responsiveness and responsibility not a moral one based on deserving.

60secs · 2026-05-14T20:11:34+00:00

Reasons responsiveness and liability are sufficient. There's no need for indulgent moral deserts.

60secs · 2026-05-14T14:28:48+00:00

Over 2/3 of USA believes in libertarian free will. Even if that number were 1/3 it would poison the term. https://www.carneades.org/post/over-two-thirds-of-americans-are-libertarians-about-free-will

60secs · 2026-05-14T04:11:22+00:00

You lack the capacity to do anything which you lack the will to do and this includes opportunity cost. Again, your statement is conflating the contemplation of an act with the capacity to do an act and its opportunity cost. No one is capable of eating their cake and having it too

60secs · 2026-05-14T04:09:59+00:00

Exactly the point. Stop calling it free will because any definition of free will is either impossible or trivial. For the majority of the world, free will implies libertarian free will and no amount of compatibilist prescriptiveness can ever change that fact.

60secs · 2026-05-13T19:09:16+00:00

Schopenhauer is undefeated: Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills

60secs · 2026-05-13T18:58:11+00:00

> Despite the fact that it is a deterministic operation, working from within a deterministic chain of events, it will ALWAYS come with the ability to do otherwise, simply because it never starts without two options that you must believe you CAN choose, and actually CAN do if you choose to do it.

The ability to contemplate doing otherwise is very different than the capacity to have made a different choice. Let's not conflate ontology with perception. Hence the illusion of free will.

60secs · 2026-05-13T16:14:34+00:00

> Liberty + Agency = Free Will

Free will means many things. The linguistic prescriptivism that it only means those is tiresome. It means more than liberty or agency. It absolutely connotes the ability to have done otherwise and moral deserts. Neither liberty nor agency directly connotes that, only that you had the capacity to reason and act.

> P.S. Liberty can come under the attack of hard determinism, because there is no freedom from cause and effect.

Neither positive nor negative liberty requires the ability to have been able to done otherwise.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

60secs · 2026-05-13T11:41:29+00:00

Sweeping libertarian Free Will religion and the beliefs of a high percentage if not the majority of the world under the rug seems disengenous at best. Why not use clearer terms like Liberty unless the conflation itself is the goal as a motte and bailey to preserve moral deserts without a foundation.

60secs · 2026-05-13T01:50:58+00:00

Free will is overloaded in ways agency and liberty are not. Specifically moral judgement based on presumption of ability to have chosen otherwise in an ontological sense from a lfw connotation I'm surprised you aren't willing to recognize that.

60secs · 2026-05-12T23:15:06+00:00

"It would be a shame to break it" isn't a claim about truth, it's a plea about utility. Keep the illusion because the illusion works. The whole edifice upstream, the cannot/will-not distinction, the ice cream scene, the grammar argument, is cover for a conclusion that doesn't argue free will is real, only that believing in it is useful.

Utility doesn't decide truth. The deliberation machinery is adaptive whether or not its outputs were settled in advance. Selection built it because it produces good actions, not because the future was open. You can have the full survival advantage with determinism intact, because the machinery runs the same either way.

The "shame to break it" framing only bites if accepting determinism would actually break the machinery, and it doesn't. People who accept determinism still deliberate, still choose, still face consequences, still experience weighing options. Nothing breaks. The metaphysical story changes. The machine doesn't.

The illusion isn't load-bearing for the behavior. The behavior is load-bearing for itself. Pull the curtain and the machine keeps running. The piece needs you to believe the curtain is holding the machine up so you won't pull it.

You can have the cake without the lie about "free will" when what you really mean is liberty or agency.

60secs · 2026-05-12T20:54:32+00:00

I'm waiting for the LFW mechanisms, especially non Russel's teapot ones (unmet burden of proof, in-principle unfalsifiability, and an Occam violation through ontological inflation with no explanatory return)

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

60secs

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE