free will

Emotion is just one component that distinguishes a human from a computer. Humans also have varying degrees of intelligence and capacity for rational thought giving some a greater ability to make a rational choice than others meaning freewill is a sliding scale.

A newborn infant probably has probably little or no freewill.

An adult with a normal functioning brain has much more.

An adult with a minor cognitive disability has less but not none.

Etc.

(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.

Intelligence is only one aspect of moral culpability. You might add emotional stability, knowledge and ignorance, intent and other attributes that I can't think of off hand.

The ability to make a choice exists apart from moral culpability but moral culpability requires choice.

(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.

Intelligence is only one aspect of moral culpability. You might add emotional stability, knowledge and ignorance, intent and other attributes that I can't think of off hand.

The ability to make a choice exists apart from moral culpability but moral culpability requires choice.

Intelligence is only one aspect of moral culpability. You might add emotional stability, knowledge and ignorance, intent and other attributes that I can't think of off hand.

(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have freewill.

What is an example of a robotic sorting system making a choice?


Because I find it hard to accept that the giant machine at the package handling facility is making a choice when it makes sure all the packages find their way to the right truck. It is simply following directions.

The ONLY question is, "HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY FREEWILL?"

You can't. I also can't quantify emotional intensity but it exists nonetheless.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing moral culpability as it relates to the ability to make a choice, only the fact that phenomenon itself exists.

The ONLY question is, "HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY FREEWILL?"

You can't. I also can't quantify emotional intensity but it exists nonetheless.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing moral culpability as it relates to the ability to make a choice, only the fact that phenomenon itself exists.

(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have freewill.

What is an example of a robotic sorting system making a choice?

A human can choose to quit being a postman and join a circus.

A human can certainly choose to place the package in the incorrect place. A robotic sorting mechanism does not have this choice.

A human who intentionally places a package in the incorrect place is a malfunctioning employee and should be fired.

Perhaps we could ask how it is that a person might well want to join a circus but no sorting machine has ever wanted to.

It's simply a matter of sophistication and independence. [LINK]

I think the better question is why doo you have such a strong desire to be a robot? Why are you so preoccupied with dehumanization? I see this as possibly a symptom of some issue you are having, this subject coming from that root.

Is it just a matter of sophistication?  The problem I have with that is that I am a very experienced computer programmer but I have no idea how to program a sorting machine with the desire to join a circus!   I know how to fake it and give an impression of having a desire, but not the real thing.

The epistemological question is, can anyone tell the difference between a "fake" desire and a "real" desire if they effect the same observable behavior?

It should be obvious that sorting machines do not have choice. 

(IFF) you can't quantify freewill (AND) you don't care about moral culpability (THEN) why would you bother distinguishing "freewill" from simple "choice"?

I don't. That is the definition of freewill - the ability to make a choice unimpeded.

It seems you likely have a different definition and Mopac may be correct that you define it in such a way as to make it impossible to exist.

(IFF) you can't quantify freewill (AND) you don't care about moral culpability (THEN) why would you bother distinguishing "freewill" from simple "choice"?

I don't. That is the definition of freewill - the ability to make a choice unimpeded.

It seems you likely have a different definition and Mopac may be correct that you define it in such a way as to make it impossible to exist.

So would agree, according to your definitions, that sophisticated computerized neural networks with the ability to learn and optimize tasks, also have proper freewill (the ability to choose)?

That is not my definition, it is from Wikipedia. I would say that those computers have what is similar to the ability to choose (freewill). To the casual observer it may be indistinguishable. However, computers do not utilize the same variables that humans do when making choices so it is not identical.

What does the word 'choice' mean?  If a computer hits a branch instruction in its program it will go one way or the other but the computer does not have any choice.  Spiders - I expect - are hard wired with rules that specify their behaviour in any given situation,  so no real choice there either.  

Why not say a choice(in this context) is a selection made in response to a desire?