What necessary function does freewill perform in your worldview?Do I really need to explain the functionality of being able to choose between 2 or more possible courses of action?
Choosing between 2 or more courses of action is the definition of free will.You can choose between 2 or more possible courses of action - WITHOUT - freewill.
You can choose between 2 or more possible courses of action - WITHOUT - freewill.Choosing between 2 or more courses of action is the definition of free will.
As I have already answered this question, I will again say no, it is not identical to but similar to a human choice.Based on this rudimentary definition, do you believe that sorting robots have freewill?
Your mind (and body) is inevitably PART OF the causal chain. Your mind (and body) are affected by and motivated by the causal chain (with perhaps a pinch of non-causal randomness that is randomly produced by random stuff at random times and thus, NOT part of your will)."...the ability to change the outcome of a causal chain..."
Based on this rudimentary definition, do you believe that sorting robots have freewill?As I have already answered this question, I will again say no, it is not identical to but similar to a human choice.
To say you have "the ability to change the outcome of a causal chain" is to deny the origins of and existence of your instincts and desires and physical and mental capacities.
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some possibly random influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability.I just don't believe that there is only one possible outcome to a series of events.
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some possibly random influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability.
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some possibly random influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability.I agree but would word this sentence thus...(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some subjectively human influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability."
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are part of the causal chain?
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are indistinguishable from random?
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are part of the causal chain?Yes.Do you believe that subjectively human influences are indistinguishable from random?No.
Based on this rudimentary definition, do you believe that sorting robots have freewill?As I have already answered this question, I will again say no, it is not identical to but--> @3RU7AL
That's true but it may be somewhat applicable to trivial decisions too. I just wanted to show another opinion that expressed the general view that I support.i am far more interested in trivial choices where cold logic plays little part - i don't think Dennett's model is helpful in such cases.
the sorting machine has no choice so I dispute 'similar to a human choice.
I meant similar in appearance or outcome only. A machine can sort left and it can sort right. In the sense that it has two options it is similar. Of course it will only choose based on its specific programing, not by preference, emotion, intent, desire or rational thought.
"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision."
I think a sorting machine is very unlike a human. If i want to know if a mail sorting machine will send a letter left or right i only have to examine the post code on the envelope. I can ignore the details of the machine completely. But if i want to know whether Twoman will say he wants tea or coffee I would have to have an enormous amount of information about him - his history, his habits, his preferences and even then it would be a guess until he tells me! If an envelope is addressed to croydon, the sorting machine has no choice - it will route it to croydon. But twoman can can choose tea, coffee or vodka. So I dispute 'similar to a human choice.'.
I don't deny the Qualitative emotion of freewill.I understand what you mean. I am just more inclined to believe that the phenomenon [EMOTION] that I (and every human on earth) experience is closer to the truth than not.
I understand what you mean. I am just more inclined to believe that the phenomenon [EMOTION] that I (and every human on earth) experience is closer to the truth than not.
Violating causality as you understand it =/= violating causality.
Free will is not simply an emotion.
It is accepting the reality that you don't have to be a shitlord for the rest of your life. You can always do better!
That's pretty good news really.
It is accepting the reality that you don't have to be a shitlord for the rest of your life. You can always do better!This is an emotional appeal and opinion stated as fact.
How do preference, emotion, intent, desire or rational thought free you from choosing based on your specific proprogramming?
No it isn't. It is a fact that we can reprogram our minds, and turn around from being a punk to a better person.
If there are common features between how sieves work and how human choice works they seem less important and less interesting to how sieves and people are different.
