free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 712
#601
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
But why on earth would I want the power to choose what I don't desire?   A mail sorting machine is a glorified sieve that lets small grains through and blocks larger grains.   Sieves have no desire to distinguish between large and small grains - they do not choose.   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.
Interestingly, the ancient Chinese character for "discern" is a pictogram of a winnowing basket (for separating wheat from chaff).
#602
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
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.
Even if this is true, our ability and desire to "reprogram our minds" is an inevitable consequence of the causal chain (and some possible randomness).
Topic's author
#603
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
One quantifiable difference is that brains are more complicated and sifts chemicals and electrical signals rather than sand.
True,but that isn't the difference that gets people to say sieves don't (but brains do) have free will.
#604
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are going to even introduce randomness at all, you might as well concede that free will exists, because you are just arguing around your aversion to the term at this point.

You will not find even the most pious and well disciplined Orthodox Monk who will claim total liberty from causality. 


This argument is absurd in every way.

Topic's author
#605
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@Mopac
@3RU7AL
What are the odds we all mean the same thing by 'free will'?
#606
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The debate over the veracity of free will is absurd.

That being the case, the effects of the belief itself is what really should be examined. How is belief in free will or denial of free will used to justify certain actions? 







#607
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
On a debate site, it should be expected that people are here simply because they like to argue. 

Not saying that is anyone here!

#608
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
If you are going to even introduce randomness at all, you might as well concede that free will exists, because you are just arguing around your aversion to the term at this point.
You seem to be suggesting that (unknown undetectable uncaused causes) randomness = freewill.

Randomness =/= freedom.

Randomness =/= will.
#609
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
That being the case, the effects of the belief itself is what really should be examined. How is belief in free will or denial of free will used to justify certain actions?
By all means, let's skip directly to affirming the consequent.

Please present your list of pros and cons.
#610
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
What are the odds we all mean the same thing by 'free will'?
I'm pretty sure you're talking about a compatibilist version of freewill which is, "not directly and consciously coerced by another human being or group of human beings".

However, even this "common sense" definition is highly problematic.

For example, are laws, which are implicit threats of violence, coercive?
Topic's author
#611
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
The way I understand free will, randomness would be inimical to free will.  It may well be that 'noise' in the system means the precise evolution ofbrain states is inherenty ineterminate/chaotic (or insert prefered term here!), but such randomness is neither 'free' or 'will', for most common meanings of the words.
#612
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
The way I understand free will, randomness would be inimical to free will.  It may well be that 'noise' in the system means the precise evolution ofbrain states is inherenty ineterminate/chaotic (or insert prefered term here!), but such randomness is neither 'free' or 'will', for most common meanings of the words.
Well stated.
#613
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
You are implying that whatever free will is, it is impossible.
You  aren't even really open to free will being anything other than impossible.

In fact, if I were to say that the only truly free will is God's, as God's will determines what is, you would still deny free will or dismiss it ss meaningless out of an aversion to the concept itself. 







#614
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
The existence of anyrhing truly random is in itself just as absurd of a thing to debate, and I would argue that it is inconsistent to claim that free will can't exist because it defies causality while at the same time asserting the existence of the random as for something to be truly random it by definition must defy causality.

To dismiss free will as impossible because it defies causality while entertaining the existence of random is inconsistent.

#615
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
One quantifiable difference is that brains are more complicated and sifts chemicals and electrical signals rather than sand. 
True,but that isn't the difference that gets people to say sieves don't (but brains do) have free will.
What specifically is the difference in your opinion?

It seems like a simple matter of scale and complexity.  Machines can certainly be complex enough that we cannot predict their behavior in all possible conditions.

Are you hanging your hat on "unpredictability"?
#616
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The existence of anyrhing truly random is in itself just as absurd of a thing to debate, and I would argue that it is inconsistent to claim that free will can't exist because it defies causality while at the same time asserting the existence of the random as for something to be truly random it by definition must defy causality.

To dismiss free will as impossible because it defies causality while entertaining the existence of random is inconsistent.
When we started this, we both agreed that "true randomness" is extremely unlikely.

However, because some people assert that, at a quantum level (quantum flux), "true randomness" MAY exist, that gives them enough doubt to claim freewill is "possible" (god in the gaps, appeal to ignorance).

The only practical reason to include "randomness" (mixed with determinism to spawn indeterminism) is to point out that EVEN IF randomness "exists" and can disrupt the otherwise concrete causal chain, IT DOES NOT = FREEWILL.

Freewill cannot be causal.

Freewill cannot be random.

There is no hypothetical third option.
#617
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
True,but that isn't the difference that gets people to say sieves don't (but brains do) have free will.
And yet there is no reason to think that anything the brain does is not a direct consequence of this sifting process.

#618
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You are implying that whatever free will is, it is impossible.
Not exactly.  I'm saying that (IFF) freewill violates concrete causality (THEN) it must be indistinguishable from random noise.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain any definition of freewill you personally prefer.

You  aren't even really open to free will being anything other than impossible.
I am strongly biased against incoherent definitions.

In fact, if I were to say that the only truly free will is God's, as God's will determines what is, you would still deny free will or dismiss it ss meaningless out of an aversion to the concept itself. 
Even a hypothetical god cannot violate cause and effect without being indistinguishable from random noise.

And, if a god is the source of human freewill, then humans are de facto god puppets.
#619
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Your ability to diiscern things is not The Truth.

To make peace with the limitations of human knowledge in a great way is to approach God, who is The Ultimate Reality, with the type of humility befitting a creature of God.


Topic's author
#620
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Not on the fact of unpredictability but the cause of the unpredictability.
I take it you don't know what I will drink with my breakfast tomorrow (I don't!)!   But why not? Pretending the data could be processed, would a cmplete description of my physical brain state (andwhat will affect that state) be sufficient?   Can my preferences be inferred from physical measurements or is there a non-physical element involved?

One can dismiss non-physical elements on dogmatic grounds, but the problem with that is that one has to as how to manifest subjective desires in a purely physical object.  I see it as a 'special case' of the problem of consciousness - ie how to implement 'mental states' in a mechanism.

It's not far removed from the problem of writing a computer program that hates losing at chess.  It's trivial to et achess root to simulate eing angry, but no one (afaik) nows how to make a root feel 'real anger'.  Nor do we know how to make a machine with a desire or preference.

As a non-dualist, I am extremly annoyed that these days almost no-one is even trying to produce 'artificial consciousness'.   There are two proects that are trying to reverse-engineer brains 
But they don't seem to have a guiding theory - the idea seems to be to copy the structure of a brain and hope - it's cargo cult science.
Chalmers (and others) have presented arguments that dualism of some sort is essential for human-like consciousness.
Temperamentally I am an anti-dualist - but after 50+ years the excuses we physicalists trot out are wearing thin... 
   

#621
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
...almost no-one is even trying to produce 'artificial consciousness'.
Let me know what you think of this - [LINK] and this - [LINK]
#622
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Your inability to discern things is not The Truth.

To make peace with the limitations of human knowledge in a great way is to approach noumenon, who is The Ultimate Reality, with the type of humility befitting a spawn of noumenon.
Topic's author
#623
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting videos, but I think artificial consciousness and artificial intelligence are different things with very different goals.  Crudely, an AI chess program will beat a grandmaster but wouldn't gloat;  an AC chess program might play rubbish chess but hate losing.

AI has come on leaps and bounds, but arguably only by concentrating on efficient algorithms which do not resemble how brains work.  Chess programs use brute force to explore huge trees - its only the blinding speed and power of modern hardware that hides the fact it's basically trial and error!

My quick surf on google threw up very little in the way of any new stuff on AC.  I suppose that's because there is more commercial value in AI than AC,especially as no one knows how to begin programming an AC!

I am a retired programmer, and I was always vexed by the seeming impossibility of programming 'subjectivity' into a computer.   But brains clearly do implement subjectivity!   I'm sure brains don't work by magic, so what's going on? 

#624
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality is not the same thing as noumenon, a word that Kant used incorrectly.





Topic's author
#625
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Even a hypothetical god cannot violate cause and effect without being indistinguishable from random noise.
Yet...suppose god arranged for a dice(*) to come up 6 every single time forever, no matter how it was thrown or even placed very carefully with the wrong side up.

Coming up 6 every time forever is distinguishable from random noise!
#626
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Yet...suppose god arranged for a dice(*) to come up 6 every single time forever, no matter how it was thrown or even placed very carefully with the wrong side up.

Coming up 6 every time forever is distinguishable from random noise!
Right, however, if this hypothetical god had a REASON to make this happen, if this hypothetical god had some PURPOSE or GOAL in mind, then even this would be part of the causal chain.

A hypothetical god's desire and ability to create magical dice must (EITHER) be part of the causal chain (OR) indistinguishable from random (involuntary and uncaused glitch).
#627
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is not the same thing as noumenon, a word that Kant used incorrectly.
It is an unwarranted anthropomorphic fallacy to attribute human characteristics to "The Ultimate Reality".

"The Ultimate Reality" cannot be intelligent, or conscious, or compassionate, or just, or right, or good, or evil.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
#628
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
It's not far removed from the problem of writing a computer program that hates losing at chess.  It's trivial to et achess root to simulate eing angry, but no one (afaik) nows how to make a root feel 'real anger'.  Nor do we know how to make a machine with a desire or preference.
Please Quantify the difference between "real anger" and "programmed anger".

Aren't emotions involuntary physiological responses to neurochemical levels that serve as (evolutionarily efficacious) social signals?
#629
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Given the absurdity of expressing the Uncreated through the medium of creation, it should be apparent why it is we use these images to relate the divine revelation to people.

I know what it is I am speaking of with experiential knowledge. It would be beyond your own epistemological limits to say, "I don't know, I don't know how I could know, nobody can know."


You can't say whether or not God is any of these things. You don't truly know. You were educated in such a way as to negate what we teach. Not because they are true negations, but because they are redefinings and newspeaks very specifically intended to divorce thought from Christianity.

This happens to be the inevitable outcome of protestant scholasticism. Scholasticism itself being an error of the Latin church. Without the authority of that Latin Church to regulate this error that it embraced, anti-Christ philosophy is the inevitable outcome.

This is, after all what happens when people overly rely on outward reasonings rather than purifying the intellect. With that, it is easy to reason away the most enlightened of doctrines and the truest sayings of our fathers. It is true you can rationalize just about anything.

Topic's author
#630
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I think it's very hard to express things clearly in this area - ordinary language wasn't invented for doing philosophy!   But i was a programmer and I know what I can get a computer to do and what I can't get it to do.

I defy anyone to put what it is like to be 'subjectively conscious' or 'aware' into plain unamiguous words without relying on circularity.  All I can do assume is that you - and people in general - have the same sort of experience I do.  but however it is described,  i cannot imagine how code can instaniate subective experience

Consider the classic examle of the colour red.   To you or I red is a particular subective exerience ('quale'), but to a computer red is,say $0000FF.  Acomputer with the number $0000FF in a memory cell is not having the same experince of redness that I do when I see a london bus.  I know that because I know a bit about how computers work - they are not designed or constructed to have subjective experience.   I suppose someone could ask how I can be so sure aout that comutersdon't have the same subective exeriences as people.  My answer is that even if that were so, it doesn't explain how it works!  
A computer 'sees' a scene rather like a 'paint by numbers' before its filled in, with regions having no 'quale' but marked with a subectively neutral code number.
but we don't eperince the world like that, with uncoloured regions labelled '3' or '5'!  

I don't know if I can express what interests me about computerising subjectivity any better, inadequate though the attempt is.