Another thread about free will

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 113
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps its easier to tthink about 'people' rather than robots.

Imagine a 'person' who moved only when pushed.  Push him and he'll keep walking in the same direction until he is pushed to go in a different direction.   Clearly such a 'person' is lacking something that regular people have - i.e. 'free will'

Free will is something you, I and airline pilots have that balloons and industrial robots don't.  What it is it hard to pin down, but I think that it is mistake to dismiss 'free will' as non-existent or to define it in such a way that one can ignore the philosophical issues it raises- such as if a computer/robot can be programmed to manifest free will - it is certainly manifested in human brains!
Do insects have free will?

Do dogs have free will?

Do babies have free will?

Do all humans have an equal amount of free will?

Do people have more free will in some situations and less free will in other situations?

If you can't identify or measure free will, then it would seem to be a poor standard for anything and functionally meaningless.
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
Brains are subjective, computers are objective.
Full stop.  Computers are clearly subjective.

A computer is sample biased by its available data.

This makes it axiomatically subjective.
#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
For example [1]"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" or [2]"the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". "Free will" is just a label to describe the ability to make a choice.
As for your first definition, "necessity" and "fate" are unfalsifiable concepts and are therefore blatant appeals to ignorance.

And your second definition, "possible" is also an unfalsifiable claim.

All arguments attempting to defend free will are identical to the "god in the gaps" arguments defending theistic/deistic belief.

If I remember correctly, you maintain that insects have free will and I will agree with you if you expand your definition of free will to include any choice.

I only have trouble understanding the people who insist that only adult humans have this magical free will pixie dust rattling around in their heads.
#34
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Computers are clearly subjective.

Let me clarify. 

Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

I concede that computers are programed by subjective humans but they do not perform tasks based on their own personal tastes, feelings or opinions. I also understand your objections to the word "objective" so I could change my statement to "brains are subjective, computer processes are not". 
#35
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
As for your first definition, "necessity" and "fate" are unfalsifiable concepts and are therefore blatant appeals to ignorance.

And your second definition, "possible" is also an unfalsifiable claim.

Those are not my definitions, I just copied then from a couple of dictionary sites. If you disagree with the definitions, feel free to create your own. That however, would change the nature of the argument.
Topic's author
#36
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
"There is a difference between the balloon and the pilot and the difference is will but having will does not necessitate freewill. The pilot could decide to fly to Bordeaux, or even into a mountain, but why would he? Be careful if there is a reason to do so then it isn't necessarily freewill it is a response to the cited reason and if there is no reason then it is a random act and a random act is not the exercise of freewill it is just rolling dice."

A pilot can decide to go Bordeaux - a balloon cannot.

If a pilot did divert to Bordeaux then presumably it would be in response to a desire to go there.  Which leads to the question of what is  'a desire'?.
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TwoMan
Those are not my definitions, I just copied then from a couple of dictionary sites. If you disagree with the definitions, feel free to create your own. That however, would change the nature of the argument.
You can use any definition you please.

I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.

#38
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Which leads to the question of what is  'a desire'?.
Genetic programming  ergo desire is reduced to cause, effect and resultants.

We have genetic programming vs Artificial Programming { AI } via a genetically programmed programmar

Computers algorithmic programming aka AI, is so much less inclusive of a broader range ---generalization---  of considerations we call context, that a human nervous system may consider and we call intuition.

Computers best intuition abilities is to run a huge number of programmed --programmed to learn--   alternative possibilities to what is stated, or typed to arrive at a word, or words of what the user may have intended.

Greater degrees of access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts inherently means greater degrees of any alledged degrees of free will.

Animals degree of access is much less but non-existent.

It is all a matter of degree and it is all a matter of programming, genetic or artificial { derived from greater degree of access to  metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept access }
 






#39
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
It doesn't matter what a desire is unless your desires are under your control and you do not choose your desires.
Topic's author
#40
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
How to know if we don't know what 'a desire' is?   Of course one can always assume things about desires... 
#41
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Ok by what definition of desire do you decide what to desire rather than simply realizing that you desire it?
#42
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.
Me either. I think it is because the idea of freewill is intimately linked with consciousness, and we do not understand consciousness. If we did, then a workable definition might be the ability to make conscious choices.

#43
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
They're both made of matter and therefore obey the laws of physics. In what way do you think that the airline pilot can violate the laws of physics to allow for an expression of free will in a way a balloon cannot?
#44
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Stronn
Fuller laid out clearly what minimal consciousness requires;

1} observer ...........O...............

2} observed ..........O...............

3} line-of-relationship between the two O-----------O or as (O)( )( )( )( )( )(O)

4} background within which the above three exist.

Minimal consciousness is awareness ergo otherness ergo twoness.

Maximal consciousness is awareness of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Consciousness seeks to find order.  To make sense. To put the ducks in a orderly pattern rows and count them as numerical sets.

All of these process are integrative. To cohere, as does gravity ( ).  To make a whole set as integrative oneness.

All of these lead to creatures with concepts of Universe, and Universe as God, or a God outside of Universe, that looks back in upon the finite Universe, as if this God is holding the  finite Universe, in its conceptual hands.

Contractive  and integrative Gravity ( ) coheres all as one unified set we call Universe.

Gravity leads to { causes } and expansive and disintegrative resultant we observe and identify as Dark Energy )(,  that attempts to separate/dissipate all.   






#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.
Me either. I think it is because the idea of freewill is intimately linked with consciousness, and we do not understand consciousness. If we did, then a workable definition might be the ability to make conscious choices.
Whenever anyone says the word, "consciousness" I hear, "magic fairy dust".

And while were on the subject of unfalsifiable statements, I'd like to note that I'm pretty sure an automobile has a soul.
#46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
If we truly have free will, how come by my will I can't jump to the moon and jump back? How come I can't breathe under water or walk through walls?

The only free will is God's will.

Topic's author
#47
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
They're both made of matter and therefore obey the laws of physics. In what way do you think that the airline pilot can violate the laws of physics to allow for an expression of free will in a way a balloon cannot?
That is the problem!   Quite clearly there is a difference between an airline pilot and a balloon - and only an aspiring philosopher would deny it.   The major difference (relevant in this context) is that if we were interested in predicting where a balloon will go and where a pilot will go, for a balloon we can pretty much ignore any 'internal states' and only consider outside influences such wind direction.

But in the the case of a pilot it is 'internal states' that are paramount.

Typical of such an internal states would be 'desires' - say a desire to to go Bordeaux.   Which raises the question of what is a 'desire' made of.   It is a desire a physical object?   If so, I'd like to know how that works!   but if a desire isn't a physical object, then there is no guarantee it is subject to ordinary causality.



#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
These things that swim around in the mind are indeed physical. Physics is the study of causaility. The things that swim around in the mind clearly are causaliy linked to the rest of the physical world.
#49
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
That is the problem!   Quite clearly there is a difference between an airline pilot and a balloon - and only an aspiring philosopher would deny it.   The major difference (relevant in this context) is that if we were interested in predicting where a balloon will go and where a pilot will go, for a balloon we can pretty much ignore any 'internal states' and only consider outside influences such wind direction.

But in the the case of a pilot it is 'internal states' that are paramount.
Yeah, and in the case of a pocket watch the internal states are paramount to predicting its future states, even more so than a human being. Ergo pocket watches have more free will than human beings?

Typical of such an internal states would be 'desires' - say a desire to to go Bordeaux.   Which raises the question of what is a 'desire' made of.   It is a desire a physical object?   If so, I'd like to know how that works!   but if a desire isn't a physical object, then there is no guarantee it is subject to ordinary causality.
Whatever it is, there is no indication that the human brain, or human desires, violate laws of causality or physics in any way, shape, or form.

Topic's author
#50
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
If a watch starts in glasgow airport and ends up at heathrow then the internals of the watch are irrelevant, so I am unsure that counts as a good counter-example!

But if a guided missie was to go from glasgow to london then it would indeed by a matter of its internal state.

However, I think I made a mistake say 'internal states' which implies physical location. It would have been better if I had said 'subjective states'.
#51
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
Gravity is both inside/internal and external to the human.  Desired stems from genetics.

Pilots, balloons, missiles etc, have internal and external factors involved where travel, at what speeds, direction, of if they travel at all, outside of their already existent motion ---minimal twoness--- relative to sun, moon and all other celestial phenomena.

Only humans come to consider relative motions via their magical access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Humans conceptual abilities create a new twoness set of being outside of self looking  back in order to attempt to steer those desires, design those balloons, missiles and genetic alterations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuller laid out clearly what minimal consciousness requires;

1} observer ...........O...............

2} observed ..........O...............

3} line-of-relationship between the two O-----------O or as (O)( )( )( )( )( )(O)

4} background within which the above three exist.

Minimal consciousness is awareness ergo otherness ergo twoness.

Maximal consciousness is awareness of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Consciousness seeks to find order.  To make sense. To put the ducks in a orderly pattern rows and count them as numerical sets.

All of these process are integrative. To cohere, as does gravity ( ).  To make a whole set as integrative oneness.

All of these lead to creatures with concepts of Universe, and Universe as God, or a God outside of Universe, that looks back in upon the finite Universe, as if this God is holding the  finite Universe, in its conceptual hands.

Contractive  and integrative Gravity ( ) coheres all as one unified set we call Universe.

Gravity leads to { causes } and expansive and disintegrative resultant we observe and identify as Dark Energy )(,  that attempts to separate/dissipate all.   


#52
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
You can't  tell me that someone watching their mother burn to death isn't getting sucker punched by physics.
#53
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Isn't that your god's work?
#54
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
I don't believe in gods, I believe in God.

The Absolute Truth being God.

So if you are going to say that you don't accept reality because horrible things happen, what does that make you?


#55
Shed12
Shed12's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 72
0
0
4
Shed12's avatar
Shed12
0
0
4
Why wouldn't a balloon have free will?
#56
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I accept reality and horrible things happen, I'm not the one so petrified of death that I need to believe in fantasies, that's what godists do. Your god is just one of the many that mankind has created, without man gods don't exist and that includes yours no matter what placeholders you give them.
#57
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
However, I think I made a mistake say 'internal states' which implies physical location. It would have been better if I had said 'subjective states'.
What's a "subjective state"?
#58
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
I don't care about anything you've said. You are superstitious.

And The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on humans to exist. If that was the case. It wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality.


There is no reality without God, so either you do believe God exists or you are just saying what you think sounds convincing.
#59
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@drafterman
What's a "subjective state"?
Maybe its a subjective state of mind i.e. instead of objectively harvesting information, information is  being subjectively applied ex designing and app { application } program for computer.

R. B. Fullers thoughts on purpose of humans, that makes them differrent from other animals;

1} objectively harvests information,

2}  sorts and winnows out information,

3} discover out patterns and principles,

4} subjectively applys patterns and principles to human technological designs in support of humans and integrity of Universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only humans come to consider relative motions via their magical access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Humans conceptual abilities create a new twoness set of conceptually placing self  outside of self looking  back in order to attempt to steer those desires, design those balloons, missiles and genetic alterations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuller laid out clearly what minimal consciousness requires;

1} observer ...........O...............

2} observed ..........O...............

3} line-of-relationship between the two O-----------O or as (O)( )( )( )( )( )(O) i.e. geodesic line-of-relationship

4} background within which the above three exist.

Minimal consciousness is awareness ergo otherness ergo twoness.

Maximal consciousness is awareness of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Consciousness seeks to find order.  To make sense. To put the ducks in a orderly pattern rows and count them as numerical sets.

All of these process are integrative. To cohere, as does gravity ( ).  To make a whole set as integrative oneness.

All of these lead to creatures with concepts of Universe, and Universe as God, or a God outside of Universe, that looks back in upon the finite Universe, as if this God is holding the  finite Universe, in its conceptual hands.

Contractive  and integrative Gravity ( ) coheres all as one unified set we call Universe.

Gravity leads to { causes } and expansive and disintegrative resultant we observe and identify as Dark Energy )(,  that attempts to separate/dissipate all.   

All if not  most, pushing-OUTward forces/phenomena are resultant of gravitational, pulling-INward phenomena.
#60
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Which leads to the whether any seeming and superficial 'free will' is a pushing-OUTward, or pulling-INward phenomena if it were to exist?

Fuller shows pathways of thought to be a process of seperating out / winnowing out what is the relevant information, from the irrelevant background noise.

So we have incoming flow, that circles around in nervous system, and,

1} free will pushes-away or, pulls-away{ outward } the irrelevant info or,

2} pulls-INward the relevant info from all if the irrelevant info.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only humans come to consider relative motions via their magical access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Humans conceptual abilities create a new twoness set of conceptually placing self  outside of self looking  back in order to attempt to steer those desires, design those balloons, missiles and genetic alterations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuller laid out clearly what minimal consciousness requires;

1} observer ...........O...............

2} observed ..........O...............

3} line-of-relationship between the two O-----------O or as (O)( )( )( )( )( )(O) i.e. geodesic line-of-relationship

4} background within which the above three exist.

Minimal consciousness is awareness ergo otherness ergo twoness.

Maximal consciousness is awareness of metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Consciousness seeks to find order.  To make sense. To put the ducks in a orderly pattern rows and count them as numerical sets.

All of these process are integrative. To cohere, as does gravity ( ).  To make a whole set as integrative oneness.

All of these lead to creatures with concepts of Universe, and Universe as God, or a God outside of Universe, that looks back in upon the finite Universe, as if this God is holding the  finite Universe, in its conceptual hands.

Contractive  and integrative Gravity ( ) coheres all as one unified set we call Universe.

Gravity leads to { causes } and expansive and disintegrative resultant we observe and identify as Dark Energy )(,  that attempts to separate/dissipate all.   

All if not  most, pushing-OUTward forces/phenomena are resultant of gravitational, pulling-INward phenomena.