(IFF) Free-Will is True (THEN) what?

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 154
#31
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,072
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
"It" is data processing.

All function is reliant upon data processing. Both consciously and subconsciously.

Can "free will" be anything other than independently formulating an independent thought, from acquired and stored data?

How freely we acquire data is a more questionable subject. Especially as we have no control whatsoever over how we acquire our genetic information.
#32
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
An expert will reject many options almost without thinking and will choose their move from a small subset of the options available
The master will see more options to win or reject because "loosing" move.

Your assesment is incorrect, as the  novice will not find more options purely because he has not the experience.

This is why AI programs are the true chess-masters, they see the most options for a specific set of parameters associated with specific game.

AI does not have experience of the many other relations that,  the novice or the chess master has.

If there is and earthquake, or unexpected baby birth or light bulb burns out or whatever outside the parameters of the game, many adult humans will have some measure of experience to deal with broader range of problems.
#33
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
The number of options is the same for a beginner as an expert - if what you mean by option is 'legal move'.

I regret saying anything as I don't really enjoy 'free will' threads any more!
.
#34
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
The number of options is the same for a beginner as an expert - if what you mean by option is 'legal move'.
Agreed, but

1} the number of many options for a valid move will take longer for a novice to see, if they can see/find at all, and especially so if the game has a time limit,

2] and with each option, that leads to seeing another set of manywin and/or loose the game options and the novice is just not going to see them as many as the master, ergo,

3} that is why AI wins, because it sees the most options for win or loose after each move.

So Ai sees more options than master and master sees more options than novice.

I regret saying anything as I don't really enjoy 'free will' threads any more!
Ive made clear from my first post and all subsequent posts, "free will" is irrelevant to this thread, even IFF free will exists, which it doesnt.

Seeing/finding the most options that win or loose is primary. Once that is found, then there exist, then we see a cause for a saying this or that move, or moving a finger, or whatever it takes to move the appropriate bit.


#35
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Will is true, the experience itself is the will because we can never ever know if the 'us' is choosing or the experience of the choice is thrust upon us. Really, we can't know because it is contingent on whether or not reality is fundamentally a simulation (no free will) or authentically physical and random (actual free will).

Even in the scenario of actual free will, we begin to realise that given all the physical components and every random element that the 'coming together' of everything to lead to the decision being made is inevitable within the framework of randomness so while there will is free of pre-assertion it is not really free of instantaneous quasi-determinism.

#36
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
@mustardness
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
If free will is real that then it should be possible to imagine a person without free will, and that person would be different from a person with free will.

So what would a person without free will be like?   If you asked a free-will-less person to choose between tea or coffee, what would they do?  if free will does not exist there can be no difference between having it and not having it.... how confident can be be that there is no difference between having and not having free will?

 
#37
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@keithprosser
Your choice of the tea or coffee is enslaved to brain chemistry, hormones and context/environment. Not a single thing about it is free of things entierely outside of your control.
Topic's author
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
So what would a person without free will be like?
I think the prevailing hypothesis says that children (and animals) either do not have freewill or they have some muted or reduced capacity for freewill (and are therefore not as morally culpable for their actions/decisions as an adult human).
#39
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
@3RU7AL
Your choice of the tea or coffee is enslaved to brain chemistry, hormones and context/environment.
That is a distinct possibility.  However it assumes rather than proves free will is absent.

If I choose tea, it is because I desire tea at that time.  'Fancying a cuppa' is a subjective state.  It is - as yet  - not proven that 'fancying a tea' and 'fancying a coffee' are different brain states.  I'd bet money they are different states, but the existence of an 'ethereal free will' that is not part of physical reality is a theoretical possibility.

I think it will remain a theoretical possibility until the problem of how subjectivity arises is cracked.  Chalmers does not call that 'the hard problem of consciousness' for nothing - it is extremely hard.




#40
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
So what would a person without free will be like?
They are like you, RM, 3Br, M-tard etc.

The brain chemistry chooses no-go until something clicks and then there is yes-go.

I originally likened this to a 'making a judgement' and likened a judgement to collaspe of the sine-wave as a point-particle{ ex photon } with a definitive value.

Ergo to click is to judge, to judge is to bring that which is more dispersed into a point-to-able focus via graviton, darkion, photon, neutrino, electron or and aggregate collective set thereof.

To click = BING! PING! RING! DING! etc and the appropriate collective set will move the eye, finger leg, etc.

Cause > effect > resultants > cause > effect > resultants is an eternal perpetual motion machine we call Uni-V-erse.

The 24 chords of the 4-fold cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron aka jitterbug transforms { 3D collaspe }via spin-contraction of its convex { positive } shape and then linear  { 1D expansion } into a double sine-wave /\/\/\/ at 90 degrees to each other { + }  

Collectively  the 6 and 8 adds to 14 surface polygons ergo 7 axi-of-spin LINK ;

4 axi-of-spin for diametric opposite surface triangles { /\ },

3 axi-of-spin for diametrically opposite surface squares { [  ] }.

What this tells me is that 4-fold cubo-octahedron --spherical?-- as some aspect of maximally dispersed Space and Time  that contracts inwardly in 3D and then expands outward in 1D   is some how associated with the mechanism-of-judgement. BING! at levels of Space and Time.

Remember that, the 4-fold cubo-octahedron{ VE } contracts to define the 5-fold icosa{20}|hedron LINK and the 5-fold icos{20}ahedron contains its own 10 great polygonal planes that define four differrent sets of the VE LINK.

I believe each of Fullers great circles are actually abstracts for a 3D torus { as vector }.

Space(>Time<)(>Time< )Space

....Space(>*<)  i  (>*<)Space








#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,072
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
Unpredictable maybe.
Topic's author
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Given the rules of chess there is a definite number of options - as in legal moves - at each point.  
Another way of thinking of this would be that a lawyer (presumed legal expert) should be more morally culpable (aware of legal moves) than a layman.

A beginner cannot evaluate the avaliable choices effectively - especially for the opening few moves - so it feels to them that they have a wide choice.
I've always heard "ignorance of the law is no defense" but recent news stories seem to suggest that is not always the case.

The problem here is that, by allowing ignorance of the law to be a de facto defense, we disincentivize INTELLIGENCE.

We are essentially punishing people for being intelligent and rewarding ignorance if we allow ignorance to be used as a defense.

An expert will reject many options almost without thinking and will choose their move from a small subset of the options available.
You might also imagine a scenario where the expert makes moves that take advantage of the novice's lack of knowledge of the rules.

The expert will quickly scold the novice for making an illegal move, but the novice is not prepared to (immediately and confidently) scold the expert if the expert decides to make an illegal move.
#43
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
not sure how this relates to free will..
Topic's author
#44
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
not sure how this relates to free will..
Moral culpability.
#45
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Unpredictable maybe.
Only means we cannot find { map } the order of proccessing.  A house owner looks inside their electric service panel and sees random mess of wires. Electricians sees orderly set of wires and connections thereof.


3Ru--Moral culpability.

Again this is differrence between those who can find more options   ---should know better--- and those who know very little, whether because of brain dysfunction or too young to have broader base of experience and/or was never taught the differrence between what is ok and what is not ok.

The judge makes a judgement as to whether the person should have CLICKED! with a judgement of go or no-go.

I originally likened this to a 'making a judgement' and likened a judgement to collaspe of the sine-wave { /\/\/ } as a point-particle{ ex photon } with a definitive value.

To click is to judge, to judge is to bring that which is more dispersed configuration { Out } into a point-to-able focus { In } via graviton, darkion, photon, neutrino, electron or and aggregate collective set thereof.

To click = BING! PING! RING! DING! etc and the appropriate collective set will move the eye, finger leg, etc.

Cause > effect > resultants > cause > effect > resultants is an eternal perpetual motion machine we call Uni-V-erse.

God/Uni-V-erse is best represented by the 4-fold cubo-octahedron{ Vector Equilibrium  wherein we have the only polyhedron of Uni-V-erse that has exhibits perfect { static }  balance between;

24 radii { radiating Outward }

24 chords { cohering Inward }

This becomes self evident when constructing the VE from four hexagonal planes were we find 24 radii and 24 chords LINK

This is perfect balance between the two primary forces of Uni-V-ese;

-->Inward<---  ex mass-attraction

<---Out--->  ex EMRadiation

So the question becomes, wherein do we find the 'free will' within a cause > effect > resultant effects of motion, fluctuations, oscillations of Uni-V-erse of perpetual motion?

I find it as the seemingly 2D triangular tail wing { /\ } of the seemingly 2D  flying hexagon { __/\ } via the jitterbug  configurations of the 3D cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron.

1} The triangular tail wing stands erect as if to say I refuse to allow the totality of the 3D VE to succumb to 2D existence only.

2} there is bounce away affect when the two triangles attempt to collapse into the seemingly 2D { one triangle } only tail wing i.e. when the two lower chords of the two triangles appproach each other the bounce off each other and return to the quasi-3D tetrahedral configuration and then,

back to the complex quasi-2D and quasi-circular, complex octahedral polygonal sine-wave configuration, and from there,

3} to the seemingly 2D saddle-shape associated with the negative curvature  of a inner surface of a torus and from there, there are multiple possible pathways the jitterbug can transform into.

All of these above, plus the 5-fold quasi-icosaehedron configuration is partly why Fuller refers to the Vector Equlibrium as the Operating System of Uni-V-erse.

 


#46
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
if determinism holds then whether we blame or punish wrobg-doers is iteself pre-determined, as is the outcome of this debate.  'Que Sera Sera'.

Sorry i'm not very motiated by the 'free will' topic anymore. I'm faking it!

Topic's author
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
if determinism holds then whether we blame or punish wrobg-doers is iteself pre-determined, as is the outcome of this debate.  'Que Sera Sera'.

Sorry i'm not very motiated by the 'free will' topic anymore. I'm faking it!
My primary aim is to expose the underlying mechanisms that inform "how we should act".

It appears that most of the identifiable "winners" of recorded history were primarily motivated by unadulterated self-interest (charismatic sociopaths).

The law in particular seems to be a thinly veiled cudgel used to intimidate and destroy the challengers of those privileged to wield it.

When I was young I thought the law was an unfeeling machine that grinds up anyone who crosses its path regardless of individual talent, wealth, or power.

Now I only wish that were true.

Ironically, the concepts of "objectivity" and "freewill" make us complacent slaves.
#48
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Ironically, the concepts of "objectivity" and "freewill" make us complacent slaves.
The question becomes, are we slaves to our ego {  i  }?


Ego, like oxygen is a double-dedged sword. Cuts both ways, good and/or bad.

Winchester rifle was good for cavalry and bad for Indians, at least until the Indians got their hands on them and the ammunition.

Biology { *  * } is the occupied space vehicle of determinsim.

Ego { i }  is the metaphysical-1 { spirit-of-intent } resultant thereof.

Knowing or believing that, --or something similar to it---  may be why some fee,l that, what ever they do is justified in a more cosmic  sense.

Their ego tells them they are operating-for-the-greater-good, or just their personal greater good, or both?


#49
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
the identifiable "winners" of recorded history
What is a 'winner'?  Millions of people have died peacefully after a pleasant but unremarkable quiet life that left no mark on history.  Then there is, say the Emperor Valerian.   Becoming a Roman Emperor perhaps makes him a 'winner', but accrding to one account he was killed by havin molten gold poured down his throat.  Is that a 'win'?    There are countinless other examples of course - Hitler, Mussolini, Sadam Hussein...

I suspect many 'winners' are over-driven and rarely experience peace.   Mediocrity may not be glamorous, but what is a good life?


#50
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Free will exists as far as you are aware of it. Free will plus infinity makes an interesting combination of crazy. Infinity plus anything really, imho. How can you settle with one answer in such a case. The concept of anything existing in such a setting is crazy enough. How do you rationalize "everything" existing. I digress. Freewill will exist how i define it... but without there being an "i"... what really is freewill but an accident. 
Topic's author
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Outplayz
Free will exists as far as you are aware of it.
Freewill exists as a Qualitative emotion.
#52
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
The only intelligent people who think free will is true are people playing semantic games where they try to redefine free will. For example maybe defining it as "Acting in a manner you want to".

With that said, it is more useful to believe in free will than it is to believe in free choice
#53
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@keithprosser
I would characterise a psychopath as an individual who's brain circuits prioiritise 'harm/benefit to self' over 'harm/benefit to others' significantly more than the population norm.

Sounds more like a sociopath. sociopathy, psychopathy and narccisism are often conflated with each other and annoyingly so.

sociopath- can not feel empathy and is therefore not even human because being human requires empathy

narcissist- somebody who thinks higher of himself than others, usually it is just a front mask feelings of inferiority

psycopath- Gets off on being devious, mean and hurting others. All sadists are psycopaths, not all psycopaths are sadists though 
Topic's author
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
if determinism holds then whether we blame or punish wrobg-doers is iteself pre-determined, as is the outcome of this debate.  'Que Sera Sera'.

Sorry i'm not very motiated by the 'free will' topic anymore. I'm faking it!
My primary aim is to expose the underlying mechanisms that inform "how we should act".

It appears that most of the identifiable "winners" of recorded history were primarily motivated by unadulterated self-interest (charismatic sociopaths).

The law in particular seems to be a thinly veiled cudgel used to intimidate and destroy the challengers of those privileged to wield it.

When I was young I thought the law was an unfeeling machine that grinds up anyone who crosses its path regardless of individual talent, wealth, or power.

Now I only wish that were true.

Ironically, the concepts of "objectivity" and "freewill" make us complacent slaves.
#55
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
My primary aim is to expose the underlying mechanisms that inform "how we should act".
A mechanism of how we do act I can understand, but a mechanism of how we should act sounds odd to me...

It appears that most of the identifiable "winners" of recorded history were primarily motivated by unadulterated self-interest (charismatic sociopaths).
What is a winner?  Someone 'ordinary' who dies happy after a humdrum life might not go in the history books but is ending up hanged from a lamp-post like mussolini actually 'winning'? Who gets to say what anyone else must strive for?

“The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..”
(John Milton, Paradise Lost).


#56
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
The law in particular seems to be a thinly veiled cudgel used to intimidate and destroy the challengers of those privileged to wield it.
I.e he who owns the gold makes the rules ergo yet another variation of the golden rule.

Golden Rule has many variations

The golden rule --do unto others as you would have them doonto you---- has
a common variation in many countries and religions. I wondered if there
were any other rules with such commonality e.g,

Is there a silver rule also? "Seek fair and just resolution with
compassion and empathy for those who violate the laws and moral codes of
humanity or its distinct tribes. "

Perhaps a wooden rule? Forgiveness by God is instantaneous, forgiveness
by humans takes time.

Or the bone rule? Eye for eye and toothe for a tooth. [im not sure if
any animals other than humans practice this concept]

Molecular rule? "Share not with your cousin what you would not have
them share with you."

Quantum rule? "Know that the uncertainty of mind, being common to all
humans, does not neccessitate chaos."

Space-time Rule? ---Pee-Here-Now is a rendition of Ram Dass’s 'Be Here Now'

Topic's author
#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
A mechanism of how we do act I can understand, but a mechanism of how we should act sounds odd to me...
It probably looks something like, "what is your goal in life", or "how do you decide on a (provisional) goal?", or "do you try to choose a goal that has the fewest risks while still retaining some reasonable potential for maximal goal achievement?"

Do you think you are currently equipped to predict what you will want at the end of your life?
#58
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I hope that what I want at the end is that it isn't the end.  I hope I never desire death.

There is a great Dylan Thomas poem I must quote:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I want to go 'raging against the dying of the light'.   I know death is inevitable and final - but I don't have to like it!
Topic's author
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I hope that what I want at the end is that it isn't the end.  I hope I never desire death.
Well, good luck with that.

1177 days later

#60
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Luck of the draw, even tho the draw is predetermine by the ultra-high { macro } set of relationships and inter-relation ships of the ultra-micro { Gravity and Dark Energy } quantum Universe.

We do not quantise nor quantify Gravity nor Dark Energy, and maybe never will. Even if we could, the ultra-high number lines-of-relationship could not be tracked much less show us the cause/action > effect/reaction > resultants {?}