31–40 of 63 posts
When a decision-choosing algorithm says "I can't predict my own decisions, therefore they must be unpredictable in principle", that strikes me as unfounded.
Free will is how a decision-choosing algorithm feels from inside. Not much more to it, IMO. When a decision-choosing algorithm says "I can't predict my own decisions, therefore they must be unpredictable in principle", that strikes me as unfounded.
With high free will, human can adapt, customize, and innovate situationally optimized responses to an unpredictable environment. With low free will, a Sphex wasp can reactively activate one of its stored patterns and use very little expensive cognitive processing to react optimally in a predictable environment.
We desperately need a new way of thinking about free will. We really don't. The author of the article has written off hundreds of years of philosophical debate about determinist free will versus indeterminism and decided that his interpretation of free will, which falls firmly in the causal indeterminism camp, is the right way to think about things. Admittedly that's the nice one, because determinism is hard when it…
> The fact is whether or not we have free will is largely irrelevant. I think perhaps more proper would be to say, whether there is an underlying determinism or not is irrelevant (and that's what Dennett is saying). Free will (as in freedom) is relevant. And about that question, it's quite easy to: - Build a deterministic system on top of non-deterministic one. Just take a lot of indeterminism and average it. For exa…
This may be a bit nit-picky, but if i understand correctly, the fact that other agents in the system influence the one you understand in ways you don't is not the same as non-determinism. Arguably, if you knew the exact system date and all other software installed, you could predict exactly how your program would behave. It's just because most systems are sloppily specified (if at all, mind) that this isn't how it works.
But maybe i'm missing something fundamental ;).
Not really that compatible with free will in my view.
To slightly contradict myself, I don't think it's quite fair too say that the ability to wait for something can be an indicator of free will, since that characteristic can vary a lot, even among healthy adults. And describing some humans as having more free will than others appears very dangerous to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would…
Then by this logic one could argue, that locking them away for 30 years is not unfair because it is also predetermined by the state of the universe at this given time and there is nothing other people could do but to sentence the killer. Free will or no free will the argument goes both ways.
We desperately need a new way of thinking about free will. We really don't. The author of the article has written off hundreds of years of philosophical debate about determinist free will versus indeterminism and decided that his interpretation of free will, which falls firmly in the causal indeterminism camp, is the right way to think about things. Admittedly that's the nice one, because determinism is hard when it…
ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…
Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains and describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will".
I prefer to say that the thing we call "free will" is simply a confusion of ideas and it doesn't really make sense to talk about free wills or unfree wills. That's often the case with longstanding philosophical problems, which often began with superstition and then had centuries of extremely intelligent people devising concepts and arguments to justify and validate them. With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
See in particular, 3.3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…
that determinism has nothing to do with free will The theory goes that, on an atomic level, interactions between particles is a deterministic process - it's wholly and completely predictable because the outcome is determined by a knowable set of rules. Given the fact that our brains are just[1] a huge set of particles and chemical processes it should then follow that a perfect computer model of someone's brain would…
.. which are vastly incomplete, themselves, because we have not reached the limit for where the atoms stop and the particles begin, and even beyond that, there is much evidence that we have not gotten, in fact, to the bottom of things.
>The counter argument requires 'magic' in the form of something that we can control that can't be measured. That's a big ask for any rational scientist.
Good thing rational scientists are willing - pun intended - to continue the investigation and discover just what it is we have not measured, and cannot measure, until we decide to do so.
Can decisions be weighed? Do they have mass, energy, substance? Does a decision exist somewhere in the universe, or is it able to move around the physical universe unhindered by physics? It could be argued that there are no definitive answers to those questions ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is relationship between free will and ethics/morality?
If we don't have free will then we have no control over what we do. Consequently we can't be held to account over our actions if they weren't a choice.
If a robot went around killing people with an axe, we would stop it and dismantle it. We wouldn't shrug out shoulders and say "The robot can't help it so we can't hold it accountable for what it's doing."
If an individual does something to break the law, we hold that individual accountable for it. There are tons of modifiers, maybe the individual was under the influence of drugs, maybe the individual was mentally challenged, etc. These things modify how we hold the individual accountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then by this logic one could argue, that locking them away for 30 years is not unfair because it is also predetermined by the state of the universe at this given time and there is nothing other people could do but to sentence the killer. Free will or no free will the argument goes both ways.
Exactly. I have never understood why people use determinism to excuse bad behaviour, but fail to see the resulting punishment is just as determined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISTM that the hundreds of years of debate comes from a unfortunate misunderstanding provoked by many centuries of religious thought: that to be free we need some kind of "soul" apart from physical reality. (The article mentions that) But I don't fully understand why so many smart people, including non-believers, can't see the obvious: that determinism has nothing to do with free will. Free will is just a mechanism of…
> Free will is just a mechanism of finding a path between the set of natural forces operating inside our mind, including all the range of motivations, from basic instincts to sublimated aspirations. Then, unless you are positing some kind of outside force, the free-will-mechanism is also a natural force and a component of our brains and describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" e…
Of course, it's both, we're part of nature!!!
describing it as "free will" is not really sensible, since it is neither "free" except in a very limited sense nor a "will"
That's nothing more than semantic juggling. I've defined precisely what I understand as freedom, not an esoteric concept at all, but the absence of obstacles. You just ignored it, invoking exactly the falacy I mentioned: "except in a very limited sense". Why is it "very limited"? You don't even try to justify that qualification.
And "not a will"? Oh, come on! What is your definition of will? Something that has no causation? Of course our will is caused, by instincts based on natural needs: food, sex, group bonds, in the aspiration to dignity, improvement and solidarity. We're not free in a vacuum, but free to decide what means lead more effectively to goals and a personality that are given to us.
With free will, the problem is complicated by the fact that people do have a feeling of free will.
No, that's the most simple and truthful intuition. The complication comes from people trying to apply abstractions out of place and concluding that nothing heavier than air can fly.