61–70 of 120 posts
I found that playing Rock, Paper, Scissors against an AI opponent demonstrated at least to me that I was not even able to make what I thought were random choices. The only way I could hold the AI to a draw was by using an external source of random numbers.
Also the only way to really make random choices is quantum mechanics. Everything else can only look random.
From what I understand of the Many-Worlds Theory, if it's correct, we can have both 'free will' and 'determinism': a man orders pizza, in 90% of possible futures he chooses a Margherita which is his favorite, but in 10% he orders something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are trivial in the sense that you can easily reason about them. Sure, you can construct wildly complex scenarios where available knowledge, resulting consequences, existing constraints, and what not make it non-obvious what can or cannot or should or should not be done but that this will only be a consequence of the complexity of the situation. This is in contrast to [magical] free will where you have fundamenta…
I'm sorry, but I still completely fail to understand why concerns about competence, informed decision making, ability to understand consequences and coercion is not _the_ relevant point here. Why is it relevant how easily we can reason about them?
Free will is inevitable.
If this universe has free will, did everyone in this universe have the free will to decide to be born into their current life? Did they decide to be born with free will?
What happens before birth (or conception really) is a Mystery.
I believe in anticipation though. A dog may bark in anticipation of owner returning home, before they come home or not.
So you need a frame of reference to speak of. If it's all bounded outcomes are certain. But nothing pragmatic is ever perfectly bounded..
Notice that Free Will doesn't imply we always get what we want!
I think self consciousness is the sticking point for a mechanical or probabilistic universe. It exists. It eludes quantifiable definition. It makes no sense in a mechanism. It is central to free will.
What if self-consciousness is merely awareness of the choices your clockwork body makes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they _do_ have something to do with _actual_ free will. When you drill down at what "free will" could plausibly and coherently mean, you inevitably end up focusing on these important differences. And then you can _actually_ begin to articulate why someone is culpable and another person isn't. A magical free will believer can't really make sense of that, because if free will is something indescribable and magi…
Because they _do_ have something to do with _actual_ free will. But this is the problem right there, you call it actual free will and someone believing in magical free will will deny this and call magical free will actual free will. Sure, one can do this, overload the term, and figure out from context what kind of actual free will is meant in each instance. But would it not be much easier to give up on the term free…
No matter the academic discussion of what free will is or isn't, we still have to address the fact that dominoes and animals and people appear to behave according to different rules. We have to consider the difference between freedom and coercion. We have to address what accountability and responsibility means, and what makes a person morally blameworthy.
This is what people talk about when they talk about free will. That's why people can claim they strongly believe in free will without being able to articulate, or even having thought much about, how free will is instantiated.
In short: Because "free will" is a name for something we concretely observe. We may be misinterpreting what we observe (maybe it _is_ an illusion), but we still only have that one name for that thing.
I found that playing Rock, Paper, Scissors against an AI opponent demonstrated at least to me that I was not even able to make what I thought were random choices. The only way I could hold the AI to a draw was by using an external source of random numbers.
Being able to make random choices is of course not free will. Also the only way to really make random choices is quantum mechanics. Everything else can only look random.
But in the opinions of some, the laws of physics stop at the neck, beyond which things are neither causal nor non-causal nor random nor non-random but 'free'. Whatever that might mean. (Apparently it's some sort of unmoving mover which moves itself and interacts with the universe without being interacted upon by the universe.)
Our destiny in this material world is determined by a combination of our partial free will and the three modes of material nature. According to our previous karma, we are destined to face certain situations in this life. In those situations we have a certain amount of freedom to choose how we want to react. Once we choose, we come under the control of the mode associated with our choice, and we are obliged to accept the consequences, be they happy or miserable.
Fate and free will, as described in the Bhagavad-gita, are analogous to the relationship between the state, the law-abiding citizen, and the criminals in prison. A citizen is considered free only if he obeys the laws of the state. If he breaks the law, he goes to jail. A prisoner may enjoy limited freedom to choose between reading a book or writing a letter: between Jell-0 or ice-cream for dessert; between work in the barber shop or in the kitchen. But he is not free to abandon the prison altogether. By comparison, the free citizen is in a better position, but both are controlled by the law. Practically, the only unconditioned exercise of their free will is in their decision to choose between being a good citizen or a criminal.
(Eat this!)