81–84 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and that the spike was visible before the person was consciously taking the decision Or does that just mean that our ability to measure when a decision is made is flawed?
That's the point of the article. It shows that the spike is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the computation cannot be reduced to a simpler algorithm then no matter how you compute the future state you get that human thinking, feeling and making a choice. What's the difference between the human thinking, feeling, making a choice and a trained neural network making a 'choice'? I would not say a neural network has free will. > The difference with game NPC is that the algorithm doesn't have a hardcoded set…
The difference is most likely the organization and the complexity of a network. Neural network doesn't have free will because it is too simple and can't even pass turing test. > I think that if the universe is deterministic and computable then that implies no free will, since humans are part of the universe and therefore also deterministic and computable. I agree that universe being deterministic and computable means…
I don't see what the Turing test has to do with free will, but it has been beaten multiple times already.
> But what is the evidence for "deterministic and computable" implying "no free will"?
Deterministic and computable universe would mean the entire existence of a human would be deterministically determined by the point in space and time he was born. If you re-ran the simulation from before the person was born to their death, the universe would progress through the exact same states.
> So even if you can compute what the human will do, you can't predict, because the act of computing is the same as human doing.
That's like saying if you ran a random program without knowing it's source code you could not predict what it would do until you actually ran it. I don't see what that has to do with free will. In a simulation free will would be the ability to change your choices between runs of the exact same universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is most likely the organization and the complexity of a network. Neural network doesn't have free will because it is too simple and can't even pass turing test. > I think that if the universe is deterministic and computable then that implies no free will, since humans are part of the universe and therefore also deterministic and computable. I agree that universe being deterministic and computable means…
> The difference is most likely the organization and the complexity of a network. Neural network doesn't have free will because it is too simple and can't even pass turing test. I don't see what the Turing test has to do with free will, but it has been beaten multiple times already. > But what is the evidence for "deterministic and computable" implying "no free will"? Deterministic and computable universe would mean…
>> The difference is most likely the organization and the complexity of a network. Neural network doesn't have free will because it is too simple and can't even pass turing test.
> I don't see what the Turing test has to do with free will, but it has been beaten multiple times already.
my point was that neural network doesn't have free will, because it is too simple and cannot be regarded as a person, Turing test is one objective way to check if a program is capable of thinking. The wikipedia page on Turing test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test is not aware of any of the times when it was beaten.
> If you re-ran the simulation from before the person was born to their death, the universe would progress through the exact same states.
sure, it would be like a time machine.
> In a simulation free will would be the ability to change your choices between runs of the exact same universe.
that would not be a free will, that would be an absence of will, because if nothing changes why would person's reaction change?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But humans don't exist in a vacuum, your decision process was programmed into your brain by nature & nurture, and you had no control over either - the decision process for any control you think you might have had was previously programmed into you brain without your choice.
> your decision process was programmed into your brain by nature & nurture, But that's asserting the absence of free will, which you can't do in an argument meant to prove the absence of free will. Your interpretation of a free will experiment can't involve assuming a-priori that there is no free will.