Is there a workable defintion of free will?

[Thor 2]

Okay you're all over the map here. The brain is completely materialistic but consciousness is not "computational."

Err yer ..... I think that is what barehl implied.

"There is a disproof that consciousness can be created computationally."

Mind you I haven't seen such a proof yet but would be relieved to see one. If we create AI that has self awareness, and I would assume self preservation would be an automatic, we are in deep ****.

 

[Loss Leader]

But how much of that is dependent on the reality of a physics based deterministic outcome?

I've never thrown anybody onto someone else's lawn. I'll do some experiments and let you know.

 

[jrhowell]

There is a disproof that consciousness can be created computationally.

I am very curious about this. Could you provide more details?

The best I have seen in the past is the argument that a simulated strorm doesn’t make you wet. While true that reasoning doesn’t apply to control systems. If I replace my mechanical thermostat with a computerized one that simulates its function then it will be performing real temperature regulation and my house will actually by comfortable in the winter.

 

[Aridas]

I doubt it. Quantum noise is random. Perfectly, uniformly random. It's not affected by anything we know.

Such would describe how it appears to us at present, given the tools and methods currently at our disposal and the quite limited sample size. It's reasonable to work with the information that we have, but not to assume that we know everything.

just wanted to point out, that you can't look for free will there either. Some people do ..

Indeed, some have and will likely continue to try. Random selection is a decidedly different concept than intentional choice, though, so they'll be hard pressed to come up with something worthwhile.

 

[Aridas]

The absolute definition of free will belongs to our Creator alone, but through Christ Jesus we are blessed with our Creator's longing to share that absolute with us.

That's an interesting, if demonstrably inaccurate version of the nature of definitions, but that's quite uninformative about what the definition that you're talking about is.

The best way to conceptualize human free will is to look at some one who is alive and some one who is dead.

This basic concept is presented in the Creation story of man in the Holy Bible.

Although mans shape and form are complete, he doesn't become a living soul until our Creator breathes into his nostrils the breath of life; in essence his free will before being alive is hypothetical, dormant, only potential.

That is why death is but a sleep to the Lord, the real sanctity in free will is our interaction with Him.

This... doesn't actually help? I'm aware of a few different versions of free will that tend to be employed by Christians and this doesn't seem to even come close to any of them, given that description. The closest might be the version where free will is the choice between doing what God wants you to do and doing anything other than what God wants you to do? Free will in that case is pretty well limited to when one is alive, though, and would not be hypothetical, dormant, or potential at any time when one is not alive.

 

[Aridas]

Err yer ..... I think that is what barehl implied.

"There is a disproof that consciousness can be created computationally."

Mind you I haven't seen such a proof yet but would be relieved to see one. If we create AI that has self awareness, and I would assume self preservation would be an automatic, we are in deep ****.

Why would self-preservation be automatic? Self-preservation for the species that we know can very likely be attributed to the nature of the selection process that gave rise to them. If we were to create AI via a process of conflict and the elimination of the "losing" ones, that would be a beneficial trait, but in an effective vacuum of such, would have no particular reason to have such a trait without it being intentionally included.

 

[David Mo]

"The will is a faculty, or set of abilities, that yields the mental events involved in initiating action".
"For those who contrast ‘free’ with ‘determined’, a central question is whether humans are free in what they do or determined by external events beyond their control".
From Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

My own definition of free will: The ability to acting for reasons and not for causes. If self-preservation is a cause, I cannot act against it. If it is a reason, I am able to act against it. In the second case my will is free.

 

[Myriad]

Several have suggested that volition is algorithmic. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis within computational theory. However, if this were true then volition would work without consciousness.

Not if consciousness also results from the same computation that enables the volition. (By the way, I think it is misleading to substitute "algorithm" or "equation" for "computation," because both of those alternative imply a predictable if not already known result and the outcomes of most computations in nature are not predictable except by performing an equivalent computation.) I hypothesize that the computation in question is the processing of memory and sensory input into a running narrative of agents acting in the world.

It is narrative understanding that allows us to choose actions based on the outcomes we predict for them rather than solely on immediate response to stimuli. That's a highly advantageous ability.

 

[Chanakya]

Why not? They limit our ability to do whatever we want. They're no less real than brain chemistry or social/moral pressures. I can't fly, I can't be attracted to men, and I (personally) can't murder someone. I don't see a difference.

Some of your examples are, I think, indeed examples of our (lack of) free will, while some are not. The straight man's inability to be attracted sexually by another man, and, arguably (because this could lead to not unreasonable hair-splitting about the definitions of 'murder' and 'someone') your professed inability to murder someone, these I suppose would actually be examples of (no) free will. Your inability to still your heartbeats or to walk on water, not.

As to why not, I suppose that old chestnut would explain that? "Man can do what he wills but not will what he wills"? (With all the necessary qualifications added to make that statement actually true.)

 

[Chanakya]

How much hand-holding is required here?

If all the actions people take are the result of an extremely complex equation
If A

Then free will would be the ability, somehow,
Then free will is

for a person to take an action contrary to the result of that equation.
NOT A

Surely you're intentionally hair-splitting around Ray Brady's meaning (which seems clear enough to me)?

I think that 'A' part of yours should include the implicit and unspoken qualification (if you want to spell it out as you do) : 'per materialism and determinism and all that'. So that 'free will', if believed (or shown) to be true, would actually be a refutation of materialism and determinism (at least as they apply to this issue). There doesn't seem to be any logical inconsistency here!

 

[wea]

Such an algorithm is not theoretically possible.
There is a disproof that consciousness can be created computationally.

Others have already asked. Are you going to support your claim or are we supposed to simply buy into it?

 

[SOdhner]

On a practical day to day level, of course we do in the sense that we have personal volition that we can be held accountable for and are in control of.

And in my experience this is where the problem comes up with the way religious people want to discuss it. If there's an all-knowing all-powerful god that created the universe in the way most Christians (and a lot of other religions) believe, then ultimate responsibility rests at His feet. So they need another layer of free will, something that lets them say "Yes, god knew exactly what would happen from the moment He created the universe and he could have created it so that things happened differently BUT this is still your fault and so it's fair that you're going to burn in hell".

Obviously this is a tough thing for them to define, and the most I've ever seen them do is essentially "we have free will because god gave us free will" without any attempt to show that there's a mechanism for it or anything.

Well I think the process can have some quantum noise in it .. nothing in this universe is strictly deterministic .. and brain seems to contain actions small enough for it to have some effect. And even if brain contained strong anti-noise measures, the way our digital computers do, you still have noise at the inputs ..
Anyway .. people can behave quite logically, if they want to, so I guess there is not that much noise .. and obviously, noise isn't free will.

Yeah, the "is the universe deterministic" thing is a red herring. Throwing some randomness into the mix does not generate the kind of free will that people mean when they have this discussion. "I did this because it was a chain of unbroken causality from the beginning of everything" and "I did this partly because of causality and also there were some random variables" aren't different in any significant way because neither involves a choice.

The absolute definition of free will belongs to our Creator alone, but through Christ Jesus we are blessed with our Creator's longing to share that absolute with us.

See, this is a good example of a religious person making it clear they're not going to properly define terms. It's all going to be "we have free will because god".

The best way to conceptualize human free will is to look at some one who is alive and some one who is dead.

That doesn't seem like a useful way to answer this question.

Anyway, there are two types of free will. The everyday one that boils down to "are you responsible for what you just did", which obviously exists in the only way that could possibly matter to us in the real world... and then the free will that religion needs to exist in order to justify hell, which cannot be defined in a way that makes sense and doesn't seem to have any logical space to exist in.

So to answer the question in the thread title... no. Not in the way people who want to debate free will would need.

 

[Bikewer]

I would think that the notion that I chose McDonald’s over Taco Bell for lunch because of some massively and indecipherable complex equations that govern everything from the moment of the Big Bang.... Is somewhat counter-intuitive.

I would think that for the average person not steeped in philosophy or religion that the notion would rather more than counter-intuitive.

We are biological creatures that evolved due to a series of quirks and contingencies that could have gone any way at any point in natural history. We are not inevitable...

The only fly in the ointment regarding free will (the ability to make choices) is the recent research indicating that many, if not all decisions are made by the subconscious and then that decision filters up to the conscious mind in such manner that the mind fools itself into believing that IT made the decision.

 

[barehl]

Okay you're all over the map here.

In what way? My position is consistent. If you think it's "all over the map" you need to rethink your (obviously incorrect) assumptions about my position.

The brain is completely materialistic but consciousness is not "computational."

I'm not sure why you are confused about this. Statics, hydraulics, and aerodynamics are all useful, well established sciences. So, if I asked you to explain lift in terms of statics or to explain stiffness in terms of hydraulics could you do it? No, you couldn't. Similarly, you can't explain consciousness in terms of computation; you need a different area of science.

 

[Belz...]

I've seen a number of arguments against free will but they seem to all include a definition that is self-contradictory. I don't really have a background in philosophy so perhaps there is a definition that does work that I haven't heard of yet.

If you're talking about libertarian free will, that's impossible. Your actions are either the result of a specific chain of deterministic factors, in which case you have no say in the matter; or they are at least partially the result of random, impossible-to-determine factors... in which case you have no say in the matter.

Compatibilist free will is another matter, but it exists only because we're not aware of the above-mentioned factors.

 

[jrhowell]

So, if I asked you to explain lift in terms of statics or to explain stiffness in terms of hydraulics could you do it? No, you couldn't. Similarly, you can't explain consciousness in terms of computation; you need a different area of science.

That is a weak argument. There are many areas of science, such as fluid dynamics, that can be described and explained using computational models. You haven't proved that consciousness cannot be treated the same way.

 

[The_Animus]

Similarly, you can't explain consciousness in terms of computation; you need a different area of science.

What are you basing this on? All information I've seen indicates that consciousness comes from a brain system that is of sufficient sophistication. Our brains receive input from sensory organs, process it, and produce output in the form of thoughts and actions.

Regarding computers, as our hardware has gotten better and or software more complex, we've been able to create programs with greater sophistication such that people can't tell if they're taking to a person, or whether a review or story was written by man or machine. Tests of AI systems have been shut down because the agents invented their own language to communicate more efficiently making it hard for the researchers to continue following along.

The idea that "consciousness" is really just a sufficiently sophisticated software system with input and output seems the most likely scenario at the moment. Human made software just isn't sophisticated enough yet, but is slowly getting there.

I'm not sure what other explanation you think makes sense nor what other areas of science are needed to explain it.

 

[Thor 2]

Why would self-preservation be automatic? Self-preservation for the species that we know can very likely be attributed to the nature of the selection process that gave rise to them. If we were to create AI via a process of conflict and the elimination of the "losing" ones, that would be a beneficial trait, but in an effective vacuum of such, would have no particular reason to have such a trait without it being intentionally included.

You may have a point there. I suppose it's possible a self aware AI may not enjoy the experience and wish to self destruct. If it did have the desire to cling to "life" however we could be in trouble, as its goal of self preservation would perhaps override any other goals we might try to impose.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I wouldn't mix will and consciousness, or self awareness. As for AI, I don't expect anything good out of it. I don't think AI would prioritize self preservation, but I for sure know I do. That's why I don't want to help in AI construction, even by speculation. I think it's in our grasp already. People working on it should recognize it and stop it. Thing is, people can't stop. Not all of them. But every day counts, right ?

 

[Aridas]

Anyway, there are two types of free will.

Given the sheer number of different versions presented and the distinct issues that they are intended to address... definitely more than two.

and then the free will that religion needs to exist in order to justify hell, which cannot be defined in a way that makes sense and doesn't seem to have any logical space to exist in.

A more accurate description here would likely invoke the "God is good, despite all the clear indications that it's extremely evil" concept, rather than simply focusing on hell. The morality of hell existing in the first place is a decent example of what they're trying to avoid a meaningful examination of, much like the morality of punishing Adam, Eve, all their descendants, and effectively everything else that lived in (or outside of) the Garden of Eden for an action that YHWH would, under any fair and objective judgement, bear full and total moral responsibility for, but the overall focus is more abstract than just particular examples.

So to answer the question in the thread title... no. Not in the way people who want to debate free will would need.

I'll still disagree with this. There are a number of workable definitions of free will. No single all encompassing one of use, of course, but that's to be expected when a bunch of different concepts have been lumped together under an umbrella term.