Hawking says there are no gods

[psionl0]

Why can't that programming include the ability to make free-will decisions? Do you think that we might be able to create AI with the ability to make free-will decisions?

Because that would imply that random (or "intelligently" random) forces exist. In a deterministic universe, randomness doesn't exist - only pseudo randomness.

I don't see the need to have God involved in the process, do you? Atheist compatibilists like Dan Dennett believe that some form of free-will can exist in a determinist universe. Why does God have to be involved?

The alternative is to drop the notion that the universe is deterministic. Of course, this runs counter to Hawking's notion that the laws of nature are fixed and introduces massive gaps where anything could exist.

 

[Roboramma]

I thought you wanted to stop talking about this?

So you change the definition of panspermia to life was seeded here once. That is just as meaningless as saying panspermia refers to organic molecules.

Anyway, I really don't understand this comment. If panspermia doesn't refer to life on earth having had an extra-terrestrial origin, I don't know what it refers to.

I haven't redefined anything and it's certainly not meaningless if it were actually true that life on earth didn't originate on earth but was carried here by meteorites.

 

[GDon]

Because that would imply that random (or "intelligently" random) forces exist. In a deterministic universe, randomness doesn't exist - only pseudo randomness.

Why does that imply that "intelligently" random forces exist? Where would those random forces have to come from? Inside the universe, or outside? Can random forces have an impact on a deterministic universe?

I just don't see why free-will decisions can't simply exist as part of the results of physical brain activities. I'm not saying that there are no implications about how free we actually are if that is so, but that is a question for another day.

Let's look at an example. I have two choices: Option A and Option B. Based on my experiences and desires to date, I decide on Option A.

That's a classic free-will example. If that is not an example of free-will, what needs to be added so that it does become an example of free-will?

 

[psionl0]

Let's look at an example. I have two choices: Option A and Option B. Based on my experiences and desires to date, I decide on Option A.

The highlighted is the crux of the matter. All of the events of the universe combined result in your experiences and cause you to make your choice.

You yourself have said that there is nothing else in this deterministic universe therefore there is no way that you can act contrary to your programming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought you wanted to stop talking about this?


Anyway, I really don't understand this comment. If panspermia doesn't refer to life on earth having had an extra-terrestrial origin, I don't know what it refers to.

I haven't redefined anything and it's certainly not meaningless if it were actually true that life on earth didn't originate on earth but was carried here by meteorites.

I was stopping. That was a short statement, not a discussion. Why can't you just drop it, leave it there?

It's not that hard to understand. Pan the prefix, means wide, numerous, etc. It does not mean one, a single case.

Dictionary.com:

a combining form meaning “all,” occurring originally in loanwords from Greek ( panacea; panoply ), but now used freely as a general formative ( panleukopenia; panorama; pantelegraph; pantheism; pantonality ), and especially in terms, formed at will, implying the union of all branches of a group ( Pan-Christian; Panhellenic; Pan-Slavism ). The hyphen and the second capital tend with longer use to be lost, unless they are retained in order to set off clearly the component parts.

It does not refer to a single instance of life on Earth resulting from life emerging on a single planet or moon in the solar system and then arriving on Earth via a meteorite.

If you want to debate life forming on Mars and getting ejecting to Earth, that is a different discussion from claiming life is widespread in the Universe and is seeding planet after planet.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I was stopping. That was a short statement, not a discussion. Why can't you just drop it, leave it there?

It's not that hard to understand. Pan the prefix, means wide, numerous, etc. It does not mean one, a single case.

Dictionary.com:

It does not refer to a single instance of life on Earth resulting from life emerging on a single planet or moon in the solar system and then arriving on Earth via a meteorite.

If you want to debate life forming on Mars and getting ejecting to Earth, that is a different discussion from claiming life is widespread in the Universe and is seeding planet after planet.

No, it is not. They are connected because life is either unique here in solar system or generally present in the Universe.
We are debating the chances of life and you can't restrict that to here, because here is a part of the Universe, unless you believe here is special.

 

[GDon]

The highlighted is the crux of the matter. All of the events of the universe combined result in your experiences and cause you to make your choice.

I think you can't mean 'choice' there, since 'choice' implies free-will.

How would you reword that to indicate an expression of free-will?

You yourself have said that there is nothing else in this deterministic universe therefore there is no way that you can act contrary to your programming.

That's right. If the programming involves a program for free-will, then you have no choice but to make a free-will decision.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think you can't mean 'choice' there, since 'choice' implies free-will. How would you reword that to indicate an expression of free-will?


That's right. If the programming involves a program for free-will, then you have no choice but to make a free-will decision.

No, it doesn't! There are computer programs, who make choices. That is no different that humans. A choice is not free will, because you can explain choice without free will.

Show us a program for free will.

 

[GDon]

No, it doesn't! There are computer programs, who make choices. That is no different that humans. A choice is not free will, because you can explain choice without free will.

Please explain choice without free-will, and then choice WITH free-will. I'd like to understand the difference.

Show us a program for free will.

It would be one that freely came to a decision based on inputs.

If I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong. I.e. what would a program for free-will look like? How would it differ with a program without free-will?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Please explain choice without free-will.
...

A choice is a process in living organism and computers.
Example of a proto-choice.
Some species within zoo-plankton move up and down in water depending on the amount of UV-light. That is driven by genes.

Now taken a human. We have genes which enable us to learn. That we can learn, mean we can change within a life time. But it still comes from genes. A choice is two or more states in a brain, where another part of the brain based on nature/nurture chooses. But that is ultimately down to genes.
A choice is a natural process in some life-forms explain via evolution and genes.
You have input based on nature/nurture and thus get an output. You can't explain free will within nature, because choices are caused by something else.
Look at it this way. You have a chain of nature and genes. That leads to learning, thus nature/nurture. Learning is changes in an organism. All of this is caused and suddenly you have uncaused free will. You have a break in the chain of causation.

 

[kellyb]

I was stopping. That was a short statement, not a discussion. Why can't you just drop it, leave it there?

It's not that hard to understand. Pan the prefix, means wide, numerous, etc. It does not mean one, a single case.

Dictionary.com:

It does not refer to a single instance of life on Earth resulting from life emerging on a single planet or moon in the solar system and then arriving on Earth via a meteorite.

If you want to debate life forming on Mars and getting ejecting to Earth, that is a different discussion from claiming life is widespread in the Universe and is seeding planet after planet.

The people who promote and believe in "panspermia" as reasonable do mean that it might have been a one time event here on earth, carried by a meteor.

https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040216/full/news040216-20.html

Scientists have pondered whether life might ride between star systems ever since the nineteenth century. Some think that a collision between a life-bearing planet and another celestial body could scatter stones and boulders into space carrying living organisms. These deep-frozen spores could then make their way to other worlds - an idea called 'panspermia'.

It might have been a poorly chosen word for the concept, though. Wiki says the word dates to the 5th century BC, and took off 1834 in this paper.

 

[GDon]

You have input based on nature/nurture and thus get an output. You can't explain free will within nature, because choices are caused by something else.
Look at it this way. You have a chain of nature and genes. That leads to learning, thus nature/nurture. Learning is changes in an organism. All of this is caused and suddenly you have uncaused free will. You have a break in the chain of causation.

I don't understand what you mean by "uncaused free-will" and "break in the chain of causation". Can you give a practical example?

I think the issue is that you have defined free-will out of existence, without giving a clear explanation of what free-will would entail. We all agree I think that free-will decisions require an evaluation of past events (otherwise it would just be random will), but it seems that as soon as past events enter the picture, the assumption goes to non-free-will decisions. There is a confusing of concepts that makes progress in the discussion difficult.

 

[kellyb]

No, a decision, a thought and an opinion obviously aren't physical things. They can even be put down on paper or digitalized to be read on a screen, i.e. what you're doing now. That "actual chemical and electrical states of the brain" give rise to the ability to think doesn't mean that it causes your thoughts. (What would be the point of arguing if it did?) It may all rest on the synapses, but you, i.e. your mind, consider ideas, draw conclusions etc. The brain evolved to think, and that's what you do with it. Free will is "part of the biological, electrical and chemical state of a functioning human brain."

It's your genetics, combined with previous experiences possibly starting at conception, combined with current environment, that causes your thoughts, I'm pretty sure.

You reading my words just now caused you to have some sort of thought. That's how I think this goes. lol

I really don't see room for actual free will. I think it's just a powerful illusion. I guess I kind of subscribe to the computational theory of mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind

I have a really hippy-dippy way of looking at it, though, that's fun as at least a thought experiment. Here's how it goes:

My consciousness is a akin to a song, my brain is the instrument, and the universe itself is the musician. Other thinking and feeling entities (you, other people, my dogs, the cat, etc) are also songs, and we "riff" off each other, sometimes in beautiful ways, and sometimes in "musically" horrible ways.

Anyway, just my take on it all.

 

[psionl0]

Please explain choice without free-will, and then choice WITH free-will. I'd like to understand the difference.

Choice with free will means making a decision that is not just based on your inputs and your "programming" but some additional factor as well. You have failed to identify this additional factor and how it can exist in a deterministic universe.

Computers make choices based strictly on their inputs and how they are programmed. One of those inputs may be a random number generator (especially for games). This makes it appear that the computer is acting autonomously.

Most often it is a pseudo random number generator that the computer generates itself meaning that if we know the initial state of the computer, how it acts to a set of inputs is completely known. Of course, since there is a world outside the computer, it could get a truly random number from outside of its world.

Likewise, humans need an out-of-world input if they are to make decisions independently of their environment/programming. In a deterministic universe, there is nothing "out of this world".

 

[dann]

It's your genetics, combined with previous experiences possibly starting at conception, combined with current environment, that causes your thoughts, I'm pretty sure.

If you're that sure, you should tell us about the genes, conception and current environment that made you think so.

You reading my words just now caused you to have some sort of thought. That's how I think this goes. lol

But it doesn't. And even if it made me think, it wouldn't make me think anything specific. I have the ability to think it through, decide to wait and ponder upon your words etc. I can also decide to say to myself, 'Well, **** her. She is stuck in her behavioristic ideas and probably won't be able to see beyond them, so why bother?'
That is one of the many things that constitute free will: We can contemplate, revise our first perception of something, respond or not respond, forget the whole thing because we become preoccupied with something else that we find more interesting, etc. Nothing's determined.

I really don't see room for actual free will.

Your free will obviously allows you to think so. It also allows you to change your mind.

I think it's just a powerful illusion.

Then you should change your words to: I hallucinate that it's just a powerful illusion.

I guess I kind of subscribe to the computational theory of mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind

Even computers can run different kinds of very diverse software. And nowadays they have the ability to learn, too. But they still don't have free will - which is actually a pleonasm: If it's not free, it can't really be a will.

I have a really hippy-dippy way of looking at it, though, that's fun as at least a thought experiment. Here's how it goes:

My consciousness is a akin to a song, my brain is the instrument, and the universe itself is the musician. Other thinking and feeling entities (you, other people, my dogs, the cat, etc) are also songs, and we "riff" off each other, sometimes in beautiful ways, and sometimes in "musically" horrible ways.

Anyway, just my take on it all.

Interesting: So your carefully thought out analogy to the universe is somebody who is willing his inanimate instrument to play a certain tune ... or not.

In discussions like this, also in this forum, I often answer with a question: "What makes you think so?"
And it never fails! Never once did anybody say, 'Well, you know, I was delivered with forceps, my mother breastfed me till I was nine, and I dropped out of college after one year. I guess that must be it!'
Instead, even hard-core prederminists always come up with their actual reasons for thinking whatever they're thinking.

 

[GDon]

Choice with free will means making a decision that is not just based on your inputs and your "programming" but some additional factor as well. You have failed to identify this additional factor and how it can exist in a deterministic universe.

But I'm not claiming we need an additional factor. I'm saying that:
(1) We apparently have free-will
(2) Our apparent free-will is based on natural laws within our universe

The best explanation for why we have apparent free-will is because we actually have free-will. That free-will is based on natural laws within our universe.

So I am not proposing an additional factor. I am asking why an additional factor is required for us to have free-will. At this point it is irrelevant whether we live in a deterministic universe or not. What is that additional factor in your opinion?

Computers make choices based strictly on their inputs and how they are programmed. One of those inputs may be a random number generator (especially for games). This makes it appear that the computer is acting autonomously.

I'm not talking about current computers, but future ones. What is required to build a computer that has genuine free-will?

Likewise, humans need an out-of-world input if they are to make decisions independently of their environment/programming. In a deterministic universe, there is nothing "out of this world".

Well no, in a deterministic universe, all results are based on previous causes. An intrusion into such a universe would then became a part of that deterministic universe. But that is a separate question.

I have no idea what you mean by "humans need an out-of-world input" in order to make free-will decisions. Can you explain that please?

 

[psionl0]

But I'm not claiming we need an additional factor.

Obviously not but without it, humans will act strictly in accordance with the state and history of the entire universe (of which they are part of). You may say that you have free will but only because you are programmed to do so.

I'm not talking about current computers, but future ones. What is required to build a computer that has genuine free-will?

Digital computers will never have free will. As computer technology progresses, they will have sophisticated learning algorithms that will enable them to far exceed their original programming and it may be impossible to tell from their actions that they are not acting "of their own accord".

Computers that are (at least partly) based on biological technology may have some characteristics of living things that might be interpreted as "free will" - if it existed.

 

[kellyb]

If you're that sure, you should tell us about the genes, conception and current environment that made you think so.

No idea about my genetics, but the primary previous experience was encountering the question, thinking it through and "computing" that free will would have to come from something akin to magic if it exists, and reading the case against free will on naturalism.org, which was the same thing I was thinking, and that sort of solidified my position to about an 80% "certainty". My current environment is reading and posting in this thread.

But it doesn't. And even if it made me think, it wouldn't make me think anything specific. I have the ability to think it through, decide to wait and ponder upon your words etc.

It made you think what you just wrote right there! ^^^ lol And going through a long, complex, shifting-algorithm computational process is not evidence that free will exists.

I can also decide to say to myself, 'Well, **** her. She is stuck in her behavioristic ideas and probably won't be able to see beyond them, so why bother?'
That is one of the many things that constitute free will: We can contemplate, revise our first perception of something, respond or not respond, forget the whole thing because we become preoccupied with something else that we find more interesting, etc. Nothing's determined.

Like I said before, going through a long, complex, shifting-algorithm computational process is not evidence that free will exists.

Your free will obviously allows you to think so. It also allows you to change your mind.

When I change my mind, there's a reason. All "events" in this universe (or multiverse) are caused. A non-caused phenomenon like freewill would by nature have to be supernatural.

Then you should change your words to: I hallucinate that it's just a powerful illusion.

Sure. I'm fine with that.

Even computers can run different kinds of very diverse software. And nowadays they have the ability to learn, too. But they still don't have free will - which is actually a pleonasm: If it's not free, it can't really be a will.

Since I don't believe in free will, the concept of "If it's not free, it can't really be a will" is kind of gibberish to me. I just know I experience determination/"will". It feels free.
But there's no logical way to explain it not being caused. Everything is caused.

Interesting: So your carefully thought out analogy to the universe is somebody who is willing his inanimate instrument to play a certain tune ... or not.

I don't anthropomorphize the universe into a person. It's more like a machine, or a series of 3D woven guitar strings harmonically resonating "everywhere" in some sort of symphony I'm not privy to.

In discussions like this, also in this forum, I often answer with a question: "What makes you think so?"
And it never fails! Never once did anybody say, 'Well, you know, I was delivered with forceps, my mother breastfed me till I was nine, and I dropped out of college after one year. I guess that must be it!'
Instead, even hard-core prederminists always come up with their actual reasons for thinking whatever they're thinking.

Yeah, we store information and facts in our brains, have feelings, etc. None of that is evidence of free will.
It's both "reasoning" as an experience, and the reasons for the reasoning, at the same time. You have a brain because of genetics, you had experiences in the past, and the whole reason you're thinking about any of this is often current environment.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You don't "appear to have free will."

You have an entire hemisphere of your brain to tell you that you have "free will" after the act. Neuroscience can show that the parts of your brain that initiate an action kick in before the decision making process does. You're "Free Will" happens after your mind has already initiated the action. So apparently not only do we have the magical ability to have actions without causes, it can time travel.

"Free Will" isn't some magical genie that lives inside your head and makes you able to self cause your own actions from nothing. Natural, causative process in your physical brain happen and your mind creates a narrative where those things were "your" decisions.

And outside of creating a pointless Gap to shove God into, what does any of this have to do with Hawking's statement?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You don't "appear to have free will."

You have an entire hemisphere of your brain to tell you that you have "free will" after the act. Neuroscience can show that the parts of your brain that initiate an action kick in before the decision making process does. You're "Free Will" happens after your mind has already initiated the action. So apparently not only do we have the magical ability to have actions without causes, it can time travel.

"Free Will" isn't some magical genie that lives inside your head and makes you able to self cause your own actions from nothing. Natural, causative process in your physical brain happen and your mind creates a narrative where those things were "your" decisions.

And outside of creating a pointless Gap to shove God into, what does any of this have to do with Hawking's statement?

Tangent on whether nature is fixed in how it operates and that drifted to "free Will".