Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

That's right. You can only make the choice that you make. But if that choice comes from evaluating options, and the grey matter in your head contains an evaluation engine (which I argue appears to be the case), then you have free-will.

By your definition ... a computer program that solves a Sudoku puzzle has free will.

Ah well... you have just defined free will to mean nothing... which it indeed is ... so you are right... humans' free will is indeed as meaningful as a computer program's free will... i.e. meaningless.

That's right. You can only make the choice that you make. But if that choice comes from evaluating options, ...

What is that???

If a mother has to work 3 jobs to pay for the costs of cancer treatment for her son... did she choose to do so?

If she is so exhausted as a result of her "choice" and falls asleep at the wheel... did she "choose" to do so???

And if she kills a pedestrian and her baby in a pram ... did she "choose" to do so?

And if the husband of the killed pedestrian and baby goes into a rage in the courtroom and kills the driver... did he "choose"???

And while in prison for his crime he joins a gang for protection and later when he goes out on parole he pays his dues to the gang which protected him while in prison by assassinating an enemy of the gang as ordered... did he choose???

 

[DetectedMotion]

Does anyone here who have responded to the OP question believe that your own response was an act of your own Freewill? Or did you just feel the need to respond?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Does anyone here who have responded to the OP question believe that your own response was an act of your own Freewill? Or did you just feel the need to respond?

Both. I don't see a conflict.

 

[GDon]

Can a sufficiently complex robot be programmed to have free-will? I think it can....

Ok... I give up....

I understand, but this goes to the heart of the problem. If your answer to the above question is 'yes', then we can conclude the same can be true for us.

If the answer is 'no', then I'd ask 'what would need to be included so the robot has free-will?' At this point, the person saying there is no free-will can't actually provide an example of what genuine free-will would look like. That's because any example is regarded as an **illusion** of free-will. But how can we have an illusion of something if we don't know what that something is?

For me, the brain has a free-will engine that makes decisions influenced by our genes and environment. I think we can create something like that in a robot as well. Whether the universe is deterministic or not is irrelevant.

Now, I can't point to the part of the brain that has the free-will engine. But I think it is a viable hypothesis based on experience. And if you regard my experience as being an illusion of free-will, then tell me what the non-illusionary free-will looks like. Don't describe what free-will **isn't**, describe what it **is**.

Eventually that might be demonstrated through a "free-will Turing" test.

But... what is a free-will Turing test?? And surely it would not be a Turing test... it would be a GDon test.... but first... what is that??

Turing test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

"The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950,[2] is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human."

So the "free-will Turing test" would be along that line. How it would work though, I have no idea. It was a throw-away idea.

 

[junkshop]

As is the case every time this question comes up, we will fail to reach consensus. The concepts invoved are just too greasy. If we can't agree on what 'free will' and 'pre-determination' are, then we're ****** - and we can't, so we are (******, that is).

Given that this problem is (practically, at least) insoluble, I have taken the entirely unscientific approach of following my feelings on this matter. I prefer to think that I have free will, that my decisions are my own, made of my own volition, according to my whims, and are my responsibility, as opposed to being predetermined, preordained, or otherwise inevitable.

Can I know that this is true? Can it be proven? No. Can it be disproven? No.

I choose, then, to continue in the assumption that I have free will/agency/self-determination (call it what you will), because I want that to be true. I will continue to take full credit, and accept full responsibility for whatever dumb **** I do and/or say.

 

[Darat]

..snip..

Now, I can't point to the part of the brain that has the free-will engine. But I think it is a viable hypothesis based on experience. And if you regard my experience as being an illusion of free-will, then tell me what the non-illusionary free-will looks like. Don't describe what free-will **isn't**, describe what it **is**.
...snip....

Well no - the positive claim is that there is something called "freewill", it's up to those that claim we have it to define what it is.

And that's when we keeping hitting the "Olmstead Objection" - we can't define freewill in a way that means we could have made a different "choice" than the one we did. (And we need to be careful with the word "choice".)

Your freewill engine idea doesn't define freewill, but you are saying that freewill does exist, whatever it is, and it exists in the brain. But that's just assertion.

 

[Leumas]

Turing test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

"The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950,[2] is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human."

I know what a Turing test is... what I do not know is what a "free-will Turing test" is...

So the "free-will Turing test" would be along that line. How it would work though, I have no idea. It was a throw-away idea.

And evidently neither do you... and why put Turing's name in it... when what you are proposing despite not knowing what it is, has nothing to do with the actual Turing test... why not call it Chinese Room Free Will test.... but even then it still has nothing to do with that either... so just call it the GDon Free Will Test... despite of course that you have no test... so it is all a meaningless idea that is indeed one to be thrown away.

I understand, but this goes to the heart of the problem. If your answer to the above question is 'yes', then we can conclude the same can be true for us.

It is a no.

If the answer is 'no', then I'd ask 'what would need to be included so the robot has free-will?'

Nothing... can't be done.

At this point, the person saying there is no free-will can't actually provide an example of what genuine free-will would look like.

Yes... because there is no such thing.

That's because any example is regarded as an **illusion** of free-will. But how can we have an illusion of something if we don't know what that something is?

Just like we did not understand anything about anything throughout human existence... and not long ago we used to push little virgins into volcanos to pacify the anger of the volcano god.

Right now you are trying to push a "pseudo-Turing test" into brains to pacify the free-will god.

For me, the brain has a free-will engine that makes decisions influenced by our genes and environment.

Yes... it is called the brain... and it gives you the illusion that you are choosing from amongst choices when you are only REACTING to the choices.

I think we can create something like that in a robot as well. Whether the universe is deterministic or not is irrelevant.

Yes... it is called a PROGRAMMING ALGORITHM... not free will... just like the one in our brains called GENETIC IMPERATIVES.

Now, I can't point to the part of the brain that has the free-will engine.

Indeed... you cannot point to something that does not exist.

But I think it is a viable hypothesis based on experience.

Yes... the illusion is way too convincing.... just like this one below... no matter what you do you cannot make your brain see that the squares A and B have the exact same color.

And if you regard my experience as being an illusion of free-will, then tell me what the non-illusionary free-will looks like. Don't describe what free-will **isn't**, describe what it **is**.

You cannot describe what does not exist... except as part of imaginary constructs... i.e. illusions.

 

[Darat]

As is the case every time this question comes up, we will fail to reach consensus. The concepts invoved are just too greasy. If we can't agree on what 'free will' and 'pre-determination' are, then we're ****** - and we can't, so we are (******, that is).

Given that this problem is (practically, at least) insoluble, I have taken the entirely unscientific approach of following my feelings on this matter. I prefer to think that I have free will, that my decisions are my own, made of my own volition, according to my whims, and are my responsibility, as opposed to being predetermined, preordained, or otherwise inevitable.

Can I know that this is true? Can it be proven? No. Can it be disproven? No.

I choose, then, to continue in the assumption that I have free will/agency/self-determination (call it what you will), because I want that to be true. I will continue to take full credit, and accept full responsibility for whatever dumb **** I do and/or say.

I'm with you on this - I feel like I make choices and there doesn't seem to be anyway around this "feeling of being able to make choices" so it's how I choose to live my life.

But I like chewing the fat about it, it brings up lots of interesting titbits.

 

[Dr.Sid]

As I said .. "free" IMHO means simply "random". Ie. not 100% depending on the previous experience. Random is not really "free" some might want (typically theists) .. but it's the only meaning possible in this context.
From ethical point of view it's irrelevant anyway. Our experience is so complex, that our decisions are unique and unpredictable either way.
Of course you might wonder if everything is determined .. but you don't have to go for complex systems like mind and will .. we can't tell that about position of any single elementary particle.

 

[GDon]

Yes... it is called the brain... and it gives you the illusion that you are choosing from amongst choices when you are only REACTING to the choices.

How do you know it's an illusion? What would the real thing look like?

 

[Darat]

How do you know it's an illusion? What would the real thing look like?

You need to tell us what the real thing looks like, in other words define freewill.

 

[GDon]

Your freewill engine idea doesn't define freewill, but you are saying that freewill does exist, whatever it is, and it exists in the brain. But that's just assertion.

It's an assertion backed by observation. I think we all agree here that there is at least the **illusion** of free-will. What I'm saying is that it isn't an illusion, it really is free-will. The mechanism is my proposed free-will engine.

 

[GDon]

You need to tell us what the real thing looks like, in other words define freewill.

I'll use the one from the Free Will entry in Wiki:

"Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

 

[Darat]

I can work with that - thanks.

 

[Leumas]

How do you know it's an illusion? What would the real thing look like?

Answer the above two questions about the image below... and you will see that the same answer applies to "free-will" too.

How do you know it's an illusion?

It violates the laws of physics... and so does "free-will".

What would the real thing look like?

There is no real thing for that illusion... it is nothing but a construct in the mind presented in black and white on a 2-D paper.... and so is "free-will"

 

[Leumas]

I'll use the one from the Free Will entry in Wiki:

"Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

An illusion....

 

[Leumas]

It's an assertion backed by observation. I think we all agree here that there is at least the **illusion** of free-will.

Yes... that is right.

What I'm saying is that it isn't an illusion, it really is free-will.

Yes... just like a person who insists that Squares A and B in the image in the previous post are NOT the same color... and even after I show them... they still refuse to accept the FACT.

The mechanism is my proposed free-will engine.

This is as you said a meaningless idea worthy of throwing away... and you are right given you have no palpable anything of substance to support the idea in anyway.

 

[Thermal]

Optical and auditory illusions are working on different principles than free will. We could just as well proclaim gravity is an illusion and put up an MC Escher stair pic as a 'proof'. It doesn't prove anything.

Free will is generally understood as something like 'the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded', or to have independent agency over your fate. Legal systems worldwide function on whether an individual has free will, otherwise they could not be held accountable, as they had no choice. Even yea verily this very forum would serve no purpose, as argumentation would be pointless. We could not agree or disagree, or even change our minds without free will.

So to claim that we don't have free will is pretty much a fringe belief, that needs the proverbial extraordinary evidence. Can anyone provide what they consider solid evidence that this commonly understood state doesn't exist? No changing the subject, or passing the buck, or shifting the burden, or other word games. And toying with 'unencumbered' choice doesn't mean anything; we are all influenced by environmental/genetic factors. Those may predispose us to a particular conclusion or increase the probability of reaching one, but it does not negate free will.

 

[Thermal]

Yes... just like a person who insists that Squares A and B in the image in the previous post are NOT the same color... and even after I show them... they still refuse to accept the FACT.

The squares you are so convinced are demonstrating something can easily be shown to be the same color. Just block out the surrounding elements with your hands till the two blocks are in view, with a bit of the adjoining blocks shown. Without the visual confusion, it is pretty clear that they are the same color.

Now do the same with free will. Go on, demonstrate it. What you have been doing is skipping the 'demonstration' step and jumping straight to the 'conclusion' step.

All you are showing is that optical illusions exist and can be convincing. That is not an argument for or against free will.

 

[Olmstead]

Free will is generally understood as something like 'the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded', or to have independent agency over your fate. Legal systems worldwide function on whether an individual has free will, otherwise they could not be held accountable, as they had no choice. Even yea verily this very forum would serve no purpose, as argumentation would be pointless. We could not agree or disagree, or even change our minds without free will.

You're basically arguing that free will must exist, because the alternative would be too horrible/unpleasant/annoying to contemplate. That's not a very good starting point.

So to claim that we don't have free will is pretty much a fringe belief, that needs the proverbial extraordinary evidence. Can anyone provide what they consider solid evidence that this commonly understood state doesn't exist? No changing the subject, or passing the buck, or shifting the burden, or other word games. And toying with 'unencumbered' choice doesn't mean anything; we are all influenced by environmental/genetic factors. Those may predispose us to a particular conclusion or increase the probability of reaching one, but it does not negate free will.

What else other than environment and genetics is there? You're arguing for some sort of soul, something that would make a serial killer bad for the choices he has made, and a selfless samaritan good. What is it that makes one person perform the worst atrocities, and another person the greatest heroics? One of them surrendered to his base instincts, while the other transcended everything ... because? Because nothing. The more one thinks about this, the more it becomes apparent that free will doesn't make sense.