• Is free will possible, or are we always affect by some level of determinism
    354 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650545]You must've had a bad philosophy prof if he didn't cover compatibilism.[/QUOTE] He did He didn't agree with it. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650555]No, because determination by causation isn't incompatible with a will being or not being able to express itself freely.[/QUOTE] You cannot express happiness when the chemicals for anger are present. Not just because you will it. Why do you believe this to be true?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650530]Let me ask you this; Can I intelligibly talk about a ball making a choice to fall or jump(bounce)? It is agents that we are talking about when we talk about choices, and choices aren't big bangs, they are influenced by circumstance, otherwise to say a choice is made would be nonsensical.[/QUOTE] I would say that falling ball is kind of representative of what your brain is doing. Following laws of physics, particles interacting with particles. You are really no more of an agent than that ball on the most fundamental level.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43650563]I would say that falling ball is kind of representative of what your brain is doing. Following laws of physics, particles interacting with particles. You are really no more of an agent than that ball on the most fundamental level.[/QUOTE] So is it nonsensical or not for me to say that the ball chose to fall down? In our language, and the way we use it, I would say it is nonsensical.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650573]So is it nonsensical or not for me to say that the ball chose to fall down? In our language, and the way we use it, I would say it is nonsensical.[/QUOTE] It didn't choose. That's the point. It is acting as it is acted upon.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650556]He did He didn't agree with it. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] You cannot express happiness when the chemicals for anger are present. Not just because you will it. Why do you believe this to be true?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but to say the chemicals for anger are present is to say that you currently want to be angry for one reason or another. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650575]It didn't choose. That's the point. It is acting as it is acted upon.[/QUOTE] But it is sensical in our language for me to say that Johnny chose to shoot Billy. It is part of our language and the way we speak.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650582]Yeah, but to say the chemicals for anger are present is to say that you currently want to be angry for one reason or another.[/QUOTE] Uh No? Not at all. Example. My dog gets run over. This causes great anger in me as I have been enraged. I however do not want to be angry and do not want to be in this state of mind. But you are telling me if that is the case i am willing that to be the case? how why [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] Yeah but our language isn't the most accurate thing around so why would we use terms to define things that are inaccurate just because we feel it sums it up better at an emotional level?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650594]Uh No? Not at all. Example. My dog gets run over. This causes great anger in me as I have been enraged. I however do not want to be angry and do not want to be in this state of mind. But you are telling me if that is the case i am willing that to be the case? how why [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] Yeah but our language isn't the most accurate thing around so why would we use terms to define things that are inaccurate just because we feel it sums it up better at an emotional level?[/QUOTE] Then you are angry because you're choosing to be angry, if you don't want to be angry make the choice to sit down take a couple deep breaths and relax. Go grab a chocolate bar or something and then you'll feel better. It's your choice to stay angry.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650594]Uh No? Not at all. Example. My dog gets run over. This causes great anger in me as I have been enraged. I however do not want to be angry and do not want to be in this state of mind. But you are telling me if that is the case i am willing that to be the case? how why[/QUOTE] You can try and fail and still have free will. Also, it is part of your will that when your dog gets run over you get enraged, if you will to change this because of some causal thing that sets that will in motion then you can take anger management classes. I would say your will isn't being infringed upon, you just don't like yourself. Certain things you can't change, like freckles. You can have them be part of you yet still hate them. You can be addicted to drugs yet hate it. The thing is that at such a point, when you are wrestling with something present in yourself that you do not like, be it drugs or anger, you are essentially acting out the play that is your will.
So I looked on wikipedia and solved this great philosophical mystery in four seconds. There was a nice quote that summed up Compatibilism, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Basically this isn't even a debate. The viewpoint is literally that you don't have control over the things you want to do. I don't even understand how anyone could call this free will. Call it that if you want, but we believe the same thing. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ViralHatred;43650614]Then you are angry because you're choosing to be angry, if you don't want to be angry make the choice to sit down take a couple deep breaths and relax. Go grab a chocolate bar or something and then you'll feel better. It's your choice to stay angry.[/QUOTE] You really aren't understanding any of the points being made here.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650628]You can try and fail and still have free will. Also, it is part of your will that when your dog gets run over you get enraged, if you will to change this because of some causal thing that sets that will in motion then you can take anger management classes. I would say your will isn't being infringed upon, you just don't like yourself. Certain things you can't change, like freckles. You can have them be part of you yet still hate them. You can be addicted to drugs yet hate it. The thing is that at such a point, when you are wrestling with something present in yourself that you do not like, be it drugs or anger, you are essentially acting out the play that is your will.[/QUOTE] So long as some agent doesn't force your to realize his will as opposed to yours, you have free will.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;43650614]Then you are angry because you're choosing to be angry, if you don't want to be angry make the choice to sit down take a couple deep breaths and relax. Go grab a chocolate bar or something and then you'll feel better. It's your choice to stay angry.[/QUOTE] Is it? How? Can you finally, finally, answer my question as to HOW [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] You keep saying it is but honestly, you've said jack on how that works.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;43650614]Then you are angry because you're choosing to be angry, if you don't want to be angry make the choice to sit down take a couple deep breaths and relax. Go grab a chocolate bar or something and then you'll feel better. It's your choice to stay angry.[/QUOTE] You don't get to choose whether you sit down and relax. You do or you do not. There is no choice involved. Your body receives stimulus, your brain is affected by the stimulus in some way determined by its initial state, and it causes the rest of your body to act in a particular way. Nothing happened which can sensibly be called "choice." A ball does not choose to fall. It can't choose whether it's going to fall or not. We can conceive of a ball either falling or not falling, but it's determined entirely by environmental factors. You "choosing" what you're going to do next is no different than the ball. There are just more moving parts.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650628]You can try and fail and still have free will. Also, it is part of your will that when your dog gets run over you get enraged, if you will to change this because of some causal thing that sets that will in motion then you can take anger management classes. I would say your will isn't being infringed upon, you just don't like yourself. Certain things you can't change, like freckles. You can have them be part of you yet still hate them. You can be addicted to drugs yet hate it. The thing is that at such a point, when you are wrestling with something present in yourself that you do not like, be it drugs or anger, you are essentially acting out the play that is your will.[/QUOTE] You're looking at will and outputs like they're more than they are
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650665]Is it? How? Can you finally, finally, answer my question as to HOW [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] You keep saying it is but honestly, you've said jack on how that works.[/QUOTE] You do what you will. You can not speak about it not being your will because otherwise it would be someone else's will. So therefore you chose to get angry. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] 1.Free will is the ability to do what one wills. 2.Free will is the ability to do something else given the exact same momentary circumstance. I use definition 1, and you cannot provide an argument for why I should not. You may as well try to argue why I should like the flavor orange.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650684]You do what you will. You can not speak about it not being your will because otherwise it would be someone else's will. So therefore you chose to get angry. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] 1.Free will is the ability to do what one wills. 2.Free will is the ability to do something else given the exact same momentary circumstance. I use definition 1, and you cannot provide an argument for why I should not. You may as well try to argue why I should like the flavor orange.[/QUOTE] You will to fly. Can you? No. Sorry, that's not how it works. You can only do what you can physically do.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650684]You do what you will. You can not speak about it not being your will because otherwise it would be someone else's will. So therefore you chose to get angry.[/QUOTE] How about your will is nobody's will? Perhaps the concept is just wrong.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650754]You will to fly. Can you? No. Sorry, that's not how it works. You can only do what you can physically do.[/QUOTE] You're right, my free will is infringed upon by gravity. It is holding me down. Luckily I also want to swim, but I can do that. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Falubii;43650774]How about your will is nobody's will? Perhaps the concept is just wrong.[/QUOTE] That's silly, why would [I]you want[/I] to say that. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] Free will isn't all or nothing. I can be dragged away but I can still spit your eye.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650775]That's silly, why would [I]you want[/I] to say that.[/QUOTE] Alright I think I've had enough here. Nothing you've said in the whole thread really has anything to do with the question asked in the OP, because we all already know the answer.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43650801]Alright I think I've had enough here.[/QUOTE] I am outlining the fact that in order to use language we need to address Identity to will (agents) in order to make sense.
Okay? We can pretend that there are agents making decisions, but that doesn't make it so. Acknowledging it's an illusion doesn't pull you out of the illusion for long.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43650815]Okay? We can pretend that there are agents making decisions, but that doesn't make it so. Acknowledging it's an illusion doesn't pull you out of the illusion for long.[/QUOTE] It is only an illusion if you think that free will lies in being able to create a new timeline. If you think free will lies in the free expression of will, then it isn't an illusion.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650808]I am outlining the fact that in order to use language we need to address Identity to will (agents) in order to make sense.[/QUOTE] Yeah you're really only making your position less strong by arguing it is for our own ability to make issues seem less conflicting to us. we do not need to dress up the world to deal with it. sorry, we don't. yes, your will is being stopped by gravity, but even if there was no gravity you would not fly without the right prerequisites for flight, you would simply be floating. You lack the ability to fly because it is not in your set of abilities and you are not physically capable of it. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650825]It is only an illusion if you think that free will lies in being able to create a new timeline. If you think free will lies in the free expression of will, then it isn't an illusion.[/QUOTE] but the expression isn't free and isn't outlined by freedom to decide what you want to do if you want to view every expression of a persons will as there freedom to do that action, then I guess as it is the only action they can perform at the time it makes sense but there is no choice in the matter
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650830]Yeah you're really only making your position less strong by arguing it is for our own ability to make issues seem less conflicting to us. we do not need to dress up the world to deal with it. sorry, we don't. yes, your will is being stopped by gravity, but even if there was no gravity you would not fly without the right prerequisites for flight, you would simply be floating. You lack the ability to fly because it is not in your set of abilities and you are not physically capable of it.[/QUOTE] Can God make a square circle? You aren't saying much other than impossible things are impossible. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43650830] if you want to view every expression of a persons will as there freedom to do that action, then I guess as it is the only [B]action they can perform at the time it makes sense but there is no choice in the matter[/B][/QUOTE] We agree, this doesn't conflict with my position. I am a causally created being that is causally influenced to have a will. I am that will, and if I can do what that will dictates then I am free. If I can do everything that will dictates then I am utterly free. I am not utterly free. [editline]23rd January 2014[/editline] If I had that exoskeleton on me forcing all my outputs, then and only then, would I be utterly without freedom of will.
okay i'm done we just don't have the same view of "free" and aren't going to I at least understand what you're saying now but I don't agree with it
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43650844]We agree, this doesn't conflict with my position. I am a causally created being that is causally influenced to have a will. I am that will, and if I can do what that will dictates then I am free. If I can do everything that will dictates then I am utterly free. I am not utterly free.[/QUOTE] See, I can kind of understand thinking this way, but it just seems unnecessary. I've always seen viewpoints on the issue as breaking down like this: 1) You think that human minds possess some sort of supernatural ability to affect what a body does. A mind actually possesses the ability to affect how a person acts in a way that is not subject to simple cause and effect. In this case, I don't agree with you. No one can prove or disprove this really at the moment, but I vehemently disagree. 2) You think that "will" and "choice" are illusions. You may feel like you are affecting you are meaningfully affecting your behavior, but in truth your actions are determined completely by physical law. The "choice" you made and the action your body performed are the product of time and circumstance, and it makes no sense to talk about "choice" because none existed in the first place. All of your actions are nothing more than physical necessities, made less obvious because the brain is very complex. This is how I feel. 3) Some form of compatibilism, like you, Zenreon, are arguing. The mind is completely physical, but "free will" is defined in a way such that a physical mind doesn't stop free will from existing. I don't understand the point. These definitions of free will just seem like meaningless obfuscation of the fact that you are essentially a complex computer. A desire was put into your head by circumstance and you are capable of carrying it out. So what? A rock is dropped from a plane and so far there's no ground to stop it from falling. How is that not free will under this sort of definition? A bunch of particles find themselves in a place subject to certain forces and nothing impedes them from behaving how you'd expect. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] Why bring nebulous ideas like "will" and "desire" into what you admit is nothing but system responding to basic forces, where the system happens to be complicated?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43650916] 3) Some form of compatibilism, like you, Zenreon, are arguing. The mind is completely physical, but "free will" is defined in a way such that a physical mind doesn't stop free will from existing. I don't understand the point. These definitions of free will just seem like meaningless obfuscation of the fact that you are essentially a complex computer. A desire was put into your head by circumstance and you are capable of carrying it out. So what? A rock is dropped from a plane and so far there's no ground to stop it from falling. How is that not free will under this sort of definition? A bunch of particles find themselves in a place subject to certain forces and nothing impedes them from behaving how you'd expect. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] Why bring nebulous ideas like "will" and "desire" into what you admit is nothing but system responding to basic forces, where the system happens to be complicated?[/QUOTE] The reason, as I've said before, is language. When we speak to each other we do not use ascribe will to a rock, or even a computer, but rather to things which are self-aware and have the phenomenological experience of choice, love, desire, and fear. Should a computer have those qualities then I would have to agree that it has free will because at that point, it has a will. The problem then is defining the degree to which its will is free. If, by the causal forces of our existence, it is created in such a way that it wishes to fly, and swim, yet only has the equipment to fly, its free will is only half realized when it is in the water.
But it seems unnecessary even by the standard of "language".
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43651008]The reason, as I've said before, is language. When we speak to each other we do not use ascribe will to a rock, or even a computer, but rather to things which are self-aware and have the phenomenological experience of choice, love, desire, and fear. Should a computer have those qualities then I would have to agree that it has free will because at that point, it has a will. The problem then is defining the degree to which its will is free. If, by the causal forces of our existence, it is created in such a way that it wishes to fly, and swim, yet only has the equipment to fly, its free will is only half realized when it is in the water.[/QUOTE] I can't imagine any reasonable definition of free will that provably applies to humans but not to AI agents. The BDI (Beliefs-Desires-Intentions) model for designing an autonomous agent involves translating perceptions about the world into some symbolic language to be recorded in an internal model of the environment which may include information about the agent itself (Beliefs), using that beliefs model and a set of overall goals to find possible actions that would work towards those goals (Desires), and from those desires [i]choosing[/i] a subset that are achievable in parallel and would be expected to yield the most utility (Intentions). This can all be implemented in software (and has been, the BDI agent is used in plenty of situations and I am in the process of implementing it for my final year project for university) and describes how an AI agent can make choices in an identical way to the human brain. The ability to learn from past experiences can be implemented using a neural network for the Beliefs model (neural networks replicate the behaviour of neurons within a biological brain to implement learning based on emotional feedback, which are already in use for things such as image recognition software). With enough virtual neurons and an adequate emotional feedback mechanism you have a software agent capable of everything a human brain is. Our main challenge at the moment is to provide enough memory to hold all these virtual neurons, and a massively parallel architecture that can simulate the neurons fast enough for the agent to function at a speed comparable to our brains. However, artificial agents that satisfy (what I understand to be) your definition of free will already exist.
I believe that "free will" exists, but if a precise copy of the universe were to be created, the exact same things would happen. Considering the fact that "free will" is just us drawing on past experience and knowlege to determine the "best" course of action.
[QUOTE=katbug;43652002]I believe that "free will" exists, but if a precise copy of the universe were to be created, the exact same things would happen. Considering the fact that "free will" is just us drawing on past experience and knowlege to determine the "best" course of action.[/QUOTE] your idea of free will is just logical brain process. you actually believe in determinism with these beliefs
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.