• Is free will possible, or are we always affect by some level of determinism
    354 replies, posted
[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 fail to see how that is free will, at least in the context of how Christianity and other such religions would define it, considering that's the way most people see free will. How could free will be half realised? I don't get this definition of free will that you've come up with, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
[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] But that raises the question of "how complex does a mind have to be before it can be considered to have a will?" I don't think there can be an exact answer.
Listen, it doesn't matter, it's simply a matter of perspective. You either believe everything living has free will, like the conviction of God for example. Or your perspective is based on mathematical machinery. Why not just accept both perspectives? Compassion is harmony.
[QUOTE=Memnoth;43654021]Listen, it doesn't matter, it's simply a matter of perspective. You either believe everything living has free will, like the conviction of God for example. Or your perspective is based on mathematical machinery. Why not just accept both perspectives? Compassion is harmony.[/QUOTE] The point is that it depends on how you define free will. I'm claiming that any definition that is known to apply to humans is so trivial as to have no importance as a concept, and applies to things like artificial agents.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43653885]But that raises the question of "how complex does a mind have to be before it can be considered to have a will?" I don't think there can be an exact answer.[/QUOTE] It entirely depends on what "will" is. If it just means doing something when there are multiple possibilities then any machine that can make choices would have a "will" so to speak. Of course this adds nothing to "free will" since free will means that your choice would be entirely decided by internal decisions, not from external influences causing you to make that decision. Of course it is impossible to make a decision with zero external influence thus free will is pretty much impossible, your decision will be decided on the basis of your experience with external factors, your "choice" on something is just the logical conclusion your brain comes to when taking various factors into account. I find it impossible to see free will having any working mechanism, I just cannot see how it could actually work. A person is defined by what experiences they have throughout life, from the smallest to the largest, and when a person makes a decision these factors are calculated by the brain to make a decision, to assert free will would assume that somehow a person can act outside of their own experience, which of course is impossible.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43654353]It entirely depends on what "will" is. If it just means doing something when there are multiple possibilities then any machine that can make choices would have a "will" so to speak.[/quote] I'd say that if you use a definition like that, then a particle has as much "will" as a human does. If the universe was classical, a human doesn't actually make choices. The choices are an illusion, there was only one determined outcome from the start. Quantum mechanics is the only thing that introduces indeterminacy. So you can say that a "choice" is made my nature among many initial possibilities, but then a choice is made just the same when you're measuring where a particle is in space.
I'm confused as to what's considered to be free will. A person being able to make choices outside of the reactions in their brain seems to imply mind/body duality. But a few of the people arguing for free will in this thread have said they don't believe in that.
[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.[/QUOTE] No it would not, quantum phenomena are 100% random and Bell's theorem proves that there are no local hidden variables, so an "exact replica" of the universe is [b]not[/b] guaranteed to be the same. You can talk about free will vs determinism and shit all you want, but the fact is that the universe does [B]not[/B] depend solely on what happened previously. It's not all "logic" and fucking fluffy clouds and rainbows. Of course it's generally accepted that free will does not factor into quantum phenomena, so don't try to take it that way either.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;43673670]No it would not, quantum phenomena are 100% random and Bell's theorem proves that there are no local hidden variables, so an "exact replica" of the universe is [b]not[/b] guaranteed to be the same. You can talk about free will vs determinism and shit all you want, but the fact is that the universe does [B]not[/B] depend solely on what happened previously. It's not all "logic" and fucking fluffy clouds and rainbows. Of course it's generally accepted that free will does not factor into quantum phenomena, so don't try to take it that way either.[/QUOTE] The universe could still be governed by a nonlocal hidden variable theory though.
I believe there is a partial determinism at work. Say that a person is determined since the birth of the universe to walk left at a crossroads instead of right in 13.3.2014. He does, since he only did what was determined. However, let's say that he somehow could know what he is going to do in 12.3.2014. At this point, I believe that he would have the necessary information to break this determinism and walk right instead if he chose to. Or, he could choose to walk left instead. As such, the world would go along a pre-determined course unless accurately predicting very specific future events became possible, which is when that course could be steered out of. An argument could be raised that said "but what if the pre-determined course was for that person to see his actions and refuse to go left?". That's a sound question, but the way I see it now that the person knows the situation ahead of time, he can decide and therefore is free of determinism in this action. Future actions, however, are still clouded to him. Now, I know I don't have any proof of this for obvious reasons so it might not be the most impervious of beliefs, but considering how immaterial and currently unknown these concepts are in the first place, it's about as much as can be said. I simply believe that unless you know the default course of action ahead of time, how do you know to steer away from it? You don't.
[QUOTE='[Green];43680472']I believe there is a partial determinism at work. Say that a person is determined since the birth of the universe to walk left at a crossroads instead of right in 13.3.2014. He does, since he only did what was determined. However, let's say that he somehow could know what he is going to do in 12.3.2014. At this point, I believe that he would have the necessary information to break this determinism and walk right instead if he chose to. Or, he could choose to walk left instead. As such, the world would go along a pre-determined course unless accurately predicting very specific future events became possible, which is when that course could be steered out of. An argument could be raised that said "but what if the pre-determined course was for that person to see his actions and refuse to go left?". That's a sound question, but the way I see it now that the person knows the situation ahead of time, he can decide and therefore is free of determinism in this action. Future actions, however, are still clouded to him. Now, I know I don't have any proof of this for obvious reasons so it might not be the most impervious of beliefs, but considering how immaterial and currently unknown these concepts are in the first place, it's about as much as can be said. I simply believe that unless you know the default course of action ahead of time, how do you know to steer away from it? You don't.[/QUOTE] that's just believing in destiny
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;43680594]that's just believing in destiny[/QUOTE] Ah, my apologies. I guess I mixed the two, then :v: Though generally speaking, at least from what I've heard, steering away from one's destiny is believed to be detrimental. I don't see how this would be the case, it's just a different outcome.
[QUOTE='[Green];43680472']An argument could be raised that said "but what if the pre-determined course was for that person to see his actions and refuse to go left?". That's a sound question, but the way I see it now that the person knows the situation ahead of time, he can decide and therefore is free of determinism in this action.[/QUOTE] I don't get it. You just raised a point and rejected it out of hand without justification. [editline]27th January 2014[/editline] [quote]However, let's say that he somehow could know what he is going to do in 12.3.2014. At this point, I believe that he would have the necessary information to break this determinism and walk right instead if he chose to. Or, he could choose to walk left instead.[/quote] Here again you assume there is some way this guy could know what he's going to do and then just not do it. Then he didn't know what he was going to do to begin with, but there's not enough justification to say that prediction of the future is impossible. By saying he could "choose" to go another direction, you're presupposing that determinism is wrong in the argument against determinism.
That isn't so much a problem with determinism as it is a problem with predicting the future. It just means that you can't really predict someones future from within our own universe.
Additionally a fairly trivial automaton could be constructed to defeat a prediction about itself (assuming humans could do the same), so if you award humans free will for that feat you would also have to award free will to the automaton.
If there are random variables in existence, then all events can possibly not turn out the same. Human decisions are an event. Free will, as you define it, is the possibility for human decisions not to turn out the same. There are random variables in the universe Therefore there is free will.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43739279]If there are random variables in existence, then all events can possibly not turn out the same. Human decisions are an event. Free will, as you define it, is the possibility for human decisions not to turn out the same. There are random variables in the universe Therefore there is free will.[/QUOTE] So if I build an automaton that samples from a random source, and uses the values received when making decisions, does it have free will? We've covered non-determinism quite a bit already.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43739279]If there are random variables in existence, then all events can possibly not turn out the same. Human decisions are an event. Free will, as you define it, is the possibility for human decisions not to turn out the same. There are random variables in the universe Therefore there is free will.[/QUOTE] lol If I flip a coin and it lands on heads I have to shoot myself. If it lands on tails I have to not shoot myself. I have free will in deciding whether or not to shoot myself. Great logic. Also, can you show me which post he defined free will like that?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43739279]If there are random variables in existence, then all events can possibly not turn out the same. Human decisions are an event. Free will, as you define it, is the possibility for human decisions not to turn out the same. There are random variables in the universe Therefore there is free will.[/QUOTE] If you change the definition of free will to whatever you want it to be then just about anything can be free will. Classical mechanics is predetermined, QM is a coin flip, neither of these give us anything close to free will, at least not the religious definition of it.
I always had this strange thought: So someone kills someone, and he goes to the jury, but, if there's no free will, then he can't be find guilty, YET, if the jury also doesn't have free will, then he can't also have a choice in whether saying guilty or not guilty so it....and that's when my mind makes "plop"
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43741616]I always had this strange thought: So someone kills someone, and he goes to the jury, but, if there's no free will, then he can't be find guilty, YET, if the jury also doesn't have free will, then he can't also have a choice in whether saying guilty or not guilty so it....and that's when my mind makes "plop"[/QUOTE] He's guilty in the sense that he did do it, and need to be punished to act has a deterrent to others and to hopefully reform said criminal and protect the public. The only people this would worry are people who want to get revenge on a criminal rather than reform them. Kind of like how you punish a child to reform the child, not to get revenge on it. In regard to the Jury thing, the Jury just look at the evidence and decide on what that evidence means so the Jury don't need free will to do that.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43739799]So if I build an automaton that samples from a random source, and uses the values received when making decisions, does it have free will? We've covered non-determinism quite a bit already.[/QUOTE] If the source sample is defined to be part of the automaton and their relationship is identical to that of humans to their own, then I would say yes. I do not discount the possibility of being able to create a being with free will given the proper amount of technical know-how. [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] A coin flip would not satisfy this as a coin-flip is not part of you. You would be responsible for shooting yourself because you decided to adhere to whatever the coin says.
how do you make a decision if it's physically not possible to make it at that moment due to brain chemistry how is this free will you say you respect determinism in relation to this, but you seem to not, and actually dismiss it in all of your discussions on free will to make free will and your definition of it work in absentia to anything else.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43741596]If you change the definition of free will to whatever you want it to be then just about anything can be free will. Classical mechanics is predetermined, QM is a coin flip, neither of these give us anything close to free will, at least not the religious definition of it.[/QUOTE] I have used the definition of free will that "One can do what one wishes" and it was wrong. I then used the determinist version "One's decisions can turn out differently" and it's still wrong. Tell me then, how do you define the concept of Free-will.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742163]I have used the definition of free will that "One can do what one wishes" and it was wrong. I then used the determinist version "One's decisions can turn out differently" and it's still wrong. Tell me then, how do you define the concept of Free-will.[/QUOTE] the first one IS free will, but is impossible as far as we know. the second one ISN'T free will and doesn't happen anyways, again, as far as we know.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742140]If the source sample is defined to be part of the automaton and their relationship is identical to that of humans to their own, then I would say yes. I do not discount the possibility of being able to create a being with free will given the proper amount of technical know-how. [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] A coin flip would not satisfy this as a coin-flip is not part of you. You would be responsible for shooting yourself because you decided to adhere to whatever the coin says.[/QUOTE] He's saying that QM is comparable to a coin flip, you've totally missed the point of what was said [editline]31st January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742163]I have used the definition of free will that "One can do what one wishes" and it was wrong. I then used the determinist version "One's decisions can turn out differently" and it's still wrong. Tell me then, how do you define the concept of Free-will.[/QUOTE] I define Free will as the religious do, that you are actively doing something yourself, and are 100% responsible for what you do and could thus justifiably be sent to burn for eternity. This conflicts with determinism where you would NOT be responsible in this way as events just happen, there is no magical entity inside you that is changing reality somehow.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43742154]how do you make a decision if it's physically not possible to make it at that moment due to brain chemistry how is this free will you say you respect determinism in relation to this, but you seem to not, and actually dismiss it in all of your discussions on free will to make free will and your definition of it work in absentia to anything else.[/QUOTE] Actually my most recent argument was from the non-compatabilist camp. So here in this argument I am denouncing it's main tenant that all things are pre-determined. If "Free-will" lies in the possibility for someone to make multiple decisions, and it is possible for someone's decision to turn out multiple ways due to an indeterminacy that is part of his identity, then Free will exists. If "Free-will" lies in the ability for someone to act upon what they want to do in a given situation without the will of a separate entity forcing him otherwise, then he has free will.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43742140] A coin flip would not satisfy this as a coin-flip is not part of you. You would be responsible for shooting yourself because you decided to adhere to whatever the coin says.[/QUOTE] Your brain is just a bunch of coins flipping. How could you not follow the metaphor. You know what, you have to be trolling. Congrats. Nice job, you really got me.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43742240]Your brain is just a bunch of coins flipping.[/QUOTE] Well actually most of it will be classical, and thus very much hard deterministic since most of your brain is made of atomic components, only a very small amount of it on the quantum level with be actual coin flips.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43742186] I define Free will as the religious do, that you are actively doing something yourself, and are 100% responsible for what you do and could thus justifiably be sent to burn for eternity. This conflicts with determinism where you would NOT be responsible in this way as events just happen, there is no magical entity inside you that is changing reality somehow.[/QUOTE] Lol, that is just Kantian Free will, and by those standards you do have free will. Someone who is a responsible being has free will. Humans are responsible beings when functioning at their full capacity. Therefore humans have free-will. By these standards you as a hard-determinist can froth and spit determinacies in my direction all you want, I will still hold you responsible for them because your are defined as an agent. You begin where other thing's will ends.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.