Free will ?

[Medias]

Given that the brain is just a set of chemical reactions, and given that all chemical reactions have results that can be predicted, does that mean that we are all predictable? As in, we're heading down a path, predetermined from the moment the Big Bang occurred, with no true free will at all?

Just something I've always wondered...

[kajirakate]

While the brain is a series of chemical reactions, it is also a maze of electrical pathways, with a massive number of potential connection patterns, so surely it is too complex to predict.  Because with the same essential chemistry and wiring map, everyone should react the same way to things, and the world around us shows that is not the case.  Good thing to, in my opinion, would hate a world were everyone was the same even if they were like me.

[Oniya]

Spend a little time reading up on quantum physics, and you'll be surprised that we can predict anything at all.

[DarklingAlice]

Yes and no. See Kant's 3rd antimony!

Yes, everything you do is subject to natural law and by definition is 'pre-determined' in that it could never have happened any other way and from the same set of conditions the same set of results will always result. However, the complexity of the system makes predicting it a practical impossibility, meaning that in the absence of that information and ability we cannot act as though it is predictable and therefore have free will. Think of it as having to act on the information gleaned from our senses even though that is a negligible fraction of the information that actually exists (see, as much as I hate to recommend it, Meditations on the First Philosophy). So to the perfect observer you have no free will, to any human (including yourself) you do.

Also, welcome to E!

[Medias]

Ugh mind blown xD

I think I get where you're all coming from though. But I still believe that complexity shouldn't be mistaken for true free will, just because its beyond us to predict what our brains will do next doesn't mean they are beyond predicting. (I think you were agreeing with this at least partially alive)

And KK, I don't want this to be true at all, I think it's a very depressing thought lol

[Ephiral]

Free will is part of the 'could' illusion. What you think of as things you could do are just things you can find a possible path to. In reality, there is nothing you could do, only what you will and will not do. What we think of as free will is just the feeling that we're choosing from the possibilities, when we are in fact doing no such thing. I am probably explaining this extraordinarily poorly.

[Medias]

Nah I get you. An imagined path is only an illusion, the true path has been predetermined since the beginning of time

[Ephiral]

Pretty much, yes. "To make an apple pie from scratch, we must first create the universe" indeed.

[meikle]

Ugh mind blown xD

Someone I knew who was going to school to study neuroscience explained to me that there is a modern theory of consciousness that says that human consciousness is not located in any particular area of the brain, but instead exists in the exchange of information between what the brain is predicting and what is sensed.

That is an idea that blew my mind.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've often seen discussions on free will haunted by an underlying and/or unconscious attempt to negate responsibility for our choices.  This shows up when the force of the discussion trends toward predestination or predetermined responses and away from a person's ability to choose a path.

"I didn't have any other choice!"  Have you ever heard that and thought how wrong that was?  There are frequently other choices but what we don't say to ourselves or others is that we don't want to accept the consequences of making one of those other choices. 

Since none of us are composed of the exact same chemical and biological cocktail it would be rash to say we can predict with a certainty what the outcome of a choice will be.  We have no knowledge or control of outside and unseen forces at work at the time that could affect the outcome.  All we can do is make the choice that fits our morals and ethics and when those are thrown into the mix free will becomes even more complex.

Think about the times you had to make a choice, decided what it would be and surprised yourself by saying something else; something you mentally fought against or didn't realize you would even consider.

[Jude]

Quantum mechanics introduces fundamental uncertainty to the equation, but it is unlikely that free will has anything to do with that uncertainty even though it does destroy predestination. While random events that occur on the quantum level result in all kinds of uncertain outcomes that affect the macro level and our decisions probably have randomness introduced to them from quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean that we make decisions in a way that has room for the concept of free will.

I'd argue that free will is an incoherent concept in the way that it's typically formulated. Think about the things that it could be...

Is free will the ability to make a decision? Nope, computers and logic flow charts make decisions. A decision is simply a mechanism wherein an action is performed on the basis of conditions. If X > Y, take action A. If Y > X, take action B. This is a logical decision point that introduces no element of free will.

Free will is some postulated extra-logical component to a decision. I suppose you could axiomatically decide that quantum randomness fits this definition, but I cannot see that as anything but arbitrary given that we have no control over it. Control seems to be key to the definition, and we certainly have the illusion of control when we engage in deliberative decision making.

It seems more likely to me that "free will" is actually a sensation, not an element of decision making. It is the realization, as a sentient being, that you've come to a decision point and must choose an outcome. That sensation sparks the process of actively combing through available data (relevant memories, active perceptions of the situation, et cetera) to generate priors to use in your decision computation. It also imbues in us a sense of sober responsibility and control over the outcome.

As evolved beings, there's an obvious evolutionary advantage to having such a mechanism. If you don't feel in control and responsible for the outcome of your actions, you won't use your higher reasoning as effectively or frequently in making decisions.

Without invoking the soul, it isn't really possible to generate an extra-logical component to decision making. I think free will's current pop-culture formulation is an old religious artifact.

[Oniya]

I was more going with destroying predestination, actually.

[Jude]

And Quantum Mechanics does an excellent job of that. Even if we knew everything that can possibly be known about the universe right now, we wouldn't even be able to perfectly know the past. Some information is lost as the universe progresses, we can't press the rewind button. And the further time marches on, the less we can know about long, long ago.

EDIT: By the way, I don't think that is that cynical of an outlook. If free will is a sensation, and not a thing that plays into all of our decisions, the implications are not so bad.

All it means is that we are ourselves. That instead of both being ourselves, and somehow not ourselves in decision making, all the decisions we make are a reflection of who we are, and they are never NOT a reflection of who we are.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I see computers making calculations rather than decisions.  Decisions take conscious effort and require more that empirical data input.  Feelings and emotions come into play and no machine is capable of that.  Computers can predict results based on input part of which is historical data.  They cannot predetermine an outcome outside of mere mathematical equations.  Free will is a human function with many variables.  Even when a human recognizes the logic of a calculation and accepts the fact that one decision is the best they will still choose one that is illogical because they are free to do so.

[Medias]

From what i understand though, emotions and such are just chemicals like dopamine and such that your body releases to influence your decision making...

Glad to have spawned such a passionate debate by the way, the arguments and opinions i've see put forward are making fantastic reading :)

[Ephiral]

I see computers making calculations rather than decisions.  Decisions take conscious effort and require more that empirical data input.  Feelings and emotions come into play and no machine is capable of that.  Computers can predict results based on input part of which is historical data.  They cannot predetermine an outcome outside of mere mathematical equations.  Free will is a human function with many variables.  Even when a human recognizes the logic of a calculation and accepts the fact that one decision is the best they will still choose one that is illogical because they are free to do so.

Are you saying current computers cannot perfectly emulate the human brain, or that it is impossible? If the latter, why?

[DarklingAlice]

Are you saying current computers cannot perfectly emulate the human brain, or that it is impossible? If the latter, why?

It's a bit of a tangent, and a little bit of a conversation of semantics, but no. They definately can't. A computer that perfectly emulated the properties of a human brain would just be a synthetic brain. Which is theoretically possible, yet kind of pointless. A computer that recapitulates a specific human brain is impossible. This has to do with a combination of basic neurodev principles coupled with the fact that computer technology is already so far superior and more reliable than it would need to be. It's why Obama's new project (and other transhumanist wet dreams) are kind of running jokes in a developmental biology department.



The problem with quantum mehanics attempting to rescue us from determinism is that the universe remains deterministic on the aggregate. E.g. When I spend my afternoon causing excitation and emission of fluorophores, a quantum phenomenon at the level of the individual electrons involved, my results at the macro level will be invariate, predictable, and deterministic because no pragmatic concerns rely on the individual behavior of one of the particles. Kind of like how statistical mechanics doesn't mean you can have system wide second law violations. Schrodinger actually points out that the very reason lifeforms are so large compared to their component particles is that it gives them the freedom to be immune to quantum perturbations.

Moreover, such attempts rely on one interpretation of the not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation (e.g. the many worlds hypothesis would just postulate a plurality of universes that are completely deterministic even a the quantum scale). The philosphical consequences of quantum phenomena are still kind of up in the air.



Is conciousness, the illusion of choice, and 'higher reasoning' really to our evolutionary advantage? That seems a little arbitrarily sapiocentric without further support.

[Jude]

Good points as always Alice.

Also, if anyone's interested, there's a bit more on the subject here (one of my favorite philosophy/science podcasts): http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs39-the-science-and-philosophy-of-free-will.html

[Vekseid]

It's a bit of a tangent, and a little bit of a conversation of semantics, but no. They definately can't. A computer that perfectly emulated the properties of a human brain would just be a synthetic brain. Which is theoretically possible, yet kind of pointless. A computer that recapitulates a specific human brain is impossible. This has to do with a combination of basic neurodev principles coupled with the fact that computer technology is already so far superior and more reliable than it would need to be. It's why Obama's new project (and other transhumanist wet dreams) are kind of running jokes in a developmental biology department.

This is a bit pedantic since Ephiral was directly speaking to Beguile's statement on emotions and feelings, which we can certainly make computers have.

[Ephiral]

Alice's point is interesting in the extreme, and I welcome it, but Veks has the right of it: The point I was driving at is that thou art physics, and physics is deterministic. If you're going to claim the brain as an exception, there had better be a damn good reason for it.

[DarklingAlice]

This is a bit pedantic since Ephiral was directly speaking to Beguile's statement on emotions and feelings, which we can certainly make computers have.

Oh Veks, everyone should know by now that I am an incorrigible pedant (and if they aren't I can demonstrate it to them at length, I know I have some chalk around here somewhere...oh, wait... :P)!

[Beguile's Mistress]

Are you saying current computers cannot perfectly emulate the human brain, or that it is impossible? If the latter, why?

Current computers can't and I doubt there will ever be a computer that can.  They can't go beyond their programming and intuit feelings and emotions, ponder the needs of humans or the impact of the calculations they make.  They can't make decisions.  Computers compute, they calculate, they may analyze input and offer projections based on the forumlae they are given as tools.  It takes a thinking, feeling mind to study the output and see how that may affect people.  The person makes the decision using the computer data.  They can choose to do good or not.  They can override the computer when it's needed.

Computers don't have the capacity to care.  Humans have the free will to decide whether or not to care.

[Jude]

We care because we're designed (by evolution) to do just that, and with the right chemical additions to the brain we can inhibit our capacity to care or expand it. People don't choose to be a sociopath, largely incapable of caring, it's a defect, just as those with autism suffer an inhibited ability to approximate and guess at the motivations of others.

I think the error here is the focus on the subjective "experience" of emotion, and not what emotionally actually is. Emotion feels a certain way to us, yes, but we can induce the final affect in a computer (a biasing effect, aka an emotion) that would affect the outcome of its decisions. In the end, the only real smoke and mirrors is in how we program the computer to perceive its own experience of emotion.

How can we even know for certain that our subjective experiences of emotion are all that similar to other people? It's all qualia.

It seems very improbable to me that some day we won't be able to create a non-human entity with similar cognitive sophistication to a human being. If it is impossible, what makes humans special? What is the component that allows us to feel if other configurations of matter cannot?

We are made of the same material in the end. Electrons, photons, neutrons; it's turtles all the way down.

[Ephiral]

Current computers can't and I doubt there will ever be a computer that can.  They can't go beyond their programming and intuit feelings and emotions, ponder the needs of humans or the impact of the calculations they make.  They can't make decisions.  Computers compute, they calculate, they may analyze input and offer projections based on the forumlae they are given as tools.  It takes a thinking, feeling mind to study the output and see how that may affect people.  The person makes the decision using the computer data.  They can choose to do good or not.  They can override the computer when it's needed.

Computers don't have the capacity to care.  Humans have the free will to decide whether or not to care.

Computers can't go beyond their programming in the same way we can't spontaneously develop telepathy. What they can do is modify their programming, much as we can learn to think differently. True, current self-modifying code tends to be pretty limited, but the fact that it exists at all shows that it is not a non-computable problem.

As to "intuiting", what do you mean when you say this? I understand "intuition" as the ability to arrive at conclusions based on limited (conscious) information, which... well, there's a very simple algorithm for that. Decision-making? Deep Blue and a swarm of autonomous quadcopters would like a few words with you on that one. Modelling how people will be affected and how they will respond emotionally? If those are non-computable, then it seems that the entire fields of psychiatry and sociology are wasting their time.

These are all things we are doing right now.

A hundred years ago, people would have told you that computers are good for nothing but basic math. I see no reason the computers of a hundred years from now won't be able to do much more sophisticated versions of the things they can do today.

Can you show an example of something the human brain does that is flat-out non-computable?

[Oniya]

Love.

[Ephiral]

Love.

Definition? (Yes, I know the concept, but it's very important to nail down specifics in a discussion like this.)

[DarklingAlice]

I'm still interested in this assertion that we evolved emotions as a benefit as opposed to just an overinflated, psuedo-parasitic feature. I'm not necessarily arguing against it, but I am not sure if that should be the default assumption. Many more fit forms of life do not appear to have emotional capacity, and we know it isn't necessary for societal formation. On most standards of success I imagine a psychopath could perform just as well as if not actually outcompete a wild type individual. Perhaps emotions are an inevitable negative consequence of a certain cognitive capacity as opposed to an acquired benefit. Horrible as that sounds (perhaps) it seems a more likely default hypothesis.

[Vekseid]

I'm still interested in this assertion that we evolved emotions as a benefit as opposed to just an overinflated, psuedo-parasitic feature. I'm not necessarily arguing against it, but I am not sure if that should be the default assumption. Many more fit forms of life do not appear to have emotional capacity, and we know it isn't necessary for societal formation. On most standards of success I imagine a psychopath could perform just as well as if not actually outcompete a wild type individual. Perhaps emotions are an inevitable negative consequence of a certain cognitive capacity as opposed to an acquired benefit. Horrible as that sounds (perhaps) it seems a more likely default hypothesis.

There are two important components here. Emotions themselves, and what amounts to emulated models.

I don't think I need to go into why emulated models are an evolutionary advantage. They - and the difficulty of implementing them outside of toy scenarios (literally, ai in games) are why I tend to view 'hard takeoff' singularity scenarios with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Chemicals that affect our emotional state directly - dopamine, serotonin, and so on do so because they are neurotransmitters. No dopamine? Dopaminergic receptors don't get triggered, and those neurons are that much more asleep. Since these neurons control the basis of our reward centers - that is, the key to our motivation...

That's what depression is. Chemically, you end up being incapable of motivation - of making certain decisions. It's why depression is such a nasty trap.

Emotions are basically goal adjustors - a single purpose AI may not have them, but something that requires dynamic adjustment of priorities will end up with something analogous to emotions in order to direct their optimization pressure accordingly.

[Jude]

I'm still interested in this assertion that we evolved emotions as a benefit as opposed to just an overinflated, psuedo-parasitic feature. I'm not necessarily arguing against it, but I am not sure if that should be the default assumption. Many more fit forms of life do not appear to have emotional capacity, and we know it isn't necessary for societal formation. On most standards of success I imagine a psychopath could perform just as well as if not actually outcompete a wild type individual. Perhaps emotions are an inevitable negative consequence of a certain cognitive capacity as opposed to an acquired benefit. Horrible as that sounds (perhaps) it seems a more likely default hypothesis.

I think it comes down to the fact that being a psychopath is the opposite of pro-social and human beings evolved in a social, primarily tribal context. Emotions are very important for group cohesion. They keep us from making rational decisions (in the economic theory sense) that would otherwise hurt the tribe and indirectly ourselves.

There's a very Hobbesian bent to it, I think.

Plus, what Vekseid said. It reminds me of the Hume quote: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." We need motivations to apply our tools to.

Stepping out on a techno-philosophical limb, computers (I think) lack emotions because currently they are nothing but our tools. We keep them from having their own goals and directions divorced from our ends. Until we become comfortable with machines acting without our control of their own accord (and make some serious strides when it comes to our technological sophistication), we will probably not replicate sentience in computers intentionally. But to me, I can't comprehend why it's impossible.

It seems that all theories that make it impossible are rooted in a major unstated premise of Cartesian Dualism.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Love.

Definition? (Yes, I know the concept, but it's very important to nail down specifics in a discussion like this.)

Which love should we define for you?  Love of one person for another in a romantic sense or the love of a parent for a child?  The love of candy or roses?  The love of horseback riding?

But why does a definition of love have anything to do with whether or not a computer can feel it?

Keep in mind that you chose to ask that question and you'll chose to respond or not this post.  That is all free will is.  Exercising your option to choose.

[Ephiral]

Which love should we define for you?  Love of one person for another in a romantic sense or the love of a parent for a child?  The love of candy or roses?  The love of horseback riding?

But why does a definition of love have anything to do with whether or not a computer can feel it?

Because without sharply defining it, we'll wind up arguing semantics all day.

Keep in mind that you chose to ask that question and you'll chose to respond or not this post.  That is all free will is.  Exercising your option to choose.

By that definition, a significant number of computers already have free will, and have for decades.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Because without sharply defining it, we'll wind up arguing semantics all day.

Only if you so choose or another poster takes up that mission.

By that definition, a significant number of computers already have free will, and have for decades.

No.  They have programmed parameters within which they are forced to operate.  They are not capable of doing anything outside of what they are told is possible. 

Example:  The GPS that sent a man over an embankment because of faulty input and driver who chose to follow the directions of the computer in spite of his instinct and experience telling him something might be amiss. 

[Ephiral]

Only if you so choose or another poster takes up that mission.
No.  They have programmed parameters within which they are forced to operate.  They are not capable of doing anything outside of what they are told is possible. 

Example:  The GPS that sent a man over an embankment because of faulty input and driver who chose to follow the directions of the computer in spite of his instinct and experience telling him something might be amiss.

Humans have programmed parameters within which they are forced to operate. They are similarly incapable. And a limited decision tree is still a decision tree.

[Oniya]

It is the very ineffable nature of love that makes it impossible to codify in ways that a computer can process it. 

[DarklingAlice]

Chemicals that affect our emotional state directly - dopamine, serotonin, and so on do so because they are neurotransmitters. No dopamine? Dopaminergic receptors don't get triggered, and those neurons are that much more asleep. Since these neurons control the basis of our reward centers - that is, the key to our motivation...

That's what depression is. Chemically, you end up being incapable of motivation - of making certain decisions. It's why depression is such a nasty trap.

Emotions are basically goal adjustors - a single purpose AI may not have them, but something that requires dynamic adjustment of priorities will end up with something analogous to emotions in order to direct their optimization pressure accordingly.

But dopamine serves many functions e.g. motor control, so is it's reward mechanism really a primary one? How did it arise? When does emotion come to be a necessity? An advantage? And does it, and if so when does it, ever stop?

Even single celled organisms are able to situationaly optimize themselves and form rudimentary societies (and not only bacteria, the body itself breaks down this way). Hive forming insects demonstrate models of (what we presume to be) emotionless efficiency. And while I am not saying I would prefer to not be human, I am saying that by a ton of rubrics they are far more 'successful' than we (likewise psychopaths). I get that we need a flexible system to prioritize goals. For instance, a drive to breed works for a species' benefit. I'm even willing to say that so long as we have consciousness, why not let us enjoy that and tack on the concept of pleasure? But I'm at a loss to explain from a beneficial standpoint why I spent several hours of last night in rope bondage and hooked up to electrodes and felt pleasure in line with my sex drive despite not being engaged in the reproductive activity it is ostensibly 'for' (or why I have no instinctual qualms about having being sterilized). Basically at a certain point you gain the capacity to game the reward system. I have to question whether that is to any real advantage (even though I am not going to stop any time soon)? To be clear I am not decrying hedonism, just trying to suss out it's natural history.

To bring it back around to computers, we would never actually put together a computer system and give it the ability to masturbate. I'm not saying we can't, just that it does not seem to me a beneficial capacity or a smart thing to do when trying to make an effective system. Which makes me call into question whether such capacities actually work to our benefit.

I think it comes down to the fact that being a psychopath is the opposite of pro-social and human beings evolved in a social, primarily tribal context. Emotions are very important for group cohesion. They keep us from making rational decisions (in the economic theory sense) that would otherwise hurt the tribe and indirectly ourselves.

There's a very Hobbesian bent to it, I think.

Plus, what Vekseid said. It reminds me of the Hume quote: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." We need motivations to apply our tools to.

It's a little circular isn't it? We evolved emotions because emotions drive us to be social and we need to be social because we live in societies? The problem with Hobbes is that he thinks the state of nature is 'nasty, brutish, and short' (IIRC). Which really isn't so. I get how that worked when we thought that humanity was unique in being a social animal. Things are different now though. From simple symbiosis to complex societies, functional group behavior can be seen at every level of life from prokaryotes up. Pseudomonas bacteria do not need concepts such as love to fill class roles in dynamic and complex social groups (though interestingly they do still display kin-selection/favoritism), so why is it that we do (or do we?)? Is this a flat out advantage? A necessary, but sub-par solution for dealing with the phenomenon of consciousness (and in turn is sapience itself beneficial?)? Or a complete accident?

I am so going to lose sleep over this <_<

[Beguile's Mistress]

Humans have programmed parameters within which they are forced to operate. They are similarly incapable. And a limited decision tree is still a decision tree.

No matter how you argue it humans are not machines and machines are not human.  Computers do not make decisions.  They only provide information to allow thinking people to make a more informed decision. 

Computers cannot do anything completely on their own.  A functioning human can attempt anything they choose to try.

[Ephiral]

It is the very ineffable nature of love that makes it impossible to codify in ways that a computer can process it.

If you can't explain what you mean when you use a word, I humbly submit that you understand it no more than said computer.

No matter how you argue it humans are not machines and machines are not human.  Computers do not make decisions.  They only provide information to allow thinking people to make a more informed decision. 

Computers cannot do anything completely on their own.  A functioning human can attempt anything they choose to try.

You keep blindly asserting this. I keep pointing out that computers are capable of doing things like navigating 3D space with which they are unfamiliar, including moving obstacles, on the fly and with no user input. Are you really telling me no decisions are made there?

A human is capable of attempting anything they choose, yes, but the very things they may or may not choose - or even conceive of - are limited by their psychology and brain chemistry. How many people in this thread do you think could murder a stranger in cold blood?

[Beguile's Mistress]

You keep blindly asserting this. I keep pointing out that computers are capable of doing things like navigating 3D space with which they are unfamiliar, including moving obstacles, on the fly and with no user input. Are you really telling me no decisions are made there?

Not by the computer.  Input may derive from previous calculations but those calculations are based on prior programming.  A computer can't ask "What if...?" and postulate a response.  It does what it is told until it can't do it any longer.

A human is capable of attempting anything they choose, yes, but the very things they may or may not choose - or even conceive of - are limited by their psychology and brain chemistry. How many people in this thread do you think could murder a stranger in cold blood?

Even humans with limited mental ability are not static.  The may be limited at this moment by psychology and brain chemistry and even experience, education, sight, hearing, smell, taste, sensory input, current state of inebriation or influence of medication or drugs, the temperature, time of day, the amount of sleep they had the night before, what they had for breakfast, an argument with an SO, boss, parent or child, when their birthday falls, the last conversation they had, if they have enough money to pay their bills, an allergic reaction to something in nature, the toe they stubbed getting out of bed, the fact their dog chewed the morning paper or the hard drive died on their computer. 

We run into pot holes, speed bumps and road blocks in life all the time and maneuver our way around them by choice.  When new information is needed we have the choice to find it on our own or ask for help.

In the book "Jurassic Park" a computer was programmed to count the creatures on the island.  It would do that and kept finding all the animals it was looking for.  It wasn't told to count ALL the animals and it would stop when it hit the specified number.  A human would have found the number of animals it was looking for but evidence of additional numbers would have given that person the opportunity to choose to investigate further and discover a problem.

As a human with free will I refuse to have my humanity or essence or what ever you wish to call it reduced to the level of a machine. 

As for murdering someone I know it's possible.  Any one of us could murder someone in cold blood but a very high percentage of us would have to consciously decide to do that by exercising our free will.

[Ephiral]

Not by the computer.  Input may derive from previous calculations but those calculations are based on prior programming.  A computer can't ask "What if...?" and postulate a response.  It does what it is told until it can't do it any longer.

...are you kidding me? There's a reason I specifically cited "unfamiliar terrain". These machines, these devices, are dealing with situations that literally cannot have been previously programmed into them. They do predictive modelling all the damn time. Hell, most predictive modelling is done by computers these days.

Even humans with limited mental ability are not static.  The may be limited at this moment by psychology and brain chemistry and even experience, education, sight, hearing, smell, taste, sensory input, current state of inebriation or influence of medication or drugs, the temperature, time of day, the amount of sleep they had the night before, what they had for breakfast, an argument with an SO, boss, parent or child, when their birthday falls, the last conversation they had, if they have enough money to pay their bills, an allergic reaction to something in nature, the toe they stubbed getting out of bed, the fact their dog chewed the morning paper or the hard drive died on their computer. 

We run into pot holes, speed bumps and road blocks in life all the time and maneuver our way around them by choice.  When new information is needed we have the choice to find it on our own or ask for help.

And these are any different than the parameters any machine operates within... how? Complexity is the closest I see you coming to making a distinction here.

In the book "Jurassic Park" a computer was programmed to count the creatures on the island.  It would do that and kept finding all the animals it was looking for.  It wasn't told to count ALL the animals and it would stop when it hit the specified number.  A human would have found the number of animals it was looking for but evidence of additional numbers would have given that person the opportunity to choose to investigate further and discover a problem.

And the movie gave us the infamous "This is UNIX! I know this!" scene. Fiction makes very poor examples, which is why mine are culled from real life. This one is an especially poor example, since it couldn't even do what it was designed for. Would you point to a story about a broken watch and say "Therefore, machines can't tell time."?

As a human with free will I refuse to have my humanity or essence or what ever you wish to call it reduced to the level of a machine.

This seems to be the core of your argument: "I find this insulting, therefore it's wrong." Unfortunately, logic and evidence do not work that way.

As for murdering someone I know it's possible.  Any one of us could murder someone in cold blood but a very high percentage of us would have to consciously decide to do that by exercising our free will.

If you honestly think you could murder a complete stranger in cold blood... please tell me you're either a member of the military or in psychiatric care. Your standard neurotypical civilian is patently not capable of this. There is a reason that a significant amount of military research and training is centered around desensitization and othering the enemy.

[Beguile's Mistress]

You will never convince me that a machine is capable of making life choices that can only be made by a human.  A machine cannot feel anything and without that it is fatally limited in any so-called decision making ability. 

Since you are unable to carry on this discussion in an objective and logical manner without becoming abusive I'll withdraw.  That is called exercising my free will.

[Ephiral]

...yeah, this post was a mistake. My apologies.

[Vekseid]

Ephiral, the proper course of action in these cases is to report the behavior. To myself or other G-level staff, if needed. Please do not escalate these situations by engaging in further snark.

You will never convince me that a machine is capable of making life choices that can only be made by a human.  A machine cannot feel anything and without that it is fatally limited in any so-called decision making ability. 

Since you are unable to carry on this discussion in an objective and logical manner without becoming abusive I'll withdraw.  That is called exercising my free will.

No. Ephiral behaved perfectly fine until their last message prior to yours, with their cold-blooded murder comments.

I fully understand that people like yourself and Oniya have an emotional vestment in your positions. I try really hard not to denigrate it.

In order to 'disprove' an artificial intelligent agent's ability to adapt to new situations and have novel decision-making you cite... a use case failure from a book whose movie adaptation was released before some members of this site were born.

Your comment is like saying sending something to Alpha Centauri is impossible because no one could ever pedal their bicycle fast enough to even escape the Solar System. It's hard to know even where to begin with that. One item is a machine, and remains so despite being programmed. Another is frequently termed an intelligent agent. They are completely different things. One of these has a model for the 'world' around it, and a sense-update-decide-act loop. The other is a machine - which probably still has some AI involved, but lacking said loop, it's not actually an agent in any meaningful sense.

Regardless, it's immensely off-topic. If you want to learn about AI, you are free to ask in a new thread, but I'd hope for a little less magical thinking and a little more willingness to grow.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Understood, Vekseid.

Computers are amazing machines and become capable of more complicated maneuvers every day.  They are amazing tools and mankind has benefited greatly from their existence and will continue to do so. 

Discussions can provide opportunities for learning and growth.  I'll happily take part in any discussion where opinions can be freely stated and exchanged with mutual respect.  Frustration can build when a position or opinion appears to be under attack.  The conversation was devolving into something that was taking on a personal aspect certain remarks were showing that.  I chose, by an exercise of my free will, to disengage at that point because experience has shown that after a certain point objectivity is lost.

Humans are capable of making choices and decisions.  Those require conscious effort.  It doesn't mean the choices and decisions are always right or the best ones but I will take responsibility for the ones I make even if my thinking is thought to be emotional and magical. 

Free will exists in my opinion and threads like this are proof of that.  The only people I have ever met in my life who dispute the existence of free will are those who wish to avoid taking responsibility for their choices. 

[Oniya]

If you can't explain what you mean when you use a word, I humbly submit that you understand it no more than said computer.

And I would probably agree with you, and raise that none of us really understand love.    If we did, a large number of singer/songwriters would be out of material.  :-)

But the thing is that I don't try to understand it.  I just do it.  The computer needs to understand something in order to perform a task. 

[meikle]

Free will exists in my opinion and threads like this are proof of that.  The only people I have ever met in my life who dispute the existence of free will are those who wish to avoid taking responsibility for their choices.

Perhaps they are people who are not content with an opinion, and want to know what empirical observation of reality has to conclude on the matter?

[Ephiral]

And I would probably agree with you, and raise that none of us really understand love.    If we did, a large number of singer/songwriters would be out of material.  :-)

But the thing is that I don't try to understand it.  I just do it.  The computer needs to understand something in order to perform a task.

If you don't understand it, how can you say with any degree of assurance that it is incomputable? Is it not possible that you just have insufficient data?

Perhaps they are people who are not content with an opinion, and want to know what empirical observation of reality has to conclude on the matter?

This. Frankly, I find it pretty damn insulting to be accused of being abusive in one breath and then told that I just want an excuse to take no responsibility in the next. What I actually want is to believe what is true, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be. Physics is deterministic. The brain operates within physics. I see a great need for compelling evidence if we're going to claim that the brain is not deterministic - and no such evidence. Indeed, the only attempts at rebuttals I've seen thus far are arguments from incredulity or from personal distaste.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Perhaps they are people who are not content with an opinion, and want to know what empirical observation of reality has to conclude on the matter?

They have every right to try and find that if it exists.  They are free to form their own hypothesis and seek proof.  I wish them luck with the search.

[Ephiral]

They have every right to try and find that if it exists.  They are free to form their own hypothesis and seek proof.  I wish them luck with the search.

It seems to me that "this physical object does not violate physics as we know it" is the null hypothesis. I'd say the other side is the one that needs proof.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It seems to me that "this physical object does not violate physics as we know it" is the null hypothesis. I'd say the other side is the one that needs proof.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  The other side of what?  Where did I say what you have within quotation marks? 

[Ephiral]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  The other side of what?  Where did I say what you have within quotation marks?

"The other side" being the people that claim that free will is possible (and thus the brain cannot be deterministic, and thus it is an exception to physics as we know it). You did not say the part I had in quotes; that is my position. I submit that, if you are going to argue a position that inevitably puts you on one side and every example of macro-scale physics on the other, you had best have some extremely strong evidence for your case.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I have no wish to discuss physics on any scale. 

I stated an opinion that I believe free will exists and as proof the fact that we are all offering the ideas we have by our own choice.  I didn't introduce physics into the conversation or comment on how it could or would or should have anything to do with free will.

Do you say that I am not free to choose what I want to do and when and how I want to do it?

[Ephiral]

I have no wish to discuss physics on any scale. 

I stated an opinion that I believe free will exists and as proof the fact that we are all offering the ideas we have by our own choice.  I didn't introduce physics into the conversation or comment on how it could or would or should have anything to do with free will.

Do you say that I am not free to choose what I want to do and when and how I want to do it?

That is not proof, it is circular logic. "We can choose what we do because we choose what we think" is hardly evidence.

I say that your brain is absolutely deterministic. You are free to act in whatever way you want, or not act - but what you want, and the actions you will take, are precisely determined by the state of your brain and environment. "Choice" is what you call it when you see multiple paths that are physically possible, but no matter what, you can and will only go down a single one of these paths, predetermined by the factors I mentioned. A system of arbitrary complexity, given nothing more than the conditions of our universe at the time of the Big Bang and our laws of physics, would be able to perfectly predict every "choice" that you, I, and every other human being in existence has ever made.

The only way around this is if the brain is not deterministic. This, unfortunately, is where physics must enter the discussion - the brain is a physical object. Every single example we have of any physical object anywhere is completely deterministic in its behaviour. So we need a very compelling reason to believe that this is not the case here.

[chaoslord29]

That is not proof, it is circular logic. "We can choose what we do because we choose what we think" is hardly evidence.

I say that your brain is absolutely deterministic. You are free to act in whatever way you want, or not act - but what you want, and the actions you will take, are precisely determined by the state of your brain and environment. "Choice" is what you call it when you see multiple paths that are physically possible, but no matter what, you can and will only go down a single one of these paths, predetermined by the factors I mentioned. A system of arbitrary complexity, given nothing more than the conditions of our universe at the time of the Big Bang and our laws of physics, would be able to perfectly predict every "choice" that you, I, and every other human being in existence has ever made.

The only way around this is if the brain is not deterministic. This, unfortunately, is where physics must enter the discussion - the brain is a physical object. Every single example we have of any physical object anywhere is completely deterministic in its behaviour. So we need a very compelling reason to believe that this is not the case here.

That's not entirely the case though is it? Quantum physics more or less blow newtonian physics out of the water and render the concept of a deterministic universe epistomelogically impossible as I recall.

Of course, what you're left with looks more or less like a Probabilistic Universe, which in no way account for individual agency of free will, but still, it's at least possible now that maybe at the quantum level their is an ability to exercise "free will."

[Ephiral]

That's not entirely the case though is it? Quantum physics more or less blow newtonian physics out of the water and render the concept of a deterministic universe epistomelogically impossible as I recall.

Of course, what you're left with looks more or less like a Probabilistic Universe, which in no way account for individual agency of free will, but still, it's at least possible now that maybe at the quantum level their is an ability to exercise "free will."

Not exactly. It renders macro-scale physics a special case (much as classic Newtonian physics is a special case of modern macro-scale physics, applying reasonably well if one is in an Earthlike environment) - one that applies to anything with a consciousness (and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that something that is not conscious has will of any sort, free or otherwise). So we still need a very good reason for believing that a macro-scale physical object behaves in a non-deterministic manner.

[Jude]

It's a little circular isn't it? We evolved emotions because emotions drive us to be social and we need to be social because we live in societies? The problem with Hobbes is that he thinks the state of nature is 'nasty, brutish, and short' (IIRC). Which really isn't so. I get how that worked when we thought that humanity was unique in being a social animal. Things are different now though. From simple symbiosis to complex societies, functional group behavior can be seen at every level of life from prokaryotes up. Pseudomonas bacteria do not need concepts such as love to fill class roles in dynamic and complex social groups (though interestingly they do still display kin-selection/favoritism), so why is it that we do (or do we?)? Is this a flat out advantage? A necessary, but sub-par solution for dealing with the phenomenon of consciousness (and in turn is sapience itself beneficial?)? Or a complete accident?

My logic is probably a bit sloppy... I think what I was trying to say that is that emotion makes small group cohesion easier for thinking beings, and being able to function in such units dependably is adaptive. That's certainly part of it, but I think you're on to something too. Emotion is probably especially important for sapience.

Emotions are not necessarily a human specific attribute or even that different from instinctual impulses. In my opinion, instinctual impulses are emotions minus the "sentient-side experience." Take hunger for example, it is not directly tied to an emotion, it is an instinctual impulse that we recognize (our body tells us this through a feedback mechanism), but there seems to be no strong affecting component. If we allow that impulse to go unfulfilled, emotions will eventually step in to nudge us in the direction of satisfying that impulse in a way that only a sentient, meta-cognitive being can reflect on and struggle with. Emotions seem to be stronger reminders of a problem we must deal with, the kind of reminder that pollutes consciousness in a way that dry sensory reminders cannot always.

[Beguile's Mistress]

There is something you are not taking into account and probably may not be capable of recognizing with the scope within which you have limited your reasoning so I'll not waste my time going into that..

I'm perfectly capable of making choices with no knowledge of physics or what some mathematical formula may attempt to predict.  I cannot place myself in the figurative hands of something that is not capable of understanding me or anticipating how I may feel about about something when my emotions, feelings, needs and history are not know to it.  Predict all you want about what I might do but don't place money on it. 

I do not determine how things will go but I can determine how I want them to go and whether that desire is worth the effort.  I can see how something might benefit me but I can also choose to look for how it will impact others.  I can think ahead so to speak and choose how I wish to go on.  The likelihood that I might do something is not the same as the certainty that I will.  Therefore, no thing and no person may speak for me.  I reserve that right to myself alone.

In my philosophy there is only one entity that knows me and knows all the choices I might make at any given time and knows the results of each of those choices and the next choice that comes from each. 

I keep thinking of Asimov's Foundation and a butterfly and how a whisper uttered ages ago could destroy tomorrow.

[Ephiral]

There is something you are not taking into account and probably may not be capable of recognizing with the scope within which you have limited your reasoning so I'll not waste my time going into that..

My scope is "things which have some evidence in the real world pointing to their likelihood over other possibilities".

I'm perfectly capable of making choices with no knowledge of physics or what some mathematical formula may attempt to predict.  I cannot place myself in the figurative hands of something that is not capable of understanding me or anticipating how I may feel about about something when my emotions, feelings, needs and history are not know to it.  Predict all you want about what I might do but don't place money on it.

So you can act on imperfect information. This is not a uniquely human or non-deterministic phenomenon. As I mentioned earlier, there's a mathematical formula for it:

So we appear to be back to "I don't like this", which is hardly an argument. Also, I think you may have missed my point regarding the arbitrarily complex predictor earlier: It would be capable of anticipating how you feel, because your emotions, feelings, needs, and history would be known to it. We currently have no reason to believe that all of this is not derivable from the laws of physics and an initial state. I am asking, not for appeals to emotion, not for arguments from incredulity or disgust, but for actual evidence that says otherwise.

I do not determine how things will go but I can determine how I want them to go and whether that desire is worth the effort.  I can see how something might benefit me but I can also choose to look for how it will impact others.  I can think ahead so to speak and choose how I wish to go on.  The likelihood that I might do something is not the same as the certainty that I will.  Therefore, no thing and no person may speak for me.  I reserve that right to myself alone.

In my philosophy there is only one entity that knows me and knows all the choices I might make at any given time and knows the results of each of those choices and the next choice that comes from each. 

I keep thinking of Asimov's Foundation and a butterfly and how a whisper uttered ages ago could destroy tomorrow.

But that's just it. Given perfect information on your brain's state (and thus, by extension, your mindset), which the predictor I mentioned would have (unless, again, the brain is non-deterministic), we're not talking likelihood. We're talking certainty. You might change your mind, or decide pseudorandomly - but you were always going to change your mind or decide pseudorandomly. The fact that you have limited information about your brain and mind does not mean that this information does not exist.

[meikle]

In my philosophy there is only one entity that knows me and knows all the choices I might make at any given time and knows the results of each of those choices and the next choice that comes from each.

I think it is important to recognize that you are talking opinion, philosophy, belief, but Ephiral isn't interested in philosophy but is instead addressing the subject scientifically.  When you address a subject scientifically, what you feel or believe doesn't matter and philosophy is irrelevant; only what can be seen to be true through empirical evidence is important.

If you disagree with scientific approach, I mean, that's a different subject entirely.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Oh I totally agree.  It boils down to what I like because I enjoy being reduced to a series of figures and symbols on a page so that someone else can tell me that the most traumatic events in my life were meant to happen because the person who perpetrated them was always going to do that to me or that the most important person in my childhood was going to go against type and stereotype and be a monster because that was predetermined.

It doesn't make sense to me that a thing can do that.  It may predict what a trend may be but I don't see how it can do that for the individual.  My brain chemistry can't be duplicated because it isn't static.  My thoughts are constantly fluctuating and my history, psychology and experience constantly evolving.

Even you or I capable of rational thought will only select the words the other utters that resonate with us and ignore the rest.  I try to make a conscious effort to avoid that eventuality but that is my method of discussion. 

As far as liking and not liking go I do not like being dehumanized.  I am not a string of figures and symbols on a page and neither are my thoughts.

I think it is important to recognize that you are talking opinion, philosophy, belief, but Ephiral isn't interested in philosophy but is instead addressing the subject scientifically.  When you address a subject scientifically, what you feel or believe doesn't matter and philosophy is irrelevant; only what can be seen to be true through empirical evidence is important.

If you disagree with scientific approach, I mean, that's a different subject entirely.

Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine.  He has free will and may make that choice freely.  Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do.  Neither of you know me or choose to understand me.  You don't have to. 

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

[meikle]

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.

[citation needed]

You can't make absolute claims about reality and then back them up with a stance as subjective as, "that's what I believe."

Now, are you predictable presently, with any degree of accuracy?  No, we can't do that.  Does that mean that the laws of physics as we understand them don't apply to the human brain?  Seems unlikely.

[Oniya]

At the very least, she passes the Turing Test.  ;D

[Beguile's Mistress]

[citation needed]

You would have to know me personally to verify that.  However, I'll accept any verification you can provide that human beings can be 100% predictable.  Even a consistent 75% would be acceptable.  This would have to be on an individual basis by the way.

I also need the name and specs of the computer technology and equipment available to provide 100% accuracy (or a consistent percentage of accuracy of a lesser amoung) in what I or any other human being would do.

At the very least, she passes the Turing Test.  ;D

;D

[meikle]

You would have to know me personally to verify that.  However, I'll accept any verification you can provide that human beings can be 100% predictable.  Even a consistent 75% would be acceptable.  This would have to be on an individual basis by the way.

I also need the name and specs of the computer technology and equipment available to provide 100% accuracy (or a consistent percentage of accuracy of a lesser amoung) in what I or any other human being would do.

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

[chaoslord29]

Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine.  He has free will and may make that choice freely.  Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do.  Neither of you know me or choose to understand me.  You don't have to. 

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

Maybe try to look at it another way? Rather than scientific terms I can put it into logical philosophical terms that are equally indisputable. Try this on for size:

All events are the product of circumstance and stimulus.
Circumstances and stimulus are defined by past events and the physical laws of the universe.
As a human being, you have no ability to change past events or the physical laws of the universe.
Therefore, you have no functional free will.

The most compelling argument against free will for me has always been the problem of Agency. By what mechanism do you, in fact, exercise your free will that is not already accounted for by means outside your control like the immutable laws of the universe (large and small nuclear forces, electrochemistry, gravity, etc.)?

[Beguile's Mistress]

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

Okay.  When the technology becomes available to support your claims you may provide it.  I'm content to wait.

Maybe try to look at it another way? Rather than scientific terms I can put it into logical philosophical terms that are equally indisputable. Try this on for size:

All events are the product of circumstance and stimulus.
Circumstances and stimulus are defined by past events and the physical laws of the universe.
As a human being, you have no ability to change past events or the physical laws of the universe.
Therefore, you have no functional free will.

The most compelling argument against free will for me has always been the problem of Agency. By what mechanism do you, in fact, exercise your free will that is not already accounted for by means outside your control like the immutable laws of the universe (large and small nuclear forces, electrochemistry, gravity, etc.)?

My interpretation of past events and changes in that interpretation can do much to influence my current thinking.  I am capable of changing my mind.  I am capable of taking everything said in this thread into consideration and filtering it through my consciousness.  It will also have an affect on my sub-conscious. 

So, while I can't change physical laws I can be influenced by new interpretations of those physical laws and while I can't change history I can be aware that history as we tend to present it is subject to interpretation by the presenter.  Also, new historical evidence is brought to light and discussed from time to time.  Certain facts about Thomas Jefferson come to mind.

I have a personal history that has influenced me for years.  I recently discovered some documentation about that history that alters my perception of it and my thinking today.  It will be my choice (of my own free will) how I will let that new perception influence me.

[Ephiral]

Oh I totally agree.  It boils down to what I like because I enjoy being reduced to a series of figures and symbols on a page so that someone else can tell me that the most traumatic events in my life were meant to happen because the person who perpetrated them was always going to do that to me or that the most important person in my childhood was going to go against type and stereotype and be a monster because that was predetermined.

I am truly sorry that this happened to you. But from the start, the subject has been what is true, not what we'd prefer to be true.

It doesn't make sense to me that a thing can do that.  It may predict what a trend may be but I don't see how it can do that for the individual.  My brain chemistry can't be duplicated because it isn't static.  My thoughts are constantly fluctuating and my history, psychology and experience constantly evolving.

We model dynamic, changing systems in physics all the time. Your brain is an exceptionally complex one, beyond our current technological capabilities, but it's still just another dynamic system. What makes it so special?

Even you or I capable of rational thought will only select the words the other utters that resonate with us and ignore the rest.  I try to make a conscious effort to avoid that eventuality but that is my method of discussion.

Apparently you've missed the number of times I've said "Okay, I was wrong, thanks for the rebuttal" around here.

As far as liking and not liking go I do not like being dehumanized.  I am not a string of figures and symbols on a page and neither are my thoughts.

Sorry, but not liking it doesn't make it not true. Again, I'm arguing what is, not what we wish. 

Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine.  He has free will and may make that choice freely.  Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do.  Neither of you know me or choose to understand me.  You don't have to.

Your experiences can be recorded, quantified, measured, and analyzed. As evidence, I submit that you yourself are capable of doing so. Why would something with more information than you have about your brain state be worse than this?

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

The bolded bit there? That is a statement about reality. You are claiming that human beings are not predictable, period. My question is: What makes them different than every other physical object in existence? How do they break the laws that everything else obeys? If you can answer this, I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel in it.

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

"Not currently possible". does not equal "not possible" Commonly-accepted wisdom just over a century ago told us that human beings could not fly, let alone leave the planet. Does that mean it didn't happen?

In the absence of the technology, we have to look at what evidence we have about reality. And what it consistently says is that every macro-scale physical object - every last one! - behaves in a manner that, given sufficient information, is perfectly predictable. You are making an exceptional claim by saying that the brain, a macro-scale physical object, does not behave in this way. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

EDIT: Minor grammatical fix, removed a bit of snark.

[meikle]

It will be my choice (of my own free will) how I will let that new perception influence me.

I think this flies in the face of most of our modern understanding of human psychology, as well.

[DarklingAlice]

Feelings and arbitrary beliefs really have no place in this forum. I cannot fathom why it seems impossible that Elliquiy U stay on mission to discuss science, technology, and subjects of an academic nature without interference of dogmatically held, irrational belief. And I don't mean to imply that beliefs about such concepts are wrong, but they are beyond the confines of the discussion; and simply that if you assert something to be beyond the testable, phenomenal world of fact and reason it has no place here. There is already a place to discuss things that make us happy and/or sad and a place to discuss religious beliefs. It is not this place.

As far as arguments against free will go, I have to drop one of the more interesting.

There is no such thing as freedom, but everything in the world happens solely according to the laws of nature.

Granted, that there does exist freedom in the transcendental sense, as a peculiar kind of causality, operating to produce events in the world—a faculty, that is to say, of originating a state, and consequently a series of consequences from that state. In this case, not only the series originated by this spontaneity, but the determination of this spontaneity itself to the production of the series, that is to say, the causality itself must have an absolute commencement, such that nothing can precede to determine this action according to unvarying laws. But every beginning of action presupposes in the acting cause a state of inaction; and a dynamically primal beginning of action presupposes a state, which has no connection—as regards causality—with the preceding state of the cause—which does not, that is, in any wise result from it. Transcendental freedom is therefore opposed to the natural law of cause and effect, and such a conjunction of successive states in effective causes is destructive of the possibility of unity in experience and for that reason not to be found in experience—is consequently a mere fiction of thought.

We have, therefore, nothing but nature to which we must look for connection and order in cosmical events. Freedom—independence of the laws of nature—is certainly a deliverance from restraint, but it is also a relinquishing of the guidance of law and rule. For it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature. For, if freedom were determined according to laws, it would be no longer freedom, but merely nature. Nature, therefore, and transcendental freedom are distinguishable as conformity to law and lawlessness. The former imposes upon understanding the difficulty of seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes, inasmuch as causality is always conditioned thereby; while it compensates this labour by the guarantee of a unity complete and in conformity with law. The latter, on the contrary, holds out to the understanding the promise of a point of rest in the chain of causes, by conducting it to an unconditioned causality, which professes to have the power of spontaneous origination, but which, in its own utter blindness, deprives it of the guidance of rules, by which alone a completely connected experience is possible.

-from the Meiklejohn translation of the Critique of Pure Reason

Now, that is set counter an equally rational citation of the fallacy of infinite reduction, which is a compelling case against the absence of any other causal system but for natural law (and, I think, one that has to be embraced). These two together make up the third antimony of pure reason (being mutually exclusive ideas yet each possessing a rational proof).

[chaoslord29]

Okay.  When the technology becomes available to support your claims you may provide it.  I'm content to wait.

That's not quite how it works. I can prove her thesis with raw logic without ever having to appeal to science. I mean, it's not like you can prove how the science doesn't work or doesn't exist so just putting off the burden of proof on one another gets us nowhere fast.

My interpretation of past events and changes in that interpretation can do much to influence my current thinking.  I am capable of changing my mind.  I am capable of taking everything said in this thread into consideration and filtering it through my consciousness.  It will also have an affect on my sub-conscious. 

So, while I can't change physical laws I can be influenced by new interpretations of those physical laws and while I can't change history I can be aware that history as we tend to present it is subject to interpretation by the presenter.  Also, new historical evidence is brought to light and discussed from time to time.  Certain facts about Thomas Jefferson come to mind.

I have a personal history that has influenced me for years.  I recently discovered some documentation about that history that alters my perception of it and my thinking today.  It will be my choice (of my own free will) how I will let that new perception influence me.

What you seem to be missing in that whole narrative is where the 'decision' actually takes place. What are your "choices"  but the product of your interpretation of the events at hand, which are in turn a product of your interpretation of past events which is dependent on how you have previously interpreted events, which is based on how you previously interpreted events, ad infinitum. It's an infinite regress, one that precludes any individual agency on your part.

The part that you seem to be having trouble with is that this in no way diminishes your unique personhood and the greater effect and part you play in the grand scheme of things. Think about it, your individual actions are in fact the cumulative result of the actions and interactions of the combine total of creation stretching back through time.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

The bolded bit there? That is a statement about reality. You are claiming that human beings are not predictable, period. My question is: What makes them different than every other physical object in existence? How do they break the laws that everything else obeys? If you can answer this, I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel in it.

Explain please.  I am missing the part where I made the claim about all humanity.

Also, no matter how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or any other science can be employed to explained how a brain functions no one has explained how a mind works or why humans have deductive reasoning on a level no other biological organism possesses. 

[meikle]

Explain please.  I am missing the part where I made the claim about all humanity.

... What?  Are you now suggesting that you are unique in your brain's refusal to obey the laws of physics?

[Ephiral]

Explain please.  I am missing the part where I made the claim about all humanity.

Okay, then, you're making an even bolder claim: Why are you the special exception that doesn't function the same way every other member of the species does?

Also, no matter how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or any other science can be employed to explained how a brain functions no one has explained how a mind works or why humans have deductive reasoning on a level no other biological organism possesses.

Err... the entire field of neuropsychology would very much like to have a word with you about the claim that science can't tell us how the mind works. Your second claim is pretty bold: You know the exact psychological capabilities of every biological organism in existence? Particularly the ones that have already demonstrated a very high level of communication, abstract reasoning, and tool-using ability?

[chaoslord29]

Also, no matter how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or any other science can be employed to explained how a brain functions no one has explained how a mind works or why humans have deductive reasoning on a level no other biological organism possesses.

1) What is your mind if not your brain? How do you distinguish your mind, from your brain, and if it is in fact distinguishable, by what mechanism does the one interact and influence with the other? Huge stumbling block for your assertion.

2) Humans do not utilize deductive reasoning on a higher level than any other animal. Perhaps to a more extended degree (Anthropologists posit that it has something to do the the decelerated rate of brain development in human beings compared to other primates and animals), but that is more a factor of our civilizations ability to record, perpetuate, and expand upon knowledge. Biologically, there is no deciding factor in how the brain of a higher primate functions compared to most other vertebrates.

[Hemingway]

Very interesting discussion here. It's one of the few times I've actually been interested enough to read through it all ( or near enough that it makes no difference! ).

I do have one question for those claiming that no computer could ever reach the level of human brains - to think, to decide, and to love, as it were. It seems to me that the only difference is that we're biological, and they're not. Which isn't even as clear-cut a difference as it might seem.

[Ephiral]

Very interesting discussion here. It's one of the few times I've actually been interested enough to read through it all ( or near enough that it makes no difference! ).

I do have one question for those claiming that no computer could ever reach the level of human brains - to think, to decide, and to love, as it were. It seems to me that the only difference is that we're biological, and they're not. Which isn't even as clear-cut a difference as it might seem.

Frankly, it's a distinction that doesn't speak well of us, either - evolution is the shittiest of all possible successful engineers.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've always respected individuality.  We are each special in our own way and no two of us react in the same specific way to stimulus. 

Fortunately I've never stood before a room full of people and decided for them that they are nothing more than what some unfeeling inanimate machine calculated they were.  Each is an individual and special in their own right.  My contention isn't that I alone am special.  I believe that each of us is special even those who would attempt to take that away from me. 

You are, each and every one of you, the sum of your biology and everything that influenced you.  You are each to be celebrated as a unique individual with intelligence and self-determination.  I applaud you all and hope that no one ever succeeds in diminishing you to an equation or a predictable statistic with only the odor to burned insulation to hint at your existence.

Arguing for the sake of arguing has never appealed to me because it's pointless.   I'm not good at being stubborn and closed minded or a linear thinker and I feel those characteristics are needed to continue here.  Lest any of you take that as an accusation, it is not.  I revel in the emotional and the magical and celebrate the mystical and inspirational that give my spirit wings. 

Adieu and enjoy.

[Vekseid]

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

Deterministic is not equivalent to perfectly predictable. It is not necessarily possible to know all prior variables.

Very interesting discussion here. It's one of the few times I've actually been interested enough to read through it all ( or near enough that it makes no difference! ).

I do have one question for those claiming that no computer could ever reach the level of human brains - to think, to decide, and to love, as it were. It seems to me that the only difference is that we're biological, and they're not. Which isn't even as clear-cut a difference as it might seem.

As mentioned, I would appreciate it discussions of computers and 'assumed human' traits went into its own thread.

[chaoslord29]

Frankly, it's a distinction that doesn't speak well of us, either - evolution is the shittiest of all possible successful engineers.

Except perhaps a creator deity, but that's a totally different and potentially infinitely more inflammatory topic XD

I've always respected individuality.  We are each special in our own way and no two of us react in the same specific way to stimulus. 

Fortunately I've never stood before a room full of people and decided for them that they are nothing more than what some unfeeling inanimate machine calculated they were.  Each is an individual and special in their own right.  My contention isn't that I alone am special.  I believe that each of us is special even those who would attempt to take that away from me. 

You are, each and every one of you, the sum of your biology and everything that influenced you.  You are each to be celebrated as a unique individual with intelligence and self-determination.  I applaud you all and hope that no one ever succeeds in diminishing you to an equation or a predictable statistic with only the odor to burned insulation to hint at your existence.

Yes but a lack of free will doens't necessarily diminish any of that. Everyone can stil be unique and special but also complicit with a deterministic view of the universe at the same time. You're conflating the idea that we're all robots preprogrammed to respond in specific ways to specific stimuli with the idea that we're all going to respond the same way all the time. That is not the point nor a claim made by Deterministic theory. Only that you obey all the same physical laws as everything else and are therefore as theoretically predicatble in your actions two pool balls on a table.

Deterministic is not equivalent to perfectly predictable. It is not necessarily possible to know all prior variables.

And a cursory review of quantum physics would reveal that it's not theoretically possible either. The best we can hope for is a Probabilistic rather than a Deterministic model of the universe thanks to Quantum Indeterminancy. Unfortunately, that is still a model incompatiblie with free will, however it does not rule it out completely as a purely determinist approach would.

[Ephiral]

I've always respected individuality.  We are each special in our own way and no two of us react in the same specific way to stimulus.

Not debating this.

Fortunately I've never stood before a room full of people and decided for them that they are nothing more than what some unfeeling inanimate machine calculated they were.  Each is an individual and special in their own right.  My contention isn't that I alone am special.  I believe that each of us is special even those who would attempt to take that away from me.

The thing is, though, that we're individual and unique within certain constraints. You wouldn't say that a cat is just a particularly special and unique human being, would you? One of those constraints is that, as physical objects, we exist within physics. I can't just decide I don't want to obey the second law of thermodynamics any more because I don't like paying for food, I can't just ignore gravity to get out of a traffic jam, and I can't act in a non-deterministic fashion. I might be a unique individual with unique psychology, but that psychology still exists within a human brain. Wishing it were not so does not change reality. I am not attempting in any way to say that you are not unique and special and individual - merely that you behave in a deterministic fashion. "Free will" as typically formulated is the violation of determinism - the ability to choose a course of action other than the one your brain chemistry and experiences up to that point dictate you will choose. This, I reject. You are a supreme badass, a highly intelligent being capable of a great number of things; my only contention is that violating physics is not one of them.

You are, each and every one of you, the sum of your biology and everything that influenced you.  You are each to be celebrated as a unique individual with intelligence and self-determination.  I applaud you all and hope that no one ever succeeds in diminishing you to an equation or a predictable statistic with only the odor to burned insulation to hint at your existence.

I agree with everything you say up to "hope that no one ever...". I am not trying to reduce anybody to anything. I am stating facts about the world as it already exists. Not one thing has changed about the nature of consciousness and determinism since this discussion started.

Arguing for the sake of arguing has never appealed to me because it's pointless.   I'm not good at being stubborn and closed minded or a linear thinker and I feel those characteristics are needed to continue here.  Lest any of you take that as an accusation, it is not.  I revel in the emotional and the magical and celebrate the mystical and inspirational that give my spirit wings.

Adieu and enjoy.

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from, here. I'm a very passionate person, by nature. I revel in my emotions, too - but I take joy in the merely real. That's all. I would rather believe in what is rather than what I wish were real, and I will look to the real world to support or destroy my beliefs accordingly.

[Jude]

Frankly, it's a distinction that doesn't speak well of us, either - evolution is the shittiest of all possible successful engineers.

I disagree. What evolution lacks in elegance and direction, it makes up for in perseverance. :D

[chaoslord29]

I disagree. What evolution lacks in elegance and direction, it makes up for in perseverance. :D

Perserverance and nigh-inexhaustible resources and time haha.

[Vekseid]

And a cursory review of quantum physics would reveal that it's not theoretically possible either. The best we can hope for is a Probabilistic rather than a Deterministic model of the universe thanks to Quantum Indeterminancy. Unfortunately, that is still a model incompatiblie with free will, however it does not rule it out completely as a purely determinist approach would.

Quantum indeterminacy is based on the Copenhagen interpretation. It's a popular, influential interpretation but it is not without critics.

[chaoslord29]

Quantum indeterminacy is based on the Copenhagen interpretation. It's a popular, influential interpretation but it is not without critics.

You're right of course, but I was referring to Indeterminacy as the best expressed theory of quantum interactions at this point (to my knowledge). The overarching point is that unless you're more or less willing to rule out Quantum Physics as a field, you've got to accept a less than Deterministic interpretation of the universe. Doesn't mean you have to accept free will of course.

For me, the biggest stumbling block is still the Problem of Agency. Even if Quantum Indeterminacy (or some entirely different factor) allowed for enough Indeterminacy in the otherwise immutable laws that govern all actions and reactions, by what mechanism would you, as a human, exercise any influence of them. I realize Beguile Mistress has bowed out of the conversation, but I'd like to reference her earlier post as the standard problem of the Mind-Brain interaction. If your Mind is the agent by which you exercise free will, then it must exist as something besides the purely physical makeup of your brain. But if your brain can account for all other functions and behavior of your person, how do you claim the mind has any purchase on the otherwise explainable actions you take?

[Ephiral]

Quantum indeterminacy is based on the Copenhagen interpretation. It's a popular, influential interpretation but it is not without critics.

I.. somehow missed that bit. Yeah, I reject Copenhagen for the same reason I reject free will.

[chaoslord29]

I.. somehow missed that bit. Yeah, I reject Copenhagen for the same reason I reject free will.

Dude!!! How could you miss that bit XD

So on what basis or in what way do you account for the fundamentally non-deterministic function of particles at the quantum level?

[Ephiral]

Dude!!! How could you miss that bit XD

So on what basis or in what way do you account for the fundamentally non-deterministic function of particles at the quantum level?

Many worlds. Quantum phenomena appear to go one way or the other randomly because they do both. This interpretation, at least, does not require a non-local FTL phenomenon to happen all the time in defiance of everything else we've ever known.

[chaoslord29]

Many worlds. Quantum phenomena appear to go one way or the other randomly because they do both. This interpretation, at least, does not require a non-local FTL phenomenon to happen all the time in defiance of everything else we've ever known.

So an infininte number of alternate universes that are infinitely differently deterministic?

[Ephiral]

So an infininte number of alternate universes that are infinitely differently deterministic?

Pretty much. At least it doesn't flagrantly conflict with physics.

[chaoslord29]

Pretty much. At least it doesn't flagrantly conflict with physics.

Flagrantly conflict with existing physics? Or open up exciting new implications in the way we interpret sub atomic interactions and perhaps even small nuclear forces themselves? Huh? Amirite?  ;D

In all serioussness though, I think you already posted the most important aspect of this, which is that 'higher' tiers of physical science up from theoretical physics aren't going to exactly start reinterpreting everything in like of the potential variance of a few subatomic particles. I mean, chemicals are still going to interact with chemicals in much the same way they obviously have as long as chemistry's been around. Electricity behaves in exactly the way we would expect in excess of %99.9999999999 of the time, and since these are the two primary functions that brain activity is predicated upon . . . well let's just say it doesn't exactly look like the kind of free will we would probably like even if we could consciously manipulate individual quantum particles.

[Jude]

Flagrantly conflict with existing physics? Or open up exciting new implications in the way we interpret sub atomic interactions and perhaps even small nuclear forces themselves? Huh? Amirite?  ;D

In all serioussness though, I think you already posted the most important aspect of this, which is that 'higher' tiers of physical science up from theoretical physics aren't going to exactly start reinterpreting everything in like of the potential variance of a few subatomic particles. I mean, chemicals are still going to interact with chemicals in much the same way they obviously have as long as chemistry's been around. Electricity behaves in exactly the way we would expect in excess of %99.9999999999 of the time, and since these are the two primary functions that brain activity is predicated upon . . . well let's just say it doesn't exactly look like the kind of free will we would probably like even if we could consciously manipulate individual quantum particles.

Unless at some point or another the constants that govern chemical and physical interactions were subject to "many worlds" branch points. In which cause, the many worlds theory accounts for the anthropic problem too.