1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes I have mentioned that several times. Free will as defined by "the ability to make decisions" is like a heart beat, a measurable feature of physiology. I have not changed that definition. Scientists are studying it as such. They are not asking or seeking to answer philosophical questions about whether or not it exists. I think they would rather not comment.
It depends on context.
[b]I understand that the definition of free will is controversial and debatable. We've already been over this.
Yes, and when we were going over it, you made the claim that we indisputably have free will because you define free will as what we have.
I'm sorry to sound purposefully evasive on the subject of what does or ...[text shortened]... depends on how it is defined. Given that you keep changing definitions, I cannot give an answer.
"I am sure they are and have not disputed that. Why you feel the need to demonstrate that they are is what is confusing."
You're saying the definition of the term is vague and useless. I am saying it is useful, as demonstrated by the fact that scientists are studying it. Why would neuroscientists study something vague and useless?
I answered the computer thing as best I could. I don't really see how it's contextually relevant, unless you want to discuss similarities/differences between the mechanisms of how computers think vs. how brains work. Is that where you want to go with this?
Originally posted by wildgrassWow, you really can get yourself into a muddle.
You're saying the definition of the term is vague and useless. I am saying it is useful, as demonstrated by the fact that scientists are studying it.
It seems you have totally misunderstood most of my posts, so I think we should just drop it rather than trying to untangle it all.
I answered the computer thing as best I could. I don't really see how it's contextually relevant,
If one is to talk about decision making processes with relation to determinism, it is highly relevant to ask about decision making machines that can be deterministic or not by our design.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah that happens when I'm confused. I still don't understand why it's vague or where I contradicted myself.
Wow, you really can get yourself into a muddle.
It seems you have totally misunderstood most of my posts, so I think we should just drop it rather than trying to untangle it all.
[b]I answered the computer thing as best I could. I don't really see how it's contextually relevant,
If one is to talk about decision making processes with relation to ...[text shortened]... y relevant to ask about decision making machines that can be deterministic or not by our design.[/b]
Can you explain the computer thing a little further, for someone who studies cells and proteins? I can see that computers are useful experimental systems for modeling/predicting human decision making, but it's just a model right? We're not equating computers with brains?
Originally posted by wildgrassOne of the key issues with 'free will' is whether or not it is compatible with determinism. If the universe is entirely deterministic then so is the brain, and the decisions made are fully deterministic. So it might be useful to ask whether a fully deterministic system can be said to have free will.
Can you explain the computer thing a little further, for someone who studies cells and proteins? I can see that computers are useful experimental systems for modeling/predicting human decision making, but it's just a model right? We're not equating computers with brains?
But I am also looking at the question of what one means by 'free will' even in a non-deterministic universe and asking whether consciousness is required and whether or not you think there is something magical about the whole thing.
So no, I am not talking about computers for modelling/predicting human decision making but genuinely asking whether or not a sophisticated computer can be said to have free will - and maybe even an unsophisticated one. A chess computer decides, all by itself, what move it should play. Is that its 'will'? If not, why not? Is it free? If not, why not?
5 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassFalse. Scientific method may lead to a correction of an erroneous concept (apparently esp in maths I have noticed) or lead to the rejection of a concept or lead to a new concept, but, unless it is specifically the science of linguistics, it never tells us what definitions of terms/words are valid nor does it clarify what we mean by a term/word. Can you give just one example to the contrary of that? If so, please say it here so we can inspect it...
New knowledge created through the scientific method changes definitions and meanings and concepts all the time. .
If not, what does that tell you?
They are often imprecise and unsatisfying
Only often in pseudoscience, not in any kind of completely valid real science.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's a useful question for sure. My counter-argument was that the definition of free will gets distorted by the context. It's not my quote, but I think someone once analogized that "A machine can think in the same way a submarine can swim." You can tweak the definition of the word swim so that it can technically describe both things but it doesn't describe either action very precisely. If you limit the context of your discussion to one thing or the other, the definitions are less vague.
One of the key issues with 'free will' is whether or not it is compatible with determinism. If the universe is entirely deterministic then so is the brain, and the decisions made are fully deterministic. So it might be useful to ask whether a fully deterministic system can be said to have free will.
But I am also looking at the question of what one mea ...[text shortened]... elf, what move it should play. Is that its 'will'? If not, why not? Is it free? If not, why not?
So my answer to that question was: No. Submarines cannot swim.
My other point was that, with all machines, we design them. No one designed our brains. Fundamental problems also exist in comparative methods for studying their functionality. We understand more about how computers work so that does make them good model systems, but I don't think they tell us about free will.
Once we know how free will works, it'll be fun/apocalyptic to try to model that in a computer.
Originally posted by wildgrassNo, they are not. They are still just as vague, but by you are running away from the vagueness by making it irrelevant (by restricting it to an area where it is easy to distinguish who can or cannot swim).
If you limit the context of your discussion to one thing or the other, the definitions are less vague.
My other point was that, with all machines, we design them. No one designed our brains.
And why is that relevant in any way?
Fundamental problems also exist in comparative methods for studying their functionality. We understand more about how computers work so that does make them good model systems, but I don't think they tell us about free will.
If they have free will, then they would tell us about free will much more effectively as they are easier to study.
1 edit
Originally posted by wildgrassNo, it is shown invalid by the context showing how the definition does not corresponding to what you mean by the term in all contexts. If a definition isn't valid in all contexts, it isn't valid.
My counter-argument was that the definition of free will gets distorted by the context.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYour definition of a cell in an earlier post was wildly unsatisfying.
False. Scientific method may lead to a correction of an erroneous concept (apparently esp in maths I have noticed) or lead to the rejection of a concept or lead to a new concept, but, unless it is specifically the science of linguistics, it never tells us what definitions of terms/words are valid nor does it clarify what we mean by a term/word. Can you give jus ...[text shortened]... te] They are often imprecise and unsatisfying [/quote]
Only in pseudoscience, not real science.
One recent example of the evolution in meaning within a scientific term is "epigenetics". At one point this word meant "Heritable information that is not coded in DNA". We figure out what this information was, namely modifications to the DNA strand by methylation and hydroxymethylation that can be read and restored following DNA replication. But then we found some methylation events that were not heritable, and heritable modifications in proteins, so it was debated whether this was also epigenetics or not. Whether the definition needed changed based on new information. Now the term can refer to histone modifications, although this typically depends on your area of expertise, because geneticists hate that. Some use it to describe simply "the way DNA is organized in a nucleus." Some transcriptional biologists use it to describe the priming of a locus prior to transcription, when all the necessary proteins jump on the DNA and wait and wait and wait until they get a signal. They say the cell is epigenetically poised. All these definitions changed because we learned more about the concept, and it remains necessary to keep in mind the context of the experimental system when using the word.
There are lots more examples if you want another one.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhether or not they can swim is boring. Throw them in the water and take good notes. But I'd much rather know how they swim. It is not irrelevant, since if we want to know how things work we need to understand mechanisms. Maybe this is a fundamental difference in our individual thought processes and interests.
No, they are not. They are still just as vague, but by you are running away from the vagueness by making it irrelevant (by restricting it to an area where it is easy to distinguish who can or cannot swim).
8 edits
Originally posted by wildgrasswhich has nothing to do with scientific method because scientific method isn't 'debate' nor what we decide what we mean by a term. What we decide what we mean by a term comes before or after the scientific method and has no part of the scientific method. So that isn't an example. PLEASE PLEASE read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method so you can see this.
... so it was debated whether this was also epigenetics or not. .....
There are lots more examples if you want another one.
Yes;Try again. Keep them coming so I can point out why they are wrong like the first one.
Originally posted by humyI don't know why I respond to your posts because I can't understand what you're saying. Can you try writing more clearly?
which has nothing to do with scientific method because scientific method isn't 'debate' nor what we decide what we mean by a term. What we decide what we mean by a term comes before or after the scientific method and has no part of the scientific method. So that isn't an example. PLEASE PLEASE read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method so you can see ...[text shortened]... uote]
Yes;Try again. Keep them coming so I can point out why they are wrong like the first one.
I gave an example of a word whose meaning changed over time due to the creation of new knowledge. Am I wrong because the definition of the word did not change?
Originally posted by wildgrassYet that is what you brought it down to.
Whether or not they can swim is boring.
Throw them in the water and take good notes. But I'd much rather know how they swim.
Exactly. And by excluding submarines to avoid confusing yourself, you missed some keys to the methods of swimming.
If you saw a bacterium moving through the water with its flagellum you would say 'that's not swimming' and not investigate further.
Or more accurately, you would say 'I don't want to address the issue of whether or not that is swimming so I'll avoid studying any such behaviours to avoid confusion'.
I on the other hand am fine with a relatively vague definition for the word 'swimming', but because I know it is vague I will not make pronouncements using the word. So I will not say that submarines cannot swim. And I will equally not pronounce that computers cannot have free will.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIsn't that what you keep coming back to, by saying that the mechanisms of free will are irrelevant?
Yet that is what you brought it down to.
[b]Throw them in the water and take good notes. But I'd much rather know how they swim.
Exactly. And by excluding submarines to avoid confusing yourself, you missed some keys to the methods of swimming.
If you saw a bacterium moving through the water with its flagellum you would say 'that's not swimming' a ...[text shortened]... t submarines cannot swim. And I will equally not pronounce that computers cannot have free will.[/b]