1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere's a lot to unpack in your post. I do hate philosophy. It isn't true, though, that free will is either a philosophical concept or religious belief. It is an apparent, rather obvious feature of who we are, like a heart beat. We have the ability to make decisions, which can be measured and studied scientifically. This isn't based on any belief. I am exasperated by the idea that determinism would be considered a scientific concept, since this doctrine relies on a belief structure that resembles other religious doctrines. You replace one creator with another. Just read the definition.
Well given that 'free will' is very much a either a philosophical concept or a religious belief, that seems entirely appropriate. The exact workings of the brain may rule out certain things, but the reality is that we already know enough to rule out most religious claims on the topic, and we will never know enough to rule out some philosophical issues wit ...[text shortened]... effect.
I am afraid I am not familiar with the reference to Bob Frost. Do you have a link?[/b]
Free will, however, is a scientific concept. It is being studied and understood on a mechanistic level. See this reference for a good example [1]. In it they conclude:
It could therefore be inferred that crossing the threshold from unawareness to awareness is a reflection of bound crossing. In this way, the integration-to-bound theory may help to resolve the contradiction between the subjective report of free will and the requirement for causal antecedents to non-capricious, willed actions. Finally, insofar as simple voluntary actions constitute an appropriate experimental context, our results provide a starting point for investigating mechanisms underlying concepts such as self, will and intention to act, which might be conserved among mammalian species.
Robert Frost wrote a poem entitled "The Road Not Taken" about the nuance of decision making, subject to diverse interpretation [2]. Maybe it's possible, but it is very very hard to imagine that computers can be created to engage in similar imaginative and illusory decision making, much less that a computer could envision such an amazing poem. Even if it were possible, the mechanisms would necessarily be different.
[1] https://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n11/pdf/nn.3826.pdf
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Not_Taken
Originally posted by wildgrassWell I guess that's a matter of perspective.
There's a lot to unpack in your post. I do hate philosophy. It isn't true, though, that free will is either a philosophical concept or religious belief. It is an apparent, rather obvious feature of who we are, like a heart beat.
One can say 'free will is X' then ask 'do we have X' or one can say 'we have X' then ask 'what is X'.
I am exasperated by the idea that determinism would be considered a scientific concept, since this doctrine relies on a belief structure that resembles other religious doctrines.
The claim that the universe is fully deterministic, would be a belief based claim. The claim that it is still an open possibility is not. It is a perfectly reasonable and scientific or philosophical thing to ask about whether it is the case and what the implications would be if it was.
Free will, however, is a scientific concept. It is being studied and understood on a mechanistic level.
Here I think you are merely casing unnecessary confusion by defining 'free will' as 'whatever it is we use to make decisions'. I find that somewhat non-useful as a definition as it then begs the question what other animals, if any, have free will. How would one decide? And worse, it is likely to cause confusion with more popular definitions.
It could therefore be inferred that crossing the threshold from unawareness to awareness is a reflection of bound crossing. In this way, the integration-to-bound theory may help to resolve the contradiction between the subjective report of free will and the requirement for causal antecedents to non-capricious, willed actions. Finally, insofar as simple voluntary actions constitute an appropriate experimental context, our results provide a starting point for investigating mechanisms underlying concepts such as self, will and intention to act, which might be conserved among mammalian species.
Hard to comment much without reading the full article. But it appears they are trying to investigate the interactions between conscious thought and less conscious decision making processes. It may be interesting, but doesn't change anything about most of the things I have said in this thread. The exact mechanics of human thought is not really relevant.
Robert Frost wrote a poem entitled "The Road Not Taken" about the nuance of decision making, subject to diverse interpretation [2]. Maybe it's possible, but it is very very hard to imagine that computers can be created to engage in similar imaginative and illusory decision making, much less that a computer could envision such an amazing poem. Even if it were possible, the mechanisms would necessarily be different.
I fail to see anything in that poem that suggests anything unique about human decision making or why you think it is relevant to the discussion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat are more popular definitions of free will? We define "...whatever it is..." all the time without fully knowing all the underlying mechanisms. You need a starting point if you want to study it.
I think you are merely casing unnecessary confusion by defining 'free will' as 'whatever it is we use to make decisions'. I find that somewhat non-useful as a definition as it then begs the question what other animals, if any, have free will. How would one decide? And worse, it is likely to cause confusion with more popular definitions.
The article citation illustrates that the concept of free will is an active area of scientific research, as opposed to a philosophy or a religion.
Originally posted by wildgrasshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
What are more popular definitions of free will?
We define "...whatever it is..." all the time without fully knowing all the underlying mechanisms. You need a starting point if you want to study it.
Sure, so call it 'human thought'.
The article citation illustrates that the concept of free will is an active area of scientific research, as opposed to a philosophy or a religion.
No, the article citation illustrates that animal thought processes are being studied.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk, sure. It's an possibility which cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, kinda like a religion.
The claim that the universe is fully deterministic, would be a belief based claim. The claim that it is still an open possibility is not. It is a perfectly reasonable and scientific or philosophical thing to ask about whether it is the case and what the implications would be if it was.
5 edits
Originally posted by wildgrassSo what alternative "formula" do you use? And if yours stated one contradicts what is meant by a word, that means it is invalid. Any definition (of something) that doesn't express the intended meaning is always, by definition, wrong; don't you agree?
I admit to the contradiction by your strict logical formula.
Do you think machines and humans, each having the ability to make decision, operate in the same way?
No. That still leaves your definition as contradicting whatever you mean by 'free will'.
You have still failed to adequately define it and that only increases my suspicion you (any at least most other people) actually don't know what it means yourself even if you think you do. This is a symptom of vague inconcise muddled thinking; which I assert should be avoided in everyday life let alone in science.
Do you think free can be created?
"free" of what? What kind of "free"?
As for your comments of "consciousness"; what do you mean by "consciousness"? How would you define it? When it comes to consciousness, absolutely nobody including I knows what they are talking about. So trying to define 'free will' in terms of "consciousness" only shifts the problem of what is 'free will' to the problem of what is "consciousness"; the problem is that neither can be adequately defined because they are BOTH too vague to define adequately so you are not reducing the problem by that tactic.
Originally posted by humyI thought i explained it clearly several times but apparently not. The ability to make decisions is free will. You and I clearly have this, therefore it exists. When one exerts their own free will to create a computer, that computer does not have free will (again, unless you think free will can be created). Therefore, your logical formula does not seem to add up.
So what alternative "formula" do you use? And if yours stated one contradicts what is meant by a word, that means it is invalid. Any definition (of something) that doesn't express the intended meaning is always, by definition, wrong; don't you agree?
[quote] Do you think machines and humans, each having the ability to make decision, operate in the same way? ...[text shortened]... When it comes to consciousness, absolutely nobody including I knows what they are talking about.
And you're kinda making my point about consciousness too. If no one knows what it is, then how can you give it to a computer?
3 edits
Originally posted by wildgrass"apparently" not and DEFINITELY not.
I thought i explained it clearly several times but apparently not.
The ability to make decisions is free will.
Then an AI can have 'free will'?
You and I clearly have this, therefore it exists.
yes, "The ability to make decisions" therefore exists. What about 'free will'? That doesn't show 'free will' exists because you haven't exactly defined it (your definition not giving the intended meaning)
When one exerts their own free will to create a computer, that computer does not have free will
and I never claimed/said/implied/believed it does. I still don't know what you mean by 'free will' let alone proven its existence thus it is impossible for me to asses whether we or a computer can have 'free will'.
And you're kinda making my point about consciousness too. If no one knows what it is, then how can you give it to a computer?
I never said a computer can be given 'consciousness'. What is 'consciousness'? Until you (or somebody) defines exactly what that means, I can never have any rational opinion one way or the other whether WE can have 'consciousness', let alone a computer!
Better to have no opinion than one based on ignorance.
Originally posted by wildgrassNo, its not like religion at all. Religion says 'this is so' about something that cannot be proven or disproven. Philosophy says 'what would the implications be if x were so?'.
Ok, sure. It's an possibility which cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, kinda like a religion.
Originally posted by wildgrassComputers most definitely have 'the ability to make decisions'. So either you mean something different by that phrase than my interpretation, or you contradicted yourself. I think that phrase need significant expansion.
I thought i explained it clearly several times but apparently not. The ability to make decisions is free will. You and I clearly have this, therefore it exists. When one exerts their own free will to create a computer, that computer does not have free will (again, unless you think free will can be created). Therefore, your logical formula does not seem to ...[text shortened]... int about consciousness too. If no one knows what it is, then how can you give it to a computer?
And when you say 'computer' do you mean a fully deterministic traditional style overrated calculator, or do you include any possible AI? You seem to imply free will devices cannot be created, though why you believe this is beyond me, it seems like a totally illogical thing to believe given that I have a child.
Originally posted by humyIt appears that you have identified a linguistic technicality that is bothering you, but other than that I don't know what you're trying to argue. I have admitted that the terminology can be problematic (Based on the "free will" wikipedia article, it's been thoroughly debated for centuries), but "the ability to make decisions" appears to be an appropriate definition used by neuroscientists who study the underlying mechanisms. Use apathists word "volition" if the other definition bothers you.
"apparently" not and DEFINITELY not.The ability to make decisions is free will.
Then an AI can have 'free will'?You and I clearly have this, therefore it exists.
yes, "The ability to make decisions" therefore exists. What about 'free will'? That doesn't show 'free will' exists because you haven't exactly defined it (your ...[text shortened]... e 'consciousness', let alone a computer!
Better to have no opinion than one based on ignorance.