Freewill Revisited

[Nous]

And you are begging the question that the human mind does not follow an algorithm. I think that assuming that the human mind goes beyond Turing computability is a pretty strong claim

I think you are conflating more than one issue here. Most importantly, to note that computers do not choose their actions does not imply that anyone would fail the Turing test. Right?

 

[Katzpur]

"Putting up a roadblock" in order to insist that we define our terms according to your wishes sounds a bit juvenile to me. I see no reason why we can't simply acknowledge each other's usages. But if you do, then I think I'll end our conversation here, although you're free to continue talking.

Juvenile? I'm going to have to assume we disagree on what "juvenile" means, because if it means to you what it means to me, then you intended to insult me, which I know you wouldn't do. Having said that, I'm through talking.

 

[Nous]

Another response would be to ask how I was defining "choice" -- or, figure it out from context, if that's possible. However, you might not have the free will for those things to be options for you.

How about if I prove you wrong about that?

 

[viole]

I think you are conflating more than one issue here. Most importantly, to note that computers do not choose their actions does not imply that anyone would fail the Turing test. Right?

I did not address the Turing test. I wonder where you got that impression.

i addressed the Turing definition of computability. Which is equivalent to other definitions, like the Church definition, recursive functions, lambda calculus and so. I make the unsafe assumption you know what I am talking about, for the sake of discussion.

That the human mind is capable to do things that a (universal) Turing machine cannot, is a bold claim, for which there is no evidence.

What makes you think that it can?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nous]

I did not address the Turing test. I wonder where you got that impression.

i addressed the Turing definition of computability. Which is equivalent to other definitions, like the Church definition, recursive functions, lambda calculus and so. I make the unsafe assumption you know what I am talking about, for the sake of discussion.

Whether the human mind is capable to solve problems that a universal Turing machine cannot, is a bold claim, for which there is no evidence.

What makes you think that it can?

Ciao

- viole

Please explain how pointing out that computers do not choose their actions implies something about 'the human mind going beyond Turing computability".

 

[viole]

Please explain how pointing out that computers do not choose their actions implies something about 'the human mind going beyond Turing computability".

You tell me. I never said that computers cannot choose their actions. Maybe current computers cannot. But mainly for thechnological reasons, not theoretical ones. Our current computers are ridicolously simple as compared with a neural network made of 100 of billions of interconnected computational units.

But there is nothing in the way for them to have as much free will as the Turing machine between our ears,

Ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

Does Dennett argue for compatibilism?

Are you arguing for compatibilism?

Had to look that up...my Googling suggests that Dennett is clearly a compatiblist. I suppose I am as well.

However, my thing is that free will is a mythic belief. I think that it will resolve itself into a more rational concept via systems theory. What I call the problem of self-reference is tightly wrapped up in all this...

For me agency (aka free will) is that property of certain systems which can make itself a causal link in a chain of determined action. So draw a circle around something and call it a system. Within that circle there is a thing that is self-created or self-identified by that system as a thing. That thing is a property or outcome of causal events in the system so to that extent it is entirely valid. Now when that system shows that similar inputs yield differing outputs you have a sense of the leverage or will power of that self-created thing within that system. That is agency.

A person cannot exercise too much agency unless they live in a society that supports that agency. So really individual agency is created in the context of the greater system, society, which self-supports it. Again this is the property of systems to self-create new parts within its system that are not reducible to the parts of the system that are seen to be existent outside that system.

So our current understanding of Free Will is this symbolic (in the Jungian sense) and mythic construct that is not easily amenable to scientific understanding though I see that cognitive scientists are making great strides in the neurology of consciousness these days. It will require a further development of systems theory (chaos, complex, adaptive systems) in order to more closely frame all of this in more rational and reproducible contexts. It will also involve disentangling another modern mythic concept, Self or Soul or Spirit. Do you and I "exist" as a thing?

 

[Nous]

You tell me.

???

George said:

Computers do not choose. Computers apply an algorithm and deliver an output. You are begging the question by defining choice in a way that precludes choice.​

To which you replied:

And you are begging the question that the human mind does not follow an algorithm. I think that assuming that the human mind goes beyond Turing computability is a pretty strong claim . . .
​

I am asking you to explain how George has begged any question or made any assumption about the human mind going "beyond Turing computability".

 

[Nous]

However, my thing is that free will is a mythic belief.

So you're saying that you're the sort of thing that cannot choose to state a true proposition rather than a false one in answer to, e.g., the question of whether you are able to choose your actions or not?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map. Normal reading has led me to meditation. Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when you find yourself distracted and off on some tangent no judgement... just go back to the breath. Try to take control of what your mind focuses on. I want to focus on that time period... Five minutes.

I don't know about you but when I made real attempts at this my brain was so distracted. It stands to reason that those distractions influence our free will. For any serious people there are free meditation apps out there... headspace, waking up, others... I don't think you really need an app. So reading 21 lessons and this dude says he meditates two hours a day. Go back to five minutes.

I think we clearly don't have free will. You can make arguments that someone chose to do X, Y and Z and if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently. I agree in the sense that the people and environments we subject ourselves too and in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

According to Sanatana Dharma (eternal occupation of the soul), all living entities have a free-will. At the same time, they are perfectly controlled at all times by the laws of God. One may say, how is that possible?

Suppose, there is a fire. One can knowingly or even unknowingly put his hand in that flame. This action is his free-will. God has given us the intelligence and discretion to tell right from wrong, good from bad. So He will not interfere with our free-will or our action. But at the same time, in accordance to the laws of God, one has to accept the reaction of that action - his hand will get burnt.

In this way, a living entity is continuously exercising his free-will to make new choices. At the same time he is enjoying/suffering the consequences of his earlier choices made using his free-will.

The birth of a living entity in different cultures, with different genetic make-up, different environments etc. is simply an arrangement of God to give that individual a faciity to enjoy/suffer the consequences of his different free-will choices made over many lifetimes. That is why someone is born rich, others not so rich; someone is handsome while another not so handsome, someone intelligent another not. All are enjoying/suffering reactions of their free-will choices made over many previous lifetimes.

Scientifically put - Every action (using free-will) has an equal and opposite reaction.
Religiously said - What you sow, so shall you reap

 

[sealchan]

So you're saying that you're the sort of thing that cannot choose to state a true proposition rather than a false one in answer to, e.g., the question of whether you are able to choose your actions or not?

I am saying that I am not the sort of thing which can escape the circular self-definition of myself and my society that I exist, have agency and have responsibility in that regard (may be rewarded and/or punished).

For me to claim that I exist, have free will, I would need to define what that is and demonstrate that I fit the definition. We do not have that sort of consensus understanding currently but a science of systems may be able to provide one...perhaps in the not too distant future.

 

[sealchan]

According to Sanatana Dharma (eternal occupation of the soul), all living entities have a free-will. At the same time, they are perfectly controlled at all times by the laws of God. One may say, how is that possible?

Suppose, there is a fire. One can knowingly or even unknowingly put his hand in that flame. This action is his free-will. God has given us the intelligence and discretion to tell right from wrong, good from bad. So He will not interfere with our free-will or our action. But at the same time, in accordance to the laws of God, one has to accept the reaction of that action - his hand will get burnt.

In this way, a living entity is continuously exercising his free-will to make new choices. At the same time he is enjoying/suffering the consequences of his earlier choices made using his free-will.

The birth of a living entity in different cultures, with different genetic make-up, different environments etc. is simply an arrangement of God to give that individual a faciity to enjoy/suffer the consequences of his different free-will choices made over many lifetimes. That is why someone is born rich, others not so rich; someone is handsome while another not so handsome, someone intelligent another not. All are enjoying/suffering reactions of their free-will choices made over many previous lifetimes.

Scientifically put - Every action (using free-will) has an equal and opposite reaction.
Religiously said - What you sow, so shall you reap

Because we can remember and anticipate the expected outcomes of various choices, we, as agents, decide what to do. But at the same time how difficult would it be for a given person to put their hand in that fire knowing what we all know?

Perhaps the reality of our free will is in the variety in the level of willingness across all individuals to do this rather than the ease with which an individual can choose to do what would be painful.

 

[viole]

???

George said:

Computers do not choose. Computers apply an algorithm and deliver an output. You are begging the question by defining choice in a way that precludes choice.​

To which you replied:

And you are begging the question that the human mind does not follow an algorithm. I think that assuming that the human mind goes beyond Turing computability is a pretty strong claim . . .
​

I am asking you to explain how George has begged any question or made any assumption about the human mind going "beyond Turing computability".

Isn’t that obvious?

Computers do not choose. Computers follow an algorithm and produce an output.

That is the claim. Sounds like following an algorithm and producing an output precludes any possibility to have the same capability to choose that we have.

I argue thai following an algorithm and producing an output does not necessitate the absence of choice. At least choice, or the illusion thereof, as we know it.

Why should computers, as we might very well be a very advanced version thereof, cannot choose?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

Yet.



And you are begging the question that the human mind does not follow an algorithm. I think that assuming that the human mind goes beyond Turing computability is a pretty strong claim that seems to be motivated solely by anthropocentrism and an unsubstantiated rejection to the fact that we are not much more than mere machines.

Ciao

- viole

Using the word choice to not exclude freewill in no way assumes any conclusion. Furthermore, I said nothing of the human mind alone. Jumping to conclusions doesn't help anyone.

 

[Curious George]

I am simply using the word "choice" in the sense of "picking between options". And yes, I have heard professional programmers use the word "choice" in that context. Do you have a more convenient word for what happens when a computer picks between option A and option B, based on its programming?

Were this any other discussion, there would be no problem, but choice itself denotes freewill in this context. There are not really any other "options" if they cannot be picked, selected, or chosen. Computers no more choose between options than a calculator chooses to display a number between 0-9 when you press the number 4.

Using "choice" in such a way that precludes any other possible definition of choice while discussing the meaning of freewill is not meaningful. Discussions of freewill are attempts to understand control. Whatever control might be possible is traced back to this idea of choice. Thus, conversations of freewill are, in part, trying to define what we mean when we say choice. Using the anthropomorphic language here to describe an object obscures rather than elucidates. Computers do not actually choose, we say they choose for sake of simplicity. If you want a better word, the word is yield or display depending on the situation.

 

[Sunstone]

Using "choice" in such a way that precludes any other possible definition of choice while discussing the meaning of freewill is not meaningful.

I distinguish between "choice" and "free choice". That seems to solve the problem you raise, but you are free to dispute that.

 

[Curious George]

Isn’t that obvious?

Computers do not choose. Computers follow an algorithm and produce an output.

That is the claim. Sounds like following an algorithm and producing an output precludes any possibility to have the same capability to choose that we have.

I argue thai following an algorithm and producing an output does not necessitate the absence of choice. At least choice, or the illusion thereof, as we know it.

Why should computers, as we might very well be a very advanced version thereof, cannot choose?

Ciao

- viole

No, it is not obvious. I have assumed no conclusion.

But, following an algorithm an producing an output is not what we mean when we use the word choice. Were it true that humans simply followed an algorithm and produced an output then humans too would not choose.

The illusion of choice is not choice. Hence the words illusion of choice.

"Why should computers, as we might very well be a very advanced version thereof, cannot choose?"

I am struggling to understand this. I am assuming your question "why should computers cannot choose?" Means why should we conclude that computers do not choose? Well, concluding they can is an anthropomorphism which comes off as, ironically, anthropocentric. But, nothing a computer does is demonstrative of volition. It is indeed true that we may be just advanced versions of computers. But that changes nothing. I did not say that very advanced versions of computers cannot choose. My statement that computers do not choose was a contemporary one, and responsive to the context within which Sunstone was using the word.

 

[Trailblazer]

There may be no free will, but for justice reasons we need to act as if it does exist. Treating people as if they were not responsible for their crimes only leads to more crime.

If people did not have free will to make choices then they would not be responsible for their actions and then they would not be accountable in a court of law. The whole justice system is predicated on the concept of free will.

“Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely. Its no secret that I’m a firm believer in free will, but I’m also a firm believer in arguing against it when it helps my clients. That’s what we lawyers do (call me a hypocrite if you like, I can take it). Now, let’s delve into the issues and practical effects of eliminating free will.

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action. If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”......

As you can see from the appellate opinion above, our criminal laws are founded on the notion that if a person is not acting by his free will, the law cannot hold him “accountable for his choices”. There are plenty of other examples of Florida criminal laws that would benefit my clients, should everyone agree that free will is an illusion. For example, confessions cannot not be entered into evidence unless they are made of the defendant’s “own free will”. The term “free will” is contained right there in the definition of numerous legal concepts. Other criminal law concepts would lose their meaning as well, like “premeditation”. Is it realistic to speak of premeditation if freewill doesn’t exist? Is a robot on an assembly line in China premeditating the building of an iPhone? The mere fact that a robot takes several distinct steps to complete a task doesn’t render its actions ‘premeditated’. Such concepts should be purged from our criminal justice system if we’re all just biological robots.

Should science convince the world that free will is an illusion–we must move past notions of “punishment” and “sentencing”. This is not just intellectual musings; concepts of free will impact the criminal courts on a daily basis....... The bottom line here is best expressed by Professor Shaun Nichols in his lectures entitled Free Will and Determinism: “if science convinces us that free will is an illusion, we seem to face a moral conclusion that is difficult to accept: that all criminals should be excused for their crimes.” (The Great Courses).

Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System​

 

[Subduction Zone]

If people did not have free will to make choices then they would not be responsible for their actions and then they would not be accountable in a court of law. The whole justice system is predicated on the concept of free will.

“Everyone wants to hold criminals responsible for their actions. This “responsibility” has its foundation in the belief that we all have the free will to choose right from wrong. What if free will is just an illusion, how would that impact the criminal justice system? Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely. Its no secret that I’m a firm believer in free will, but I’m also a firm believer in arguing against it when it helps my clients. That’s what we lawyers do (call me a hypocrite if you like, I can take it). Now, let’s delve into the issues and practical effects of eliminating free will.

We only punish those who are morally responsible for their action. If a driver accidentally runs over a pedestrian–there will be no criminal charges in the death of the pedestrian. This is what we call an “accident”. However, if a husband runs over his wife after an argument, that same pedestrian death now constitutes murder. It was the driver’s “intent” that made one pedestrian death a crime, and the other not. But, what if we examine the husband’s brain, and an MRI discovers a frontal lobe defect that could explain his deviant behavior? Is he still guilty of murder? If such a defect “caused” the husband’s actions, our criminal justice system has laws in place that would label the husband “Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity”......

As you can see from the appellate opinion above, our criminal laws are founded on the notion that if a person is not acting by his free will, the law cannot hold him “accountable for his choices”. There are plenty of other examples of Florida criminal laws that would benefit my clients, should everyone agree that free will is an illusion. For example, confessions cannot not be entered into evidence unless they are made of the defendant’s “own free will”. The term “free will” is contained right there in the definition of numerous legal concepts. Other criminal law concepts would lose their meaning as well, like “premeditation”. Is it realistic to speak of premeditation if freewill doesn’t exist? Is a robot on an assembly line in China premeditating the building of an iPhone? The mere fact that a robot takes several distinct steps to complete a task doesn’t render its actions ‘premeditated’. Such concepts should be purged from our criminal justice system if we’re all just biological robots.

Should science convince the world that free will is an illusion–we must move past notions of “punishment” and “sentencing”. This is not just intellectual musings; concepts of free will impact the criminal courts on a daily basis....... The bottom line here is best expressed by Professor Shaun Nichols in his lectures entitled Free Will and Determinism: “if science convinces us that free will is an illusion, we seem to face a moral conclusion that is difficult to accept: that all criminals should be excused for their crimes.” (The Great Courses).

Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System​

I am sorry, but that ignores the possibility of living in a mechanistic universe, in which case free will would be an illusion. But even if free will is an illusion we have to act as if it were a real thing since even in a mechanistic universe that would make things worse. It may not be fair, but it is as fair as it can get.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am sorry, but that ignores the possibility of living in a mechanistic universe, in which case free will would be an illusion. But even if free will is an illusion we have to act as if it were a real thing since even in a mechanistic universe that would make things worse. It may not be fair, but it is as fair as it can get.

So what you are saying is that you are just a mechanical man, that we are all just programmed robots who cannot make any choices. I know that is not true because I am very much aware of when I make a choice to do x or y or z. That does not mean I am free to choose to do anything I might want to do, since free will is constrained by many internal and external factors, but it means that I have some freedom to choose within certain parameters.