What Most People Fail to Understand about the Concept of Free Will

[Banjankri]

The Scandinavian systems are not failing. American prisons are miserable failures, but they are little more than criminal warehouses. The treatment of inmates is very different in places like Norway, and things such as recidivism rate is much lower. They actually do have a real rehabilitative approach, unlike America, and the difference is astounding.

Hiding problems behind free will is a religious approach. There is always a cause behind actions we perform, and that's what we should look for. When somebody kills someone, he shouldn't be punished by imprisonment for 10 or 25 years, because that's enough to punish him. He should be isolated until he is fixed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Cutting edge solution sold via amazon.... That says it all.

I'm still waiting for any indication that your position is based upon something other than misunderstanding 19th century science and YouTube videos. And as Amazon sells academic literature, from academic conference proceedings to journals, the above is simply indicative of a fundamental lack of familiarity with the basics of scientific literature in general, let alone any actual field of research.

Once more:
"Unlike traditional computers which must be “driven” from the outside, biological systems have somehow incorporated within them rules on how to function."
Those algorithms not only have rules on how to function incorporated within them, but they can develop new ones based on current circumstances.

Wow.
1) The "rules" which are incorporated within living systems aren't algorithmic or code, but physical instantiations which the ignorant and blind might call "programs" despite the fact that there is no processor distinct from these programs and these "rules" are implemented by structural changes, not by processing code.
2) Algorithms can't develop new rules. You've never used any soft computing/machine learning/computational intelligence paradigms and are clearly basing this on some popular accounts, but for those of us who have to take the time to write the code such that a mindless computer can mechanically manipulate input to produce output know that the "new" rules aren't developed and are not incorporated within the system but are by definition (spend a bit of time familiarizing yourself with the absolute BASICS of computer science and programming) ALGORITHMIC. In supervised learning, new "rules" can be discovered thanks to human guidance, while in unsupervised learning such as with evolutionary algorithms the mathematics underlying the specific code allow the input to change the processing methods but not the rules. In general, machine learning/soft computing works not by allowing "new rules" but by making the rules the methods in which the specific input is processed dynamically rather than employing solutions consisting of specified steps.

Have you actually watched that short clip I've posted? I doubt it.

I started watching it, but it's not for specialists. It's too simplistic.

What do you mean by self-determining?

A special case of self-organizing. If that term is too much for you, try reading a bit about the subject.

Please, start answering, because we won't get anywhere with this.

You mean I should not use technical jargon in my explanations to someone so unfamiliar with all of the basics that they call 2010 research outdated opinions and fundamentally misunderstand both computational intelligence paradigms/A.I. methods AND the nature of brain (and more generally the nature of scientific research)? I can explain things simply, but as you will dismiss simple explanations with your inaccurate understanding (as you do scientific research you haven't read nor are remotely familiar with) I'm not inclined to pander to ignorance to be dismissed by ignorance.

The only cutting edge knowledge you have is in ad hominem . This is the best way to run into chaos.

No, I have the actual research in this field, while you have YouTube and 19th century behaviorism. You wrote of my sources based on nothing and offering nothing so you'll pardon my lack of inclination to provide you with something other than more comprehensive "ad hominem" dismissals than you've provided to make dialogue impossible (writing off research as opinion just because you don't know this or any related field and combining that with references to youtube and computer science you don't use and don't know).

Is there free will, or is it an illusion and all decisions are determined??? Make up your mind.

Alternatively, you could try reading what I said and understanding it. Better yet, you could jump off of your dismissive high horse in which Pavlov is worthwhile evidence but 2010 research is outdated, and in which research is opinions but a YouTube clip for non-specialists is sacrosanct.

No it isn't, but it seems it doesn't feet your picture.

You already admitted you don't know my picture and don't understand even the terminology employed to be able to learn it without be simplifying it so that you can then reject it outright as you did the research you aren't familiar with and without knowledge of the topic more generally.

Why?

Logic.

Try thinking without using anything you learned in the past.

Fallacy.

To be precise, I have nothing against research

How would you know? You've never read any nor produced any, but have dismissed it without cause or knowledge.

 

[Banjankri]

I started reading it, but...

"What do you mean by self-determining?"
A special case of self-organizing.

Made me stop.

 

[Willamena]

Allows or forces? What I say, is that it's the system that determines how "I" looks like.

"You" is the system, not separable. While we can describe the system in various ways, none of our descriptions *are* the system quite so succinctly as the "you" that is describing.

Based on?

This system, "me." It's as real as the system.

Please, make a choice, and describe it for me, from the beginning to the end.

Orange one draws my attention because it reminds me of a juicy orange, and the sensation I experience when eating it. Can I force myself to like mint one?

I am only ostensibly choosing ice cream (and choosing a liking Is just silly). That "action" is not an act, just an expression of a preference. Free will is found in the possession of the "act," the "liking," the "expressing," the "preferring," as if they were something that belongs to "me," rather than the world. That ownership is what affirms "me" in the world.

 

[Banjankri]

"You" is the system, not separable.

Bacteria, are also part of this system. Are they also me?
To be precise. Am I all that makes up my body and mind? Or is it just a label for working of the system.

This system, "me." It's as real as the system.

Is "me" the system, or is it as real as the system?

Free will is found in the possession of the "act," the "liking," the "expressing," as if they were something that belongs to "me," rather than the world. That ownership is what affirms "me" in the world.

How are you in possession of liking? I say, it happens. Can you change your liking? What does it mean that you posses it? Can you do anything with it? can you control it?
I say, that all there is, is experience. Some things can be experiences by different people, and some are limited to individuals. Now we can say, that the one who reacts to stimuli is "me". But what is this reaction based on? That's the question at hand. All comes down to presence before the mind, so there is no real difference between internal and external. To come up with free will, is to introduce a system that is separate from both internal and external. Some attribute it to God.

 

[Nakosis]

You misunderstand. I can go along with you and acknowledge that its an agent of some kind, but to repeat, we're forced to go back another step and determine how this agent works.

Which I don't really see a problem with.

Oh wow, that goes back through too many exchanges. Sorry, but I'm not up to going through them all to comment.

Ok, that's fine but an explanation of how the Agent works.

To cut to the chase, determinism doesn't allow for the concept of choice. Choosing implies performing an uncaused event. Thing is, no one actually chooses anything in the free will sense.

Hard determinism. Free will is the ability to choose what you want to do. Determinism is the belief that causality prevents free will. I don't believe causality does. So I'm not arguing against causality.

Before we go further I'll need to know exactly what this "Agent" is. If a cause is created unrelated to any past event (cause) then just how does it come into being? In any case, unless this process of the agent is a totally random one, it HAS to consist of a series of cause/effect events.

Through an imagined past or future event.

Aside from possibly some events at the quantum level, yes.

Then we are forced to explain how a conscious choice is determined.

This isn't making sense. You're determinant, "the cause," refers back to the "relationship." IOW "I don't agree there is there is a relationship between the cause and effect that is necessarily determined by the cause of the relationship." "Relationship" is not a verb (doer) but a state of being.

However it does not specify that relationship. So you are still left with that explanation which needs to be tested and proven before accepting without question.

Absolutely. A car crash can cause a lot of different effects. But every one of those effects has the car crash as its cause.

I don't think we are going to get anywhere comparing cars to people.

So what determined the effect? I have no idea what you mean by "the actual cause," but the idea of effect itself demands a cause. To say it's untrue that "actual cause determined the actual effect" is akin to saying that "A fact is not a fact."

The internal process of the Agent determined the effect.

For example, the Doctor says I have to exercise more. This triggers an event but doesn't specify the actual outcome of the event. I can choose to walk, ride a bike, go to the gym, ignore the advise completely.

The cause, the Doctor telling me I need to exercise more does not determine what I actually do.

Now you're just playing with words. Gotta explain "triggered" big time, and how it differs from cause.

It doesn't in my book. You're the one that believes cause determines a specific event.

What "cause"

The one that initiated the Agent having to make a decision.

Plain and simple, when I use "cause" I mean it as the instigator of an event. No need to pose convoluted relationships or go into agents and triggers. ALL events have a cause, be it in your back yard or in your brain. Lacking that, an event would have to be entirely random; it could just as well not happen as happen. Of course, if you believe you do things entirely randomly, fine. Just let me know when get in your car and take to the streets.

Like accidents don't happen. If someone purposefully chooses to hit your car, run you over, damage your property, it's not their fault right? They had no choice in the matter. Certainly no reason to sue them, they are not to blame.

I've no problem with causality. The problem is with the belief that cause determines specific effect.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hiding problems behind free will is a religious approach. There is always a cause behind actions we perform, and that's what we should look for. When somebody kills someone, he shouldn't be punished by imprisonment for 10 or 25 years, because that's enough to punish him. He should be isolated until he is fixed.

In Norway the do keep them in until they are deemed rehabilitated, no longer a threat to society, and the system works with inmates so they can be productive members of society. If they are deemed to still be a danger, they add more time to the sentence and re-evaluate when that added time is expired, and add more time if necessary.

 

[jojom]

Which I don't really see a problem with.



Ok, that's fine but an explanation of how the Agent works.



Hard determinism. Free will is the ability to choose what you want to do. Determinism is the belief that causality prevents free will. I don't believe causality does. So I'm not arguing against causality.



Through an imagined past or future event.



Then we are forced to explain how a conscious choice is determined.



However it does not specify that relationship. So you are still left with that explanation which needs to be tested and proven before accepting without question.



I don't think we are going to get anywhere comparing cars to people.



The internal process of the Agent determined the effect.

For example, the Doctor says I have to exercise more. This triggers an event but doesn't specify the actual outcome of the event. I can choose to walk, ride a bike, go to the gym, ignore the advise completely.

The cause, the Doctor telling me I need to exercise more does not determine what I actually do.



It doesn't in my book. You're the one that believes cause determines a specific event.



The one that initiated the Agent having to make a decision.



Like accidents don't happen. If someone purposefully chooses to hit your car, run you over, damage your property, it's not their fault right? They had no choice in the matter. Certainly no reason to sue them, they are not to blame.

I've no problem with causality. The problem is with the belief that cause determines specific effect.

We're really not getting anywhere here at all, so I'm going to say good bye. See you elsewhere.

 

[Willamena]

Bacteria, are also part of this system. Are they also me?
To be precise. Am I all that makes up my body and mind? Or is it just a label for working of the system.

If you refer to mental objects, then yes, mental objects that are parts the world as it appears to each of us, are part of the system, yes.
They are you, and you are them (coocoocachoo).

You are body/mind. "Me" is more than a label, since being a label implies that you are not the thing so labeled.

Is "me" the system, or is it as real as the system?

Can't it be both?

How are you in possession of liking? I say, it happens. Can you change your liking? What does it mean that you posses it? Can you do anything with it? can you control it?

Possession refers to that it belongs to me. It's "my liking."

My likes change over time, which is to say that "I" change over time. When they do, they're still mine and I'm still me--so possessing doesn't change, not as long as there is still something to possess and a "me" to possess it. It's essential of consciousness.

I say, that all there is, is experience. Some things can be experiences by different people, and some are limited to individuals. Now we can say, that the one who reacts to stimuli is "me". But what is this reaction based on? That's the question at hand.

We possess the things of the world, the mental entities that are ours, including the things that "happen" to us. An experience of something dreadful is as much "ours" as an experience of something pleasant. (Some of us hold onto such possessions too strongly.)

With each thing we possess, "me" (who possesses) is reinforced. It's not going anywhere, as long as there's a world that it's intimately acquainted with.

All comes down to presence before the mind, so there is no real difference between internal and external. To come up with free will, is to introduce a system that is separate from both internal and external. Some attribute it to God.

I don't know about presence before mind. But as long as mind grasps onto all the shiny things of the world, it is entirely free to do so--as free as it is to know.

 

[Gambit]

Wrong... An ontological interpretation of special relativity can entail that everything that will ever happen must happen but doesn't entail anything incompatible with free will or indeterminism.

I never argued that free will was incompatible with determinism or indeterminism. Perhaps, you would do well to reread the OP.

A large number of physicists whose field(s) concern quantum theory hold that subjective probability is a fundamental component of reality.

That's interesting. You're changing your tune. Consciousness now plays a role in physics.

Quantum physics is indeterministic, yet the most common interpretations don't allow for "chance" but subjective probability. This is another way of saying that the probabilistic outcome isn't "chance", but the way in which the observer/agent determines a particular reality.

Indeterminism and probabilities both involve chance.

 

[Gambit]

The link between determinism and free will can be be anywhere on a scale between zero and virtually 100%

If it is 100 percent, then determinism holds true and every choice we make could not have been otherwise. Anything less, then indeterminism holds true and the only reason why we could have chosen otherwise must ultimately reduce to chance.

 

[Gambit]

Please correct me. What is wrong with determinism holding true, and every choice we make could not have been otherwise?

I didn't argue for or against free will in the OP. I suggest you reread it.

 

[Gambit]

Done and done. Enter nonlocality.

If you jettison causality, then you jettison free will with it. Because if an agent doesn't exert any causality, then he or she cannot possibly have free will.

Subjective probability that changes reality the way that is provided by quantum theory allows for free will (and according to various interpretations and one mathematical proof, requires it).

Yeah, yeah. tell me something I already don't know. To reiterate: You now seemed to have co-opted my view, namely, that subjectivity is a fundamental component of the nature of reality.

How is something caused by pure chance?

I said it REDUCES to pure chance. Reread the OP.

By the way, your responses are too verbose. Next time keep it short. Ok?

 

[Gambit]

Indeed I did... and many others like it.

No, you did not. Determinism and indeterminism are the only two logical possibilities.

 

[Gambit]

In Marxist Materialism, whilst all our actions are caused that does not mean they could not have been otherwise.

If determinism holds true, then every choice we make could not have been otherwise (Marxist materialism notwithstanding).

 

[Gambit]

The more I see the concept of "free will" argued, the more I think we need to go back to drawing board.

Determinism and indeterminism are the only two logical possibilities. (This applies to theist as well as the atheist.)

 

[Gambit]

Doesn't seem that way.

Logic tells us that determinism holds true or that it doesn't. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. However, some people find it very difficult to accept.

 

[Gambit]

I would say that most people adhere to both definitions, as they believe that most of the things we consider to be "choices" are actually dependent on our previous experiences, and we are in actuality biased in favor of what we end up choosing (determinism), but there are always exceptions to this rule (indeterminism definition "b").

Either determinism holds true or it doesn't. It's really that simple.

 

[Gambit]

Is that supposed to make logical sense? It does not appear to be.

This is something we can agree on.

 

[Gambit]

Except you have not established it has to be an either/or.
You have merely made the claim it does.

If we cannot agree on what constitutes logic, then we cannot have a logical discussion. Since I can clearly see that this is an "either/or" situation, there's no point in continuing this discussion with you. To do so would be nothing but an exercise in futility.