What is free will?

[N_las]

What's you point, then?

You said:

That study is interesting, but predicted the testers' choice in 60% of the cases, for a basic task, so it's not conclusive evidence.

I just wanted to correct you on that. It sounded like you are dismissing a studys conclusivnes simply based on this "60%" figure.

Dude, really? What about the judicial system?

What abot the judicial system?

"I don't bring my broken car to the repair man, because it doesn't broke down on purpose."

"I don't put this dangerous acid in a special secure container, because it doesn't disolve things on purpose."

"I don't stop this stone from rolling down the mountain, because it doesn't cause avalanches on purpose."

Deterrence (prevention), rehabilitation, incapacitation and societal protection, restoration, education and denunciation, and even retribution... they are all valid reasons for punishment, even if the offender has no free will.

Edited October 14, 2014 by N_las

[CaptainKipard]

Dude, really? What about the judicial system?

I already addressed this here. Please at least read the thread to which you're contributing.

[TeeGee]

TeeGee are you trying to convince the figments of your imagination that they don't really exist? Anyway solipsism is way off topic.

HAHAHAA Pretty much! I guess I am arguing with myself!

[Francesco]

I just wanted to correct you on that. It sounded like you are dismissing a studys conclusivnes simply based on this "60%" figure.

I'm not "dismissing" it.

I'm saying that further research, about more complex functions, is needed.

I'm actually asking what it means to you.

I already addressed this here. Please at least read the thread to which you're contributing.

Please explain how you've "addressed" it.

My comment was in response to an user saying there would be no implications given the absence of free will.

[TeeGee]

Anger: A mental state that biases behavure toward aggressive and hostile actions. Often bypasses higher thought to improve reaction time and psychologcal limits.

Fear: A mental state that biases behavure toward self preservation. May bypass higher thought, resulting in faster responce but sometimes seemingly illogical "self preservation" that does nothing of the sort.

Love: A mental state of an individual that becomes associated with another entity. Biases behavure so as to maintain and strengthen the mental state, often by seeking to elicit a complementaty "love" responce in the associated entity. Originlly evolved to support procreation drives, but easily mistargeted.

Any emotion is simply a mental shortcut, a macro that can be programmed into a sufficently complex machine.

Computer replies: what is a mental state? How does it FEEL?

[ZetaX]

My comment was in response to an user saying there would be no implications given the absence of free will.

That user is me. I will just shorten two (of some more) main arguments for you (did not check if the first one was adressed before):

a) If everything is deterministic, then so is the judical system, including us putting people to prison.

The main point of a modern society's judical system is not to punish peiple (that would be archaic revenge-oriented thinking), but to give people a strong incentive to (not) do things. This is equally valid without consiousness.

[CaptainKipard]

That user is me. I will just shorten two (of some more) main arguments for you (did not check if the first one was adressed before):

a) If everything is deterministic, then so is the judical system, including us putting people to prison.

The main point of a modern society's judical system is not to punish peiple (that would be archaic revenge-oriented thinking), but to give people a strong incentive to (not) do things. This is equally valid without consiousness.

This, pretty much, except we're talking about free will, not consciousness.

[Francesco]

Hi, ZetaX.

If the judical system gives people incentives, then they have free will to go against the law, or not.

[CaptainKipard]

Hi, ZetaX.

If the judical system gives people incentives, then they have free will to go against the law, or not.

No. Those incentives are merely a link in the causal chain.

[Dispatcher]

Not unless that's what EXPECTATION has taught you...

How does my line of thought help my everyday life? Not much; it just allows me to put things into perspective.

Experience leads to expectations.

[Dispatcher]

I'm talking more about how light enters your eyes, and how signals are relayed in your brain, etc. I'm just trying to clarify what you mean by "compelling circumstances" so that I can work out if that kind of definition describes something that can exist.

Really? I'm not writing about the mechanics or physical phenomena associated with thought. I'm just expressing what happens in "my reality". Yours may vary.

[Francesco]

No, those incentives let the individual ponder his course of action, and choose what he thinks will be most beneficial.

Determinism plus free will, at their finest.

One doesn't rule out the other.

[Rakaydos]

Computer replies: what is a mental state? How does it FEEL?

A Mental state is a set of parameters withing a mental neural netwerk that is optimised for a specific set of behavure, usually in organics set by evolution.

[ZetaX]

Determinism plus free will, at their finest.

One doesn't rule out the other.

What weird definition do you use for this to be possible¿

[TeeGee]

A Mental state is a set of parameters withing a mental neural netwerk that is optimised for a specific set of behavure, usually in organics set by evolution.

...you are incorrigible.

Computers don't feel emotions. Computers don't have consciousness. Computers don't have aspects of subjectivity unique to organic life. How does a steak taste to a computer? How can you describe it to a machine?

You can keep quoting wikipedia all day; I'll be here.

The fact you don't understand what I am saying really worries me... are you really a sentient, conscious and feeling entity?

Edited October 14, 2014 by TeeGee

[CaptainKipard]

Really? I'm not writing about the mechanics or physical phenomena associated with thought. I'm just expressing what happens in "my reality". Yours may vary.

I'm just trying to encourage you to create a less ambiguous definition of free will.

No, those incentives let the individual ponder his course of action, and choose what he thinks will be most beneficial.

Which is an example of determinism

Determinism plus free will, at their finest.

One doesn't rule out the other.

There's still no free will here, unless you have some unusual definition you've not stated yet.

[Dispatcher]

I'm just trying to encourage you to create a less ambiguous definition of free will.

...

The notion that you are trying to "teach" me or anyone here anything, rather than simply sharing your thoughts, implies that you may be less than willing to learn from others on this topic. Thanks.

[Rakaydos]

...you are incorrigible.

Computers don't feel emotions. Computers don't have consciousness. Computers don't have aspects of subjectivity unique to organic life. How does a steak taste to a computer? How can you describe it to a machine?

You can keep quoting wikipedia all day; I'll be here.

The fact you don't understand what I am saying really worries me... are you really a sentient, conscious and feeling entity?

Are you?

Just because you are unable to see past your own subjective definition s does not make an objective definition any less valid. Emotions evolved as processing shortcuts, to allow our ancestors to survive a cutthroat world of eat or be eaten. Wiithout that evolution, there is no need to program aggressive mental shortcuts like "anger" and therefore they have no corosponding physical responces for them to "feel"

- - - Updated - - -

...you are incorrigible.

Computers don't feel emotions. Computers don't have consciousness. Computers don't have aspects of subjectivity unique to organic life. How does a steak taste to a computer? How can you describe it to a machine?

You can keep quoting wikipedia all day; I'll be here.

The fact you don't understand what I am saying really worries me... are you really a sentient, conscious and feeling entity?

Are you?

Just because you are unable to see past your own subjective definition s does not make an objective definition any less valid. Emotions evolved as processing shortcuts, to allow our ancestors to survive a cutthroat world of eat or be eaten. Wiithout that evolution, there is no need to program aggressive mental shortcuts like "anger" and therefore they have no corosponding physical responces for them to "feel"

[Dodgey]

Well this thread evolved quite a bit.

...you are incorrigible.

Computers don't feel emotions. Computers don't have consciousness. Computers don't have aspects of subjectivity unique to organic life. How does a steak taste to a computer? How can you describe it to a machine?

Snip

Do small multicellular organisms feel emotion? Have consciousness? Our brains, our minds have been shaped by millions upon millions of years of evolution, they are one of the most complex structures we know, and every single piece of evidence points to them being physical, nothing more. In all effectiveness they are complex machines which react to the physical world around them via physical stimuli. My point is that there is nothing special about our minds which set them apart from other reproducing, mutating, evolving machines. There is nothing special about our senses, taste is chemical reactions with cells, hearing is the vibration of a membrane causes by pressure waves traveling through the air.

So to address your points, the computers of today don't have emotions, but neither do single celled creatures. They don't have consciousness, again neither do single celled creatues. Does an omeba have an aspect of subjectivity? The only things that differentiate us or, our minds to be precise, from the computers of today is replication and mutation.

[CaptainKipard]

The notion that you are trying to "teach" me or anyone here anything, rather than simply sharing your thoughts, implies that you may be less than willing to learn from others on this topic. Thanks.

Wow. That was very defensive. Where do you get the idea that I'm doing anything other than trying to understand your vague posts. I'm not telling you, I was asking you. If I weren't interested in hearing your thoughts I wouldn't bother asking you to clarify. Get it together and relax.

On the other hand if you've ran out of words then leave the thread altogether. No one is interested in emotional outbursts. Just talk.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[-Velocity-]

Not it's not. You take it on blind faith that others outside of your own mind exist. Nobody can prove they are real to you, you just believe it without any evidence to back it up. You only have 1 voice in your head and can only see the world through YOUR own senses and perceptions. You are alone in your skull. Period.

I think you aren't really giving my point serious thought... the ONLY truth in your existence, one that you can say with 100% certainty, is that you exist. You don't really know anything else.

And your comment about where minds come from a higher existence... gimme a break dude. You have dreams where you fly, walk in lava, breathe in space and .... gold bricks while eating skittles yet you never DOUBT the reality of the dream when you have them. Minds/thought/emotions etc are real because we experience them FIRST HAND. That is the ONLY reason we are aware of them in the first place!

Try to explain to your computer what an emotion is without using "like"... it's impossible. A computer is 100% objective and it can never understand these subjective processes because it can't experience them 1st hand. Sort of puts a wrench in what is actually TRUE or not doesn't it? If what we KNOW exists cannot be proven by objective study and teaching... is it true?

What statement is easier to believe in?

1) I doubt I exist and have a mind

2) I don't know with 100% certainty that other minds exist

You don't get it. Who cares about things being 100% certain? The Sun might not rise tomorrow because some unusual phenomenon we haven't yet discovered and have never before observed in nature causes it to collapse into a black hole. Because the probability of this (or something similar) is like 0.00000000000000000001%, do you decide that you shouldn't set your alarm and go to work? Of course not. The reality is that we must act on things that are not 100% certain as though they are 100% certain.

I use Occam's razor to show that your "one mind" universe is highly unlikely, and useless in terms of a realistic model. It's an interesting philosophical idea to ponder, that's all. Because it's so unlikely, we can ignore it as a possibility, and we can safely say that other minds DO exist, even though we can never be absolutely 100% certain that they do. Only 99.99999999%

[Rakaydos]

...you are incorrigible.

Computers don't feel emotions. Computers don't have consciousness. Computers don't have aspects of subjectivity unique to organic life. How does a steak taste to a computer? How can you describe it to a machine?

You can keep quoting wikipedia all day; I'll be here.

The fact you don't understand what I am saying really worries me... are you really a sentient, conscious and feeling entity?

If im not, I guess I just blew this turning test.

Machines are an example of inteligent design- they dont have anything we didnt give them. But if we built a computer with those mental states, you would likely argue that it doesnt REALLY feel. Which is solphisim at its finest- it is not you and so is not real. I reject that premice- anything exibiting a mental state of anger is angry, be it organic or machine inteligence.

[Francesco]

Which is an example of determinism

Determinism is the "incentives" portion, then you have free will to make the final choice.

What weird definition do you use for this to be possible¿

There's still no free will here, unless you have some unusual definition you've not stated yet.

There is. Laws are not mind control, they don't force you to act a certain way.

I suspect you guys are using the word determinism to assert that you have no control over your actions.

Which would be akin to saying that the words you're typing in this forum are not really chosen by you.

Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect.

That's it. You're subject to the laws of physics. That, you have no free will over.

Now within the boundaries of those rules, you have free will to act against some other rules (e.g., law and the judical system).

[CaptainKipard]

First of all don't compare physical laws with the legal system. Even though they have a similar name, there the similarity ends. One of those is descriptive, the other is proscriptive and prescriptive.

Secondly you're still just speculating. What makes you think that society is anything more than a meta-system also based ultimately on physics? Machines also consider variables and react to them. The presence of options is hardly a justification for the belief in free will.

Did you consider that that also implies that machines have free will? Or are there more premises you've not stated.

Use Occam's razor.

Laws are not mind control, they don't force you to act a certain way.

Of course they do. They are an influencing force just like everything else your senses tell you.

[rtxoff]

Is there anyone here understanding more about how the human brain works who could explain if it is in any way comparable to how an electronic CPU works.

Someone earlier mentioned it is more like an analog system capable of processing data with more states then just 0 and 1 and also that it is working with rather high noise levels. I wonder if this is the reason why the human brain might be more then we all together think it is. Also will quantum computers, if at some point we manage to create them, will have the same advantage like the human brain or even supersede it?

How could all this affect free will?