Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[geordief]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Thanks for "getting it", I thought it was funnier than hell, but I am easily amused.  

I got it too. Thought the response was funnier though.(a soupçon of  Poe face?)

Edited November 26, 2023 by geordief

[TheVat]

Is this referring to the double entendre on machinist?  I liked that.

Unsure what a soupçon of Poe face is, however.   My head can also be flown over, it seems.

Back to topic... if there are sentience cases in future courtrooms, I imagine the free will debate will enter into that.   E.g. could a bad robot have chosen to do differently than drop the family dachshund down the trash chute?  If it's not sentient, then it would seem clear that its misinterpreting the request be sure to throw out the hot dogs is a fault of the company that programmed it.  The heads of coders will roll!

[geordief]

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Is this referring to the double entendre on machinist?  I liked that.

Unsure what a soupçon of Poe face is, however.   My head can also be flown over, it seems.

Back to topic... if there are sentience cases in future courtrooms, I imagine the free will debate will enter into that.   E.g. could a bad robot have chosen to do differently than drop the family dachshund down the trash chute?  If it's not sentient, then it would seem clear that its misinterpreting the request be sure to throw out the hot dogs is a fault of the company that programmed it.  The heads of coders will roll!

Sausage rolls?

[TheVat]

I've heard wurst.

 

[Eise]

On 11/25/2023 at 1:33 AM, AIkonoklazt said:

The people who are arguing against free will can certainly agree that I "have no choice" in my reactions after being repeatedly treated in such manner.

Looks like I "have no choice" but to adopt a hard determinist stance now, since it's so darned convenient! I "have no choice" but to engage in a certain way with academics on LinkedIn, while "having no choice" but "engaging" in an entirely different way on anonymous internet forums.

Adopting different views actually have pragmatic effects, but nah, who cares. As long as it's convenient. I "have no choice" anyways.

OK, it seems you are determined (intentional ambiguity) not to soften your tone. 

[AIkonoklazt]

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

Back to topic... if there are sentience cases in future courtrooms, I imagine the free will debate will enter into that.   E.g. could a bad robot have chosen to do differently than drop the family dachshund down the trash chute?  If it's not sentient, then it would seem clear that its misinterpreting the request be sure to throw out the hot dogs is a fault of the company that programmed it.  The heads of coders will roll!

I am extremely familiar with the behavior of corporations. They will no doubt do everything in their legal power to make sure whichever shred of liability is there would go anywhere but to them. Of course they would "defend AI persons and their right to self determination..."

Hopefully the 2021 UN agency ban on AI legal personality, though unenforceable, would serve as some kind of precedent.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

OK, it seems you are determined (intentional ambiguity) not to soften your tone. 

It's not me, literally. It can't be.

[Eise]

I found your reaction in this thread:

I agree, but I am wondering why you do not apply the same way of thinking in how you see free will.

If I would use the same argumentation scheme as you do with free will, you should have said "Neurons cannot do analysis. the brain is made of neurons. Conclusion we cannot do analysis".

'Free will' only makes sense when they form mental phenomena like intentions, believes, decisions, and actions. As we are able to do analysis, we have these mental phenomena, arising from the complex connections between neurons. Defining 'free will' in terms of these mental phenomena makes sense. Defining in terms of neurons doesn't.

 

 

 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

I am wondering why you do not apply the same way of thinking...

You mean like I did over here?
>> https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132993-dose-neurons-analyse-themselves/#comment-1255288

Quote

[ME:] Collections of neurons can analyze collections of neurons, but individual neurons can only depolarize and cascade action potentials. 

 

6 hours ago, Eise said:

...in how you see free will.

Definitions matter. You're defining it one way and I'm defining it another.

As previously shared, and I think you are already aware, the central focus of my disagreement is on the suggestion that it is "free." I have an idea of "freedom" in my worldview.

Blindly executing commands like a wet meat computer, commands generated by bio-electric currents transmitted with chemistry, does NOT align with my conception of "freedom."

You may as well be saying the earths climate is "free" not to continue warming on average even when we keep adding greenhouse gasses by the gigaton to our atmosphere over decades. That's not an idea which aligns with any conception of "freedom" that I'm able to accept as valid.

[Eise]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

As previously shared, and I think you are already aware, the central focus of my disagreement is on the suggestion that it is "free." I have an idea of "freedom" in my worldview.

A concept of "freedom" that does not apply: in your conception of "freedom" nothing is free, and so it is a useless category. 

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Blindly executing commands like a wet meat computer, commands generated by bio-electric currents transmitted with chemistry, does NOT align with my conception of "freedom."

So when somebody praises your wood works (I do), you react "Nothing to praise, I blindly followed the commands of my body. And if my body commands me to kill you, I would do it, I could not do otherwise, I have no say in what I do. Do not blame me, it was my body". 

Don't you see that such a concept of free will is useless? That it has nothing to do with the daily use of the idea of free will?

18 hours ago, iNow said:

You may as well be saying the earths climate is "free" not to continue warming on average ...

I did not realise that earth's climate has intentions and knowledge, and acts according them. 

I do not understand why you would like to stick to an old-fashioned and useless metaphysical conception, deny its existence (this is at least the part I can agree with), and then think you have denied every (including more useful!) other possible conceptions of what we mean when we say that we did something of our own free will. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Eise

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Eise said:

Don't you see that such a concept of free will is useless?

To be clear, I never much found free will as a concept to be useful in the first place. It's like arguing over the number of angels we can fit on a pinhead. 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

then think you have denied every (including more useful!) other possible conceptions of what we mean when we say that we did something of our own free will. 

I've done no such thing. I've only stated that the current system does not align with my view of freedom. 

[StringJunky]

I get bored with false dichotomies. But that's the way our minds work, isn't it? We instinctively seek clear delineations (boxes) to explain what we observe. The brain abhors fuzziness and uncertainty.

Edited December 1, 2023 by StringJunky

[Eise]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

To be clear, I never much found free will as a concept to be useful in the first place.

Well, in criminal cases, the difference is important. If somebody is convicted or not, is among many other aspects, dependent on the evaluation if somebody acted from his own free will. Questions like 'was he coerced?' or 'was he able to see that his action was against the law?' How would you make the difference?

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I get bored with false dichotomies.

Me too. E.g. the dichotomy between determinism and free will. Compatibilism removes the dichotomy.

On 11/30/2023 at 3:19 PM, iNow said:

Definitions matter.

Exactly. Then why not discuss the different definitions of free will? See where the definitions make a difference, and which one makes most sense. You are defining free will, and as by defining what a unicorn is, let it immediately follow by 'and it does not exist'. 

20 hours ago, iNow said:

On 12/1/2023 at 8:40 AM, Eise said:

then think you have denied every (including more useful!) other possible conceptions of what we mean when we say that we did something of our own free will. 

I've done no such thing.

Indirectly, yes. You define 'free will' as libertarian free will, and then, as said just above, you deny its existence (I deny it too). But your followup is that you stick to this definition as the only correct one, instead of looking at the other possible, more useful, definitions. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

How would you make the difference?

Coercion is the relevant metric in criminal charges, IMO, not free will. I also believe we make many mistakes in the way we punish instead of rehabilitate people, but that’s OT

I agree with you that the conclusions we align with on this topic depend on how we frame the concept of free will.

My framing is different from yours and leads me to reject the contention that freedom is the best descriptor. 

I’m unwilling to make the same leap that you do suggesting your framing is wrong and mine is right. We both have valid perspectives. 

[Eise]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m unwilling to make the same leap that you do suggesting your framing is wrong and mine is right. We both have valid perspectives. 

That is true. That is the reason that I take 'usefulness' as criterion for a good definition of free will.

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Coercion is the relevant metric in criminal charges, IMO, not free will.

How would you call then the opposite of a coerced action?

[AIkonoklazt]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Coercion is the relevant metric in criminal charges, IMO, not free will. I also believe we make many mistakes in the way we punish instead of rehabilitate people, but that’s OT

But "we" don't make mistakes. Mistakes involve the conception that a choice was made, but there's no such thing as choice. "We" have no choice but to do what "we" do, and at this moment it happens to be punishing instead of rehabilitating.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

But "we" don't make mistakes. Mistakes involve the conception that a choice was made, but there's no such thing as choice. "We" have no choice but to do what "we" do, and at this moment it happens to be punishing instead of rehabilitating.

Still off topic, perhaps start a topic in the politics section; oops forgot, he's not listening to me.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Eise said:

How would you call then the opposite of a coerced action?

Uncoerced 

 

4 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

But "we" don't make mistakes. Mistakes involve the conception that a choice was made

You’re mixing frames and making another category error.

You as an individual entity acted a certain way and society as an entity concluded that action was a mistake / against accepted social norms. 

You as an individual, however, still were subject to a set of basically unconscious chemical signals and electricity, propelled like an automaton who then later tells himself a story which pretends you had any control, and those signals drove you to execute that action.

Both can be and are in fact true at the same time in parallel.

You can continue being snarky and bitchy about this FACT in every post you make, but I can promise that doesn’t in any way bolster your stance nor result in me/others reconsidering mine.  

But this is at least IMO par for the course in most philosophy threads… mock others who disagree with you bc you’ve got nothing better to stand on. 

5 hours ago, Eise said:

That is true. That is the reason that I take 'usefulness' as criterion for a good definition of free will.

Useful as a metric similarly suffers from subjectivity. 

4 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

"We" have no choice but to do what "we" do, and at this moment it happens to be punishing instead of rehabilitating.

I’m grateful to have you as an ally in my desire to improve the way we as a society address criminality. Welcome aboard!

Edited December 3, 2023 by iNow

[AIkonoklazt]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re mixing frames and making another category error.

You as an individual entity acted a certain way and society as an entity concluded that action was a mistake / against accepted social norms. 

You as an individual, however, still were subject to a set of basically unconscious chemical signals and electricity, propelled like an automaton who then later tells himself a story which pretends you had any control, and those signals drove you to execute that action.

Both can be and are in fact true at the same time in parallel.

You can continue being snarky and bitchy about this FACT in every post you make, but I can promise that doesn’t in any way bolster your stance nor result in me/others reconsidering mine.  

But this is at least IMO par for the course in most philosophy threads… mock others who disagree with you bc you’ve got nothing better to stand on.

I'm just returning a small portion of the snarkiness and bitchiness that you sent my way in the artificial consciousness thread. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You had nothing better to do in that thread but make statements like "He is a waste of time" because well, you had nothing to stand on. Better look in the mirror before throwing rocks.

That said, what you typed was a category mistake, because the statement I made was not from the societal angle; I was being consistent throughout. You're mixing personal action with societal evaluation.

Nah, I'm not your ally. I have no choice but to not be!

[StringJunky]

12 hours ago, Eise said:

That is true. That is the reason that I take 'usefulness' as criterion for a good definition of free will.

How would you call then the opposite of a coerced action?

I agree. AFAIK, from the scientists here over the years, utility is pretty high on the list.

[Eise]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Uncoerced 

 Very clever! You wouldn't have some positive concept? Something like instead of 'unlucky' as the opposite of 'lucky', describing it as 'sad'? E.g. 'voluntary'?

On 12/2/2023 at 4:00 PM, iNow said:

Coercion is the relevant metric in criminal charges, IMO, not free will. I also believe we make many mistakes in the way we punish instead of rehabilitate people, but that’s OT

I wholeheartedly agree here. But I think the compatibilist concept of free will exactly gives the basis for deciding for punishment or rehabilitation, or both.

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Useful as a metric similarly suffers from subjectivity. 

Sure. But it is not just subjective. We can at least try, as a society, to find agreements. 

 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Eise said:

ou wouldn't have some positive concept? Something like instead of 'unlucky' as the opposite of 'lucky', describing it as 'sad'? E.g. 'voluntary'?

No, uncoerced works just fine, and has the added benefit of eliminating the confusing subjective baggage which these 92+ other threads we have active on the topic confirm accompany any attempts to focus instead on free will.

8 hours ago, Eise said:

it is not just subjective. We can at least try, as a society, to find agreements. 

If it is "not just subjective," this means it's also (at least in part) objective.

To that end: What objective measures of utility do you propose are available to help us agree upon a better/best framing of the free will concept?

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

No, uncoerced works just fine, and has the added benefit of eliminating the confusing subjective baggage which these 92+ other threads we have active on the topic confirm accompany any attempts to focus instead on free will.

If it is "not just subjective," this means it's also (at least in part) objective.

To that end: What objective measures of utility do you propose are available to help us agree upon a better/best framing of the free will concept?

When we depart from our instinctive programming, what are we doing?

Edited December 4, 2023 by StringJunky

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

When we depart from our instinctive programming, what are we doing?

Will you please provide an example or two of what "departing from our instinctive programming" means? Aren't we still subject to the same underlying neurochemistry and sequencing regardless of what actions we're engaging in?

[StringJunky]

32 minutes ago, iNow said:

Will you please provide an example or two of what "departing from our instinctive programming" means? Aren't we still subject to the same underlying neurochemistry and sequencing regardless of what actions we're engaging in?

Holding your anal sphincter closed in company when it wants to relax.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Holding your anal sphincter closed in company when it wants to relax.

So you don't think our instinctive programming includes a desire to avoid ostracization from the group? I'd argue otherwise. Selection pressures tend to reinforce adherence to tribal and cultural norms, not abandon them. 

More to the point, I suggest the same chemistry driving our choices and behaviors also apply here. Through conditioning, the firing patterns and activation thresholds of those neurochemical events have been shaped to avoid triggering the  other neurochemistries within us which express as shame and embarrassment and desire to escape the situation. 

Acknowledging that the impetus of our actions comes well before we previously realized in no way changes our day to day experience. The only difference is the explanation, not the outcome. 

IMO, it's a bit like learning that it wasn't gods in the sky arguing which caused lightning storms, but is instead explained by basic physics and electromagnetism. The lightning is still the same, as is our experience of it. It didn't alter just because we became more accurate in how our descriptions of how it functions.