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

[TheVat]

36 minutes ago, Eise said:

I might have a problem in this 'irreducible value'. Can you explain?

Time is short this a.m. so I'll just say that my intention cannot be reduced to "C-fiber translating data packets through superior medial cortical stacks 9 and 43," or some such.  The lower-order causal explanation will fail.  

[Eise]

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

The lower-order causal explanation will fail.

Hmmm. That would mean that neurologists would encounter what I called a 'causal hole'? Or would they not be able to map brain states with mental phenomena? Or would they not be able to explain how 'C-fiber translating data packets through superior medial cortical stacks 9 and 43' cause a certain intention?

If you mean the latter I agree: the relationship is not causal, but one of supervenience. Just as a book (i.e. a pile of pages with ink blobs on it) does not cause a story.

[iNow]

For those who enjoy an occasional podcast, here’s one presenting the case against free will, from the perspective of a hard determinist / hard incompatiblist:

https://megaphone.link/VMP2999354780

[Eise]

Or for a more objective approach: Peter Millican on free will and responsibility:

7.1. There are three more, alltogether about as long as iNow's podcast. @studiot: may also something for you? Might give a better impression about the progress made in philosophy then giving Plato as an example of modern philosophy...

It doesn't need a megaphone to see different concepts of free will, and then choose for the best definition that fits the use daily life best...

[AIkonoklazt]

On 11/22/2023 at 7:01 AM, Eise said:

nobody wants to be treated as if he or she is dumb, or an asshole, or both.

Me neither.

As for the other forum I mentioned, I was kicked before I could answer anything. The moderator only said that the post was dumb and that was reason enough. Well, at least some publications out there didn't think the points to be "dumb."

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.

[iNow]

16 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

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.

The potential consequences of a truth have bearing neither on its validity nor its veracity. 

[AIkonoklazt]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

The potential consequences of a truth have bearing neither on its validity nor its veracity. 

Like that matters when the only truth is the one people end up accepting 

“Machines can never be conscious because they work via algorithms”

”nope if they act conscious then they are deserving of rights, and if any human being ends up losing in court against one we’ll punish that rights-violating human”

”but that’s a violation of human rights”

”huh? No idea what you’re crazily rambling about. Now scram”

“But the underlying nature of artifacts and algorithms-“

*escorted outside*

[Bufofrog]

I think at some point there will be a machine that is so sophisticated that there will be no test to tell if it is sentient or not, whether it is 'really' sentient or not seems irrelevant 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

I think at some point there will be a machine that is so sophisticated that there will be no test to tell if it is sentient or not, whether it is 'really' sentient or not seems irrelevant 

It matters if you're the one whose rights is pitted against one of a machine's.

[Bufofrog]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

It matters if you're the one whose rights is pitted against one of a machine's.

What are you some kind of machinist?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Bufofrog said:

What are you some kind of machinist?

I didn't know occupation matters in a philosophical argument?

Seriously?

(This happened in other forums too. Other people suddenly bring up occupations, then I got dragged into mentioning, then it gets weird. Why even?)

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

It matters if you're the one whose rights is pitted against one of a machine's.

That's too far in future to worry about that. That'll come under regulatory scrutiny at the appropriate time, I'm sure.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

It matters if you're the one whose rights is pitted against one of a machine's.

As Stringy mentions, this will be an area of intense legal scrutiny and debate.  I think the question of sentience, though some may dismiss it, will be important to many people simply on the basis of our natural human curiosity and desire to know who we're talking to - especially if we're uncertain there is a "who" there at all.  To give an example, if a very old Mr Vat had an android home assistant, "Hal," show up and begin to live in his home, he would very much like to know if Hal was sentient.  And his views on Hal's legal rights would definitely pivot on that question.  And it seems Mr Vat would be afflicted with a condition that caused speaking of himself in the third person.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

This happened in other forums too.

What, humor? People missing obvious jokes?

2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

It matters if you're the one whose rights is pitted against one of a machine's.

No, it doesn’t. I said the consequences of a truth don’t negate it. Suggesting additional consequences doesn’t move your argument in any way. It’s simply wrong. 

[AIkonoklazt]

51 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's too far in future to worry about that. That'll come under regulatory scrutiny at the appropriate time, I'm sure.

Very far in the future, as in 2021?

UN agency UNESCO banned AI legal personhood back in 2021 with its AI ethics guidelines (item 68 as I recall), ratified by all member states at the time. Yes. when I asked Assistant Director-General Gabriela Ramos about it, she used the term "ban" in reference to the guideline.

But "AI rights activists" need not be alarmed; I don't think the guideline is enforceable. Countries still do what they want with their laws.

That being said, there already had been legal arguments presented on the matter. This one only talks about the lack of legal sufficiency, but it's something: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/artificial-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-legal-personality/1859C6E12F75046309C60C150AB31A29

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

What, humor? People missing obvious jokes?

No, it doesn’t. I said the consequences of a truth don’t negate it. Suggesting additional consequences doesn’t move your argument in any way. It’s simply wrong. 

Nah, they were throughly serious, as in "I work in such and such field, therefore my arguments are more valid than yours."

What "argument?" Slow down... I wasn't disagreeing but I did say it didn't matter. That much is true- What good is any purported truth if everyone just ignores it?

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

they were throughly serious,

Encourage you to reread, in context, the exchange above HERE. I couldn’t care less about your experiences in other forums. 

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

As Stringy mentions, this will be an area of intense legal scrutiny and debate.  I think the question of sentience, though some may dismiss it, will be important to many people simply on the basis of our natural human curiosity and desire to know who we're talking to - especially if we're uncertain there is a "who" there at all.  To give an example, if a very old Mr Vat had an android home assistant, "Hal," show up and begin to live in his home, he would very much like to know if Hal was sentient.  And his views on Hal's legal rights would definitely pivot on that question.  And it seems Mr Vat would be afflicted with a condition that caused speaking of himself in the third person.

Let me assure you now, Mr. Vat, that thing isn't going to be sentient. There is an inherent contradiction in the very concept of a conscious machine.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Encourage you to reread, in context, the exchange above HERE. I couldn’t care less about your experiences in other forums. 

This place isn't all that different from all those other places.

[iNow]

Thanks for confirming it went over your head 

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Let me assure you now, Mr. Vat, that thing isn't going to be sentient. There is an inherent contradiction in the very concept of a conscious machine.

This place isn't all that different from all those other places.

Do I detect a hint of the Galileo Gambit? Are you feeling like it's you against the world with this. 

[AIkonoklazt]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do I detect a hint of the Galileo Gambit? Are you feeling like it's you against the world with this. 

Nah. What "establishment?" There isn't any.

Besides, there's no shortage of academic opinions on my side of the fence.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810016301817

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

https://theconversation.com/why-a-computer-will-never-be-truly-conscious-120644

I'm interested on academic opinions on the other side. I've looked at some papers and they're reducible to either functionalism or behaviorism, which I've addressed.

But to my previous comment... I'm just calling a spade a spade. An anonymous forum isn't much different from any other. The only remedy is to engage on a professional networking site using real names, like LinkedIn (ran into lots of yahoos there too, but all of the academics have been pleasant to deal with so far)

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Nah. What "establishment?" There isn't any.

Besides, there's no shortage of academic opinions on my side of the fence.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810016301817

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

https://theconversation.com/why-a-computer-will-never-be-truly-conscious-120644

I'm interested on academic opinions on the other side. I've looked at some papers and they're reducible to either functionalism or behaviorism, which I've addressed.

But to my previous comment... I'm just calling a spade a spade. An anonymous forum isn't much different from any other. The only remedy is to engage on a professional networking site using real names, like LinkedIn (ran into lots of yahoos there too, but all of the academics have been pleasant to deal with so far)

WTF does whether or not using ones real name have to do with the veracity of what one says? You need to learn how science works.

Edited November 26, 2023 by StringJunky

[AIkonoklazt]

53 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

WTF does whether or not using ones real name have to do with the veracity of what one says? You need to learn how science works.

Uhm "WTF" did I say which linked the veracity of what one says to one's real name?

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Thanks for confirming it went over your head 

Oh noes a joke went over my head!

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Uhm "WTF" did I say which linked the veracity of what one says to one's real name?

Oh noes a joke went over my head!

 

Quote

 The only remedy is to engage on a professional networking site using real names, like LinkedIn

 

4 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Very far in the future, as in 2021?

 

There are opinions on what it might be like, but, as yet we don't know. It is purely hypothetical atm what problems might arise.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 

There are opinions on what it might be like, but, as yet we don't know. It is purely hypothetical atm what problems might arise.

Again, I said nothing that connected the veracity of what one says to one's real name. The remedy of getting better sorts of engagement than anonymous forums is indeed a professional networking forum that uses real names. Just take a look at what happened in the other thread in which you were also a part of. You claimed others have refuted my arguments simply by their assertions, which clearly weren't the case. They weren't backing up their statements with any actual arguments when you made that claim. I get that sort of lousy "engagement" on anonymous forums all the time. You claimed that my argument had been "dismantled" by those assertions. What an utter joke- you were part of the lousiness that I spoke of. (Seen yahoos on other anonymous forums doing the exact same jig... The sort of non-argumentation is nothing new)

"Hypothetical" to you, because you haven't been keeping up with the news of someone trying to start lawsuits in order to grant legal personhood to the AI he used. He wants that AI to own copyright. He himself said in some interviews he started these lawsuits in order for society to accept AI as persons https://www.wired.com/story/the-inventor-behind-a-rush-of-ai-copyright-suits-is-trying-to-show-his-bot-is-sentient/ This isn't mentioning some case that happened in Australia where a judge granted copyright to an AI and later admitted his ignorance on the subject https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jul/30/im-sorry-dave-im-afraid-i-invented-that-australian-court-finds-ai-systems-can-be-recognised-under-patent-law

Edited November 26, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
link to example of lousy "engagement" from lousy pronouncements

[Bufofrog]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Thanks for confirming it went over your head

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