According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[steve_bank]

Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows, Weeee!!!!

Remember a playground merry go round? A metaphor for philisophi9call debate?

 

[steve_bank]

I don't think I asked you for examples of anything

You specifically stated that all philosophy on such subjects should come with concrete examples.

The game is a concrete example.

I am not asking for you to play it to have fun; you MIGHT have fun, but all the icons are so very tiny that you might have a hard time.

The reason I suggest it is because it is exactly as I said: an example of all of these concepts of this thread laid bare.

As the saying goes one pixcture is worth a thou ind words.

Your your long somewhat incoherent, at least to me, referncng adwares in a video game is no concrete examples.

May I suggest a liittle formality for clarity.

Using a video game I will demonstrate the chronicles of a,b,c ....

In the game adwares will do x,y,z destrng a,b,c

Concrete examples are specific instances or real-life scenarios that illustrate abstract concepts or ideas. They provide a bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical application, making it easier for our brains to grasp and remember information.Mar 1, 2024

Metaphysics deals with abstractions. Concrete examples tie metaphysics/philosophy to reality.

Using metaphysics to demonstrate metaphysics is akin to Christian theology.

I see no way to demonstrate free will or determinism. I can freely choose between two things, but there is no way to know if the presented choices are predestined and your choice predetermined.

You can look at science as metaphysical abstractions which it is, but the abstractions are tied to the phys cl second, meter, ad kilogram connecting the abstractions to reality.

Words are abstractions in our brains tied to physical reality. Like the word rock. Some wrds are abstrct by nature like spirit, soul.

So when it comes to freewill and determinism with many definitions all abstractions which can not be tied to physical reality as we perceive it.

Abstractions in the sense the Christian god is an abstraction with complicated metaphysics,.

I don't demonstrate that the universe is deterministic; rather I use a concrete example of a known deterministic system to illustrate all of the meaning under the language I use around and about "freedoms" and "wills".

The Christian God:EinSof is not a heavy metaphysical abstraction, though. It's literally just 'the set of all sets', which we know is nonsense from foundational set theory.

I have quite clearly tied the concepts to the game, so if you want to see the picture worth a thousand words, you have to get off your high horse and learn why "losing is fun!"

Quite seriously, you are not clear to me. You drift in and out of video games, simulations, and philosophy.

From what I see people immersed in video games can look at reality trough video games as Christians look through the bible and theology. I have no doubt in the global game comu8nty ere are philosophies and metaphors based in video games. A modern myt6holgy of sorts.

Video games are not real.

I do not drink the video game Kool-Aid.

 

[Jarhyn]

Quite seriously, you are not clear to me. You drift in and out of video games, simulations, and philosophy

Well, that's your own problem. I told you exactly why: video games and simulations are philosophy, executed in a wholely different way than you might expect: they give functional, grounded examples around which strong descriptions of language are possible.

I have invited you to "see my language in action".

That's all. That's the entirety of it

My assertion, now backed up by Measure Theory, is that computer science (and thus simulations and video games) have deep linguistic connections to set theory that pop up in wholely unexpected ways, and that math and set theory IS philosophy and metaphysics. So video games, by extension, are set theory and applied metaphysics.

To me, these are all the same subject, and you can learn about one by learning about the other.

You can learn metaphysics by studying the rules around simulations and understand "possible worlds" as a concept by observing actual worlds.

You can understand autonomy by studying autonomous things.

You can understand wills by seeing things with wills of their own.

You can understand the various concepts about gods by rolling up your sleeves and playing god for a while.

Video games ARE simulations and simulations ARE philosophy and metaphysical investigations.

 

[DBT]

Must I keep reminding you of the implications of your own definition. Surely at some point you must get a grip on the consequences of determinism as it is defined, how you yourself define it to be;

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.''

You have not even paid attention to what "randomness" is through all this discussion.

How many times must it be pointed out that randomness is not a part of the compatibilist argument for free will, that compatibilism is related to determinism?

Shame on you.

That's you with you persistent use of strawman arguments. Shame on you.

A pseudo-probabilistic system is deterministic AND contains "randomness" in the form of information from the original condition that is uncorrelated to anything else that has happened in the system, is undecidable from within it, and is clearly capable of being otherwise at any step but simply isn't.

Which has absolutely zero to do with compatibilism.

I presented dwarf fortress and described exactly how and when these deterministic things can be "otherwise," and even situations where they are.

That you fail to understand how all that comes together is, I think, why you persist in your religious bullshit.

You have yet to present anything relevant.

First you need to understand the basics of compatibilism.

Begin with the most basic point, that compatibilism is related to determinism, not random event, not probability.....determinism pretty much as you defined it to be.

will somehow has autonomy

Yes, wills create momentary autonomy.

There is no autonomous agent at work in the brain. The brain is it, the sole agent of cognition.

Your autonomy of will is crock. As with all mental functions, will is the work of the brain. It is the brain that shapes and forms will and represents it in conscious form.

If you dislike this, get over it.

You do not understand enough to have this conversation. About anything.

Wow, the irony. Maybe a suggestion.....roll up your sleeves and set to working on a better understanding of compatibilist argument for free will as it relates to determinism, as it is defined.

 

[DBT]

Hard determinism is the thesis that the Big Bang writes novels and poems, designs buildings, creates symphonies.

Anyone not blinded by dogma can instantly see how inane that is,

Compatibilists base their argument of free will on determinism. Defined as - even adequate determinism - a system that evolves as determined, without the possibility of alternate choices in any given instance of decision making. That free will, as they define it to be, is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilists are determinists. Without determinism, there are no compatibilists.

If you don't accept determinism, you are not a compatibilist, you are arguing for Libertarian free will, not compatibilism.

 

[pood]

Hard determinism is the thesis that the Big Bang writes novels and poems, designs buildings, creates symphonies.

Anyone not blinded by dogma can instantly see how inane that is,

Compatibilists base their argument of free will on determinism. Defined as - even adequate determinism - a system that evolves as determined, without the possibility of alternate choices in any given instance of decision making. That free will, as they define it to be, is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilists are determinists. Without determinism, there are no compatibilists.

If you don't accept determinism, you are not a compatibilist, you are arguing for Libertarian free will, not compatibilism.

I do accept (adequate) determinism, just not hard determinism. We’ve been over this.

 

[Jarhyn]

How many times must it be pointed out that randomness is not a part of the compatibilist argument for free will, that compatibilism is related to determinism?

How many times have you had it pointed out to you that what you seem to be calling randomness is not even randomness here?

THIS is why people who do not have solid language skills here should be kept far and away from this.

Random is not an infinite metaphysical quality; it is a quality about whether a 'correct decision or guess from limited information' is possible.

"Random" is about internal statistical correlation of one action of a system to another.

Spectre, given a placement regime, creates an aperiodic field in a fully deterministic way, and yet the next tile you find while exploring the edges of the field are random, because the placement of the tile is not strictly correlated to any internally available information. The placement regime is not actually stored in the placements.

It is an observably deterministic system with a "random" element, also known as an "undecidable" problem, where the information does not exist within any finite local part to determine what some other unobserved part looks like.

The fact that you can't seem to wrap your head around this is exactly why I keep telling you to take that software engineering course, to fail about about halfway through the part on Pointers, and then to maybe quit bothering people with your belief in God.

And I will reiterate that belief in Fatalism IS a belief in God.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean seriously, where the fuck does ANYONE get on with talking about randomness and what it implies when they don't even fucking know what the word means?

This is why philosophy is such a fucking mess; half the people in the discussion, or more -- a plurality -- don't even understand what the words mean, and don't understand that to make solid metaphysical discussion in a way any different from sophistry, you have to have solid definitions...

 

[pood]

It is the brain that shapes and forms will and represents it in conscious form.

Right. Compatibilism, The brain being you, and thus you are part of the deterministic process. It does not matter if part of this is done subconsciously or based on antecedents (as what else would our choices be based on?). It is still you shaping and forming will, as you say.

 

[pood]

So the brain shapes and forms will and represents it in conscious form in masterpieces like the Eiffel Tower, Guernica, The Brothers Karamazov and Requiem. Obviously the Big Bang, fatalism, hard determinism and pre-determinism cannot create masterpieces or create anything at all.

 

[DBT]

How many times must it be pointed out that randomness is not a part of the compatibilist argument for free will, that compatibilism is related to determinism?

How many times have you had it pointed out to you that what you seem to be calling randomness is not even randomness here?

How many times does it need to be explained that I am speaking generally.....that randomness is not a part of the given definition of determinism? That it is not a part of your definition of determinism.

That compatibilism is related to determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

It is not related to the argument. It is irrelevant. Yet you keep invoking it as if you are making some sort of point. You are not, you merely present a procession of strawman arguments.

THIS is why people who do not have solid language skills here should be kept far and away from this.

At least try to understand the issue before making silly statements.

The issue is free will in relation to determinism, ie, compatibilism.

Random is not an infinite metaphysical quality; it is a quality about whether a 'correct decision or guess from limited information' is possible.

"Random" is about internal statistical correlation of one action of a system to another.

Didn't say it was. Another one of your strawman.

Spectre, given a placement regime, creates an aperiodic field in a fully deterministic way, and yet the next tile you find while exploring the edges of the field are random, because the placement of the tile is not strictly correlated to any internally available information. The placement regime is not actually stored in the placements.

Random doesn't relate to determinism. Not according to how compatibilists define determinism. Not according to how compatibilists define free will. Nor does it relate to how you define determinism,
Get a grip.

It is an observably deterministic system with a "random" element, also known as an "undecidable" problem, where the information does not exist within any finite local part to determine what some other unobserved part looks like.

The fact that you can't seem to wrap your head around this is exactly why I keep telling you to take that software engineering course, to fail about about halfway through the part on Pointers, and then to maybe quit bothering people with your belief in God.

And I will reiterate that belief in Fatalism IS a belief in God.

Even if you include random elements, random elements are not related to free will as defined by compatibilists.

Now, even if random elements happen (they may), they do not help you establish an argument for free will. It doesn't relate to compatibilism.

Random elements are not willed. They are not chosen. Being random, they may effect the system in unpredictable ways.

If you are arguing for free will, you are certainly not arguing for compatibilism

And need I remind you:

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.

 

[DBT]

It is the brain that shapes and forms will and represents it in conscious form.

Right. Compatibilism, The brain being you, and thus you are part of the deterministic process. It does not matter if part of this is done subconsciously or based on antecedents (as what else would our choices be based on?). It is still you shaping and forming will, as you say.

What happens in the brain, information acquisition, processing, is not under the regulatory control of will. The form that will takes is the result of that unwilled activity, which may come in the form of habits, fears, wants, desires....where one desire (will) is in conflict with another, a habit along with a desire to overcome the habit, a battle of wills being generated by the brain.

Free will? Hardly.

 

[Jarhyn]

How many times

You have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you do not understand the terminology used, nor do you have the discipline to apply it strictly.

What happens in the brain, information acquisition, processing, is not under the regulatory control of will.

A will is an algorithm.

An algorithm here is the sequence of things to do to produce some output of behavior.

Information processing happens according to that pre-existing sequence description.

That sequence contains directives, regulatory control structures, which direct the information to acquire and how and when to process it.

Therefore, because the will contains the regulatory control structures to determine what happens in the brain with respect to information acquisition and processing, what happens in the brain -- information acquisition and processing -- is directly under the regulatory control of the will.

In fact, the exact ways that the will's pre-existing instructions control and regulate are it's freedoms.

Please DBT take some math and software classes.

 

[pood]

It is the brain that shapes and forms will and represents it in conscious form.

Right. Compatibilism, The brain being you, and thus you are part of the deterministic process. It does not matter if part of this is done subconsciously or based on antecedents (as what else would our choices be based on?). It is still you shaping and forming will, as you say.

What happens in the brain, information acquisition, processing, is not under the regulatory control of will.

Sure, if what you mean by “regulatory control of will” is a libertarian homunculus sitting in the brain able to override the brain’s desires.

Free will? Hardly.

You said it yourself:

It is the brain that shapes and forms will and represents it in conscious form.

Compatibilism.

 

[DBT]

Hard determinism is the thesis that the Big Bang writes novels and poems, designs buildings, creates symphonies.

Anyone not blinded by dogma can instantly see how inane that is,

Compatibilists base their argument of free will on determinism. Defined as - even adequate determinism - a system that evolves as determined, without the possibility of alternate choices in any given instance of decision making. That free will, as they define it to be, is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilists are determinists. Without determinism, there are no compatibilists.

If you don't accept determinism, you are not a compatibilist, you are arguing for Libertarian free will, not compatibilism.

I do accept (adequate) determinism, just not hard determinism. We’ve been over this.

We have been over it. Far too many times. Yet the problem is still the same, that even adequate determinism does not permit alternate actions. Events must proceed as determined. Which includes whatever is happening within a brain to bring about actions related to antecedent events (the very definition of determinism) .

If that is denied, we are not talking about determinism, be it adequate or absolute. We don't have compatibilism, we have something else entirely.

Without determinism, compatibilism is irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

How many times

You have demonstrated, repeatedly, that you do not understand the terminology used, nor do you have the discipline to apply it strictly.

What happens in the brain, information acquisition, processing, is not under the regulatory control of will.

A will is an algorithm.

An algorithm here is the sequence of things to do to produce some output of behavior.

Information processing happens according to that pre-existing sequence description.

That sequence contains directives, regulatory control structures, which direct the information to acquire and how and when to process it.

Therefore, because the will contains the regulatory control structures to determine what happens in the brain with respect to information acquisition and processing, what happens in the brain -- information acquisition and processing -- is directly under the regulatory control of the will.

In fact, the exact ways that the will's pre-existing instructions control and regulate are it's freedoms.

Please DBT take some math and software classes.

Ahem, the subject is not software development or computers (which, as you falsely claim, are not actually conscious)

The subject is free will in relation to determinism.

Not random events. Not a probabilistic system. Not Quantum mechanics, but determinism.

Now, it is the claim of compatibilist that free will as they define it to be is related not to random or probabilistic events, but determinism.

So before anything else, put aside your irrelevant software defense and at least try to grasp the basics of determinism.

Here's a primer;

Determinism​

A common characterization of determinism states that every event (except the first, if there is one) is causally necessitated by antecedent events. Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions.''

 

[bilby]

We have been over it. Far too many times. Yet the problem is still the same, that even adequate determinism does not permit alternate actions.

Of course it doesn't. The only action permitted is the one I choose.

My freedom to choose doesn't require me to do something other than what I choose; That would be crazy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ahem, the subject is not software development or computers (which, as you falsely claim, are not actually conscious)

Yes DBT, the subject IS about software and computation because consciousness is computation and computation is consciousness and all phenomena are abstractly "computation".

You even agreed up thread with Bruce in accepting that the language fits perfectly.

 

[pood]

Yet the problem is still the same, that even adequate determinism does not permit alternate actions.

We’ve been over this too. Determinism is not the kind of thing that can permit, or fail to permit, or coerce anythig at all. It is not a force, it is not an agent, it is not even a law. It’s a description how things go in the classical world, Descriptions are not prescriptions. You persistently treat determinism as a prescriptive force. It would be like saying my watching the sun come up in the morning makes it come up. This gets the flow of truth-making backward. The sun coming up provides the truth grounds for my watching it do so.

 

[DBT]

We have been over it. Far too many times. Yet the problem is still the same, that even adequate determinism does not permit alternate actions.

Of course it doesn't. The only action permitted is the one I choose.

My freedom to choose doesn't require me to do something other than what I choose; That would be crazy.

How you 'choose' - the means and mechanisms of decision making - is the point at which compatibilism fails.

Given determinism, what you decide is inevitable, not willed, certainly not freely willed.

As it is a matter of the state of the brain and unconscious information processing brought to conscious attention, it has nothing to do with free will or conscious will.