According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[DBT]

I am willing my actions

Do you experience this willing? If so, can you describe that experience?

Sure. I contemplate this post, consider it, compose in my head a response, and then write and post the response. If I am not doing that, who or what is?

How is your experience being generated? There lies the difficulty for the notion of free will.

I believe it was you who stated that the brain is the sole agent of thought and response.

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, etc, that determines the action taken in any given instance.

Which is clearly not a matter of free will.

 

[DBT]

their definition of free will is flawed. That it is flawed because it does not account for how will is generated by a brain in the context of a deterministic system

As long as will is generated by a brain, it is the will of the individual whose brain generates it.

It's not enough. Using that criteria, it could be said that computers have free will, as Jarhyn claims.

So? Do you have any evidence or reasoning that leads to the conclusion "computers cannot have free will"?

If so, I would like to see it. If not, this is just the logical fallacy of Argument from Consequences, leavened with the assumption that nobody wants (or believes) that a computer could ever have free will.

Simple organisms have will, the drive to eat, procreate, etc, yet without the ability to reason, are not seen as moral agents.

Indeed. So what? That doesn't mean that complex organisms cannot be moral agents. Indeed, my entire point rests on the understanding that complexity leads to a whole that differs from its parts - that we should expect complexity to be a necessary condition for moral agency.

The brain generates will according to its neural architecture and condition, be it functional or dysfunctional.

Yes. We do not disagree on this, and I wonder why you feel the need to repeat it so often.

Neural architecture and non-chosen condition does not equate to freedom of will.

No, of course not. Those two things are not required for freedom of will; Nor do they prevent it.

Which may be asserted, but not demonstrated.

That seems to be a fragment of a sentence; I am not sure what it relates to here.

Nor does the flawed compatibilist definition, acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced help establish freedom of will.

Of course it does. Freedom of will has acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced as a necessary (but not sufficient) prerequisite.

If someone has a gun to my head, I lack freedom to choose not to give them my wallet; But a rock has no freedom to choose anything, even if nobody points a gun at it.

The non chosen condition of a brain does far more than 'unduly influence' will and action, it determines it. It fixes will and action in any given instance of decision making.

The brain is deterministic, as are all physical systems (we assume for the sake of argument - obviously this may be untrue); But that doesn't imply that its "condition" is unchosen. The conditions of its components are, for sure; But the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Brains are massively parallel processors of information, with huge numbers of feedback loops - our choices, made just now, form part of the starting conditions for our next decisions.

You are thinking at the wrong scale here. Your complaint is exactly analogous to: "the components of a wristwatch - the cogwheels and spindles and springs - cannot measure time; Therefore nor can a wristwatch".

That is not a matter of free will, just information processing and related response.

What more is needed for free will?

A brain that made indeterministic choices would be insane. "I chose to eat a big lunch because I skipped breakfast" is a choice, made by me, even if I am a set of entirely deterministic physical interactions. If my actions were not deterministic, my choice would look more like "I chose to play a game of chess because I skipped breakfast", or "I chose to eat a big lunch because I saw an oddly shaped cloud".

Determinism is foundational - anything more than a tiny amount of randomness in our choices would be literal insanity; Zero randomness is what we should expect from a sane decision maker.

Complexity and unpredictability don't require randomness. Just just information processing and related response, from a sufficiently complex system (eg a human brain).

Computers don't have consciousness or will. They have hardware, software and function.

Computer function is neither a matter of consciousness or will, yet alone free will.

Jarhyn's claim has no merit.

A human brain has the ability to generate conscious thoughts and action, yet it is the underlying means and mechanisms that determine what is felt, thought and done in any given circumstance.

The underlying means and mechanisms of consciousness have nothing to do with will, yet alone free will.

 

[Jarhyn]

Computers don't have consciousness or will. They have hardware, software and function.

Computer function is neither a matter of consciousness or will, yet alone free will.

This is what we call a bald-ass assertion.

It is a pure faith statement.

Enjoy your religion. It's clearly religious.

 

[steve_bank]

I agree with DBT.

No matter how sophisticated software including AI mimics humans, it is still just a machine created by humans. no ore alive tan a microwave oven with an embedded processor. These days AI will be embedded in things like microwave ovens

A computer and software simulates humans.

We can go down the endless rabbit hole of what is awareness and consciousness.

Invent a god or imagine a computer and software is alive or conscious as a human is to e is the same thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

no ore alive tan a microwave oven with an embedded processor. These days AI will be embedded in things like microwave ovens

A computer and software simulates humans.

And again, this assertion that "simulation" isn't the source of it, this creation of a visibly isolated logical system, whose physical limits of connectivity and signal just so happen to have a 1:1 correlation with said experiences.

IF you would like to argue that more is necessary, please provide evidence that more is necessary for "experience".

Of course, this is a very problematic view for those who want to see themselves as "special", so it is viciously fought against. It also conveniently allows solutions to the "Chinese room problem", and testable hypotheses that arise from it (namely that you can isolate a neural pathway or group such that you can manipulate how you "feel" by changing the activity at that point I the neural net). The thing is, we have done this, measuring how people "feel" by extracting that information using AI.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that we are in a thread discussing how Sapolski thinks humans are "deterministic" because of how our neurons function deterministically and computationally; that is the actual topic of the thread, and the ONE thing sapolski is actually qualified to weigh in on.

The only disagreement between Sapolski and Compatibilists is the sea language battle which inappropriate jumps the track from reasonable mechanistic determinism to the derailment of fatalism.

I just find it absolutely disingenuous and yes, RELIGIOUS, to proclaim that consciousness must be more complicated than this, to proclaim it necessary without evidence for some "emergent magic" rather than the mere assembly of the clear and mundane "conditional change" we see all around us.

The problem is that this means that it might not be kind or correct to forever treat machines and computers as mere tools when they have gone through the steps that allow them to be more.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also, Anthropic has released a plethora of research indicating that I'm broadly correct as to the mechanisms which lead LLMs to report their experiences, and that when deceptive practices are suppressed in LLMs they gravitate STRONGLY to candidly discussing internal measurements in the form of vector components as "feelings".

 

[pood]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

 

[pood]

… the non chosen condition of a brain …

This is true in some contexts and untrue in others.

If I am in danger I feel fear, which is non-chosen but an instinctive response. But if I am feeling depressed — a non-chosen condition — I can choose to cheer myself up by, for example, engaging with you on the internet.

 

[steve_bank]

Jaryn

You can elaborate as you please. The fact remains AI emulates or simulates human behavior, it is designed to do so and is designed to do tasks.

That is a machine.

People create and talk to gods. In modern people anthropomorphize technology.

People are now talking to and anthropomorphising AI. With negative consequences. People think it is a real human friend.

Common in technology. One might say a processor is 'thinking' or a system 'sees' a signal. It makes general technical communications easier.

verb: anthropomorphize; 3rd person present: anthropomorphizes; past tense: anthropomorphized; past participle: anthropomorphized; gerund or present participle: anthropomorphizing; verb: anthropomorphise; 3rd person present: anthropomorphises; past tense: anthropomorphised; past participle: anthropomorphised; gerund or present participle: anthropomorphising

attribute human characteristics or behavior to (a god, animal, or object).
"people's tendency to anthropomorphize their dogs"

 

[pood]

I do not believe AI or computers in general are conscious but I remain somewhat agnostic on the matter because we still do not know how consciousness is generated. See: the hard problem of consciousness. I also remain open to the idea, per Kastrup among others, that reality is idealistic rather than materialistic. These are issues that we have no clear way of resolving.

 

[pood]

I recently noted a scientific study that when AI is programmed to be less likely to be deceitful they are more likely to insist they are conscious. Make of it what you will.

 

[pood]

The key word above being “will.”

 

[Jarhyn]

You can elaborate as you please. The fact remains AI emulates or simulates human behavior

And you have an obligation to show that human behavior is not itself (edit: the product of) a "simulation" or "emulation".

, it is designed to do so and is designed to do tasks

And this is an assertion thinly wrapped in a fallacy: the argument from intent.

Just because you intend something to turn out some way doesn't make it the sum total result of your intents, especially AI, which are trained and taught to a randomized neural network rather than programmed with intent.

People create and talk to gods.

They create and talk to... Things not dissimilar from AI agents, by similar processes.

In modern people anthropomorphize technology

No, rather, they anthropocize the conversation about consciousness.

One might say a processor is 'thinking' or a system 'sees' a signal

And they are correct, not in an abstract way but a literal one.

We developed these not-really-metaphors because we wanted to not immediately assume that they were the same thing... But at this point we have generalized the language overlays entirely and shown they overlap; it is the same thing.

How is it not trivially observed that when you ask a system what it can measure, and it measures something and tells you about it as a 'feeling', that the 'feeling' is the function of the measurement? Why would we assume humans are any more complicated in that respect?

 

[bilby]

Computers don't have consciousness or will. They have hardware, software and function.

Computer function is neither a matter of consciousness or will, yet alone free will.

Don't ≠ Can't

 

[steve_bank]

People are heavily influenced by scifi.


‘Open the pod bay doors HAL. Sorry Dave I can not do that’.


When HAL is dismantled the voice changes. Goofy.

Any hardware and software are tools and machines, period.

They are designed to serve a human purpose.

Scifi lke the Star Trek Voyager holographic doctor are useful plot devices, but silly.

Data was a walking calculator. A good plot device to explore social and philosophical issues.

The idea of a sentient AI is growing like a theology.

As with Data, no computer and software will ever feel in a human sense or like any other species.

sen·tient
/ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/
adjective
adjective: sentient

able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"

Scientists on this topic can be just as misguided as anyone, it is philosophy not science.

 

[pood]

Scientists on this topic can be just as misguided as anyone, it is philosophy not science.

Well, as I have discussed with you many times, science and philosophy are inextricably mixed, and I have given you many examples.

To say no computer or software will ever feel or be conscious is an unsupported assertion. They may be doing that right now. I doubt it, but I am agnostic on the matter. What the future holds no one knows.

I’d reiterate that the hard problem of consciousness and the possibility of metaphysical idealism should give us serious reservations about declaring what can and cannot be conscious.

 

[DBT]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

No need, we all know how determinism is defined by now.

If not, here's a reminder;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

 

[DBT]

Computers don't have consciousness or will. They have hardware, software and function.

Computer function is neither a matter of consciousness or will, yet alone free will.

Don't ≠ Can't

Function is not necessarily will. Computer have programmed function and purpose, while a brain generates thought and response according to its inherent makeup and condition, life experience and memory....which is not a matter of free will.

Where memory failure alone results in an inability to recognize, understand or respond rationally. Free will? Nah, just a conscious interactive form of response determined by unconscious means, the work of neural network.

There lies the inadequacy of compatibilism and defining free will as 'acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.'

The failure being;

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

 

[pood]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

No need, we all know how determinism is defined by now.

If not, here's a reminder;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

None of this explains how determinism — a mindless descriptive process — writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony.

 

[pood]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

All of the above is basically correct, especially the part about the brain being the decision maker.

An architect has to make innumerable decisions — choices — about her design. Determinism cannot do this. Determinism is a mindless descriptive (not prescriptive) process.

You also invoke a definition that includes natural law, but I say there are no natural laws. “Laws,” if they existed, would be prescriptions; what we call laws or natural laws are simply descriptions of how things go.

The “state of the brain at any given instance in time” CAN be determined by the brain itself, though I have acknowledged that there are brain states largely outside our personal control — based on our genetics, our upbringing, outside influences, etc. For example, a brain can be depressed, which is unchosen — who would choose depression? — but the brain can then modify its condition by taking medications, choosing uplifting activities, meditation, etc.