What is free will?

[untermensche]

Yes a robotic response is programmed.

A robotic response is a reflection of the nature and state of the system. A machine may not have the capacity for complex information processing, it may only be required to spot weld car bodies, for example. Its response is merely its function.

True AI is a different beast altogether, AI is able to analyze information, spot patterns and make decisions that were not programmed, hence it has 'intelligence'

There is no difference between robotic and the results of AI.

They are just better robots.

They do what they were programmed to do how they were programmed to do it.

Outcomes are defined ahead of time by the real intelligence.

Humans with their ability to create the new and that which has never existed before.

That takes freedom, not programming.

 

[DBT]

Yes a robotic response is programmed.

A robotic response is a reflection of the nature and state of the system. A machine may not have the capacity for complex information processing, it may only be required to spot weld car bodies, for example. Its response is merely its function.

True AI is a different beast altogether, AI is able to analyze information, spot patterns and make decisions that were not programmed, hence it has 'intelligence'

There is no difference between robotic and the results of AI.

They are just better robots.

They do what they were programmed to do how they were programmed to do it.

Outcomes are defined ahead of time by the real intelligence.

Humans with their ability to create the new and that which has never existed before.

That takes freedom, not programming.

You are equivocating. There is a distinction to be made between 'robotic' and 'intelligent' (AI).

A robot that welds car bodies (robotic) is not equivalent to 'intelligent' (AI), which is the ability to learn and adapt, hence not 'robotic.'

 

[untermensche]

Who is making this distinction?

I am not.

All of AI is included in the idea of robotic.

Outcomes are defined ahead of time by an external intelligence. The only real intelligence.

The AI robots are not deciding what they will do themselves.

They don't like chess and decide to become good at it.

No will exists in them.

Robots.

Nothing like human intelligence.

 

[fast]

I think Sam Harris said it best, It isn't about actions or plans...but about wants. Can anyone control their wants?

"You can do what you decide to do, but you cannot decide what you will decide to do."

It's mighty difficult to control our wants of today, but there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow.

The processes that shape our wants today also shape our wants tomorrow and into the future. Our wants are shaped by an interaction of our environment, past experience and genetic makeup thorough the medium of brain activity, both conscious and unconscious. There is no independent operator of the brain. The brain is it, it's condition in any given instance in time is the condition of us, the conscious self.

So you agree with me?

 

[DBT]

The processes that shape our wants today also shape our wants tomorrow and into the future. Our wants are shaped by an interaction of our environment, past experience and genetic makeup thorough the medium of brain activity, both conscious and unconscious. There is no independent operator of the brain. The brain is it, it's condition in any given instance in time is the condition of us, the conscious self.

So you agree with me?

Maybe, perhaps not entirely. I think the degree of agreement depends on the details of your remark; ''there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow'' - like what is meant by 'we' - the nature of this 'we'- this we that can influence our wants and how wants are actually formed and influenced.

 

[DBT]

Who is making this distinction?

I am not.

All of AI is included in the idea of robotic

That's right, you are not making a distinction where clearly there is a distinction to be made. If a system is capable of learning and adapting, it is not 'robotic' system in the sense of a car body spot welder....these are two different sets of abilities, one is able to make decisions, the other is not.

 

[fast]

The processes that shape our wants today also shape our wants tomorrow and into the future. Our wants are shaped by an interaction of our environment, past experience and genetic makeup thorough the medium of brain activity, both conscious and unconscious. There is no independent operator of the brain. The brain is it, it's condition in any given instance in time is the condition of us, the conscious self.

So you agree with me?

Maybe, perhaps not entirely. I think the degree of agreement depends on the details of your remark; ''there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow'' - like what is meant by 'we' - the nature of this 'we'- this we that can influence our wants and how wants are actually formed and influenced.

Does post #92 help with that?

I cannot directly control my wants, but I can indirectly influence them.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe, perhaps not entirely. I think the degree of agreement depends on the details of your remark; ''there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow'' - like what is meant by 'we' - the nature of this 'we'- this we that can influence our wants and how wants are actually formed and influenced.

Does post #92 help with that?

I cannot directly control my wants, but I can indirectly influence them.

Perhaps DBT is having issues with the word 'I'.

I might say 'the system that calls itself me'. Or something like that.

Though I will use 'I' colloquially and for convenience.

 

[ruby sparks]

Knowledge implies truth but not inversely. For instance, if you know that P is true, then since knowledge implies truth, P is true. It cannot be that you know P and P not be true.

If I were to look into a crystal ball that revealed every truth to come, what does that say about our having free will?

There is a very old idea that insinuates that we cannot have free will if there was an infallable all-knowing being (like God is said to be).

Let's suppose I had his powers and wrote down ahead of time exactly what choices you would make over the course of the remainder of your life. You aren't influenced by what I have written since I have not revealed to you what choices I say you'll make. I will never make a mistake. Does that imply that you must, necessarily, make those choices I predict? I say no, but many have said yes--and they're wrong btw.

No, I won't ever be mistaken. That's a guarantee you can trust with every fiber of your being. (I'm still assuming infallible powers...just in case others read that and not realize what I'm doing). Could you have made choices in opposition to my predictions? I say yes, but so so many are lured by the infallibility condition that if I cannot be mistaken, then you could not have chosen otherwise. It's a very easy trap to fall into.

Ok so this interests me. Why are they (possibly me) wrong?

I am quite happy to be put right, obviously.

It's also possible I missed the underlying point this in my rush to avoid bringing god into things:

As to logic, another issue often brought up is whether an all-knowing God leaves room for free will. Infallible knowledge, in my opinion, merely means an act will happen. We can count on it. That doesn't, however, equate to necessity. So, it's untrue that it must, just true that it will. The logic underpinning this is found in the fact that contingent events are not somehow magically transformed into necessary events. Simply, must implies will, but will happen doesn't imply must happen. The point, there's an independence between the knowledge of an event and the mechanics of an event.

 

[DBT]

Maybe, perhaps not entirely. I think the degree of agreement depends on the details of your remark; ''there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow'' - like what is meant by 'we' - the nature of this 'we'- this we that can influence our wants and how wants are actually formed and influenced.

Does post #92 help with that?

I cannot directly control my wants, but I can indirectly influence them.

Which implies a separation between you and your wants. Our wants are a part of our overall makeup. The impression of influencing our wants is itself formed from the perception of needing to do something about our wants, the wants we now have appear to be problematic.

What comes out of that perception of the need to alter our wants, our behaviour, our habits, is no less a part of the cognitive process than the problematic wants, thus setting up a possible conflict between our problematic wants and the desire or perceived need to influence or change our problematic wants.....so another desire is added, the want or desire to change.

Whether that works out or not depends on many factors, but free will is not one of them.

 

[untermensche]

Maybe, perhaps not entirely. I think the degree of agreement depends on the details of your remark; ''there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow'' - like what is meant by 'we' - the nature of this 'we'- this we that can influence our wants and how wants are actually formed and influenced.

Does post #92 help with that?

I cannot directly control my wants, but I can indirectly influence them.

Maybe you can't stop yourself from wanting that ice cream.

But you can stop yourself from eating it.

That is possible. People actually do it.

Those with a practiced will.

Many never give their will practice and strengthen it.

Some don't even know they have one. Leaves blown about.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is making this distinction?

I am not.

All of AI is included in the idea of robotic

That's right, you are not making a distinction where clearly there is a distinction to be made. If a system is capable of learning and adapting, it is not 'robotic' system in the sense of a car body spot welder....these are two different sets of abilities, one is able to make decisions, the other is not.

No distinction exists.

Any programmed learning with a computer and software is robotic learning.

It has nothing to do with human intelligence beyond a human intelligence that thinks ahead and has freedom can design the program.

 

[fast]

It has nothing to do with human intelligence [...]

I'd go a step further and say that artificial intelligence isn't a kind of intelligence. Much like how a toy car is not a kind of car or an imaginary friend is not a kind of friend. I say "kind" but perhaps "type" is the better word.

 

[fast]

Which implies a separation between you and your wants.

There's a difference between them. Lots of differences, actually. My wants have never been shot at.

Our wants are a part of our overall makeup.

Sounds true to the ear. And a tire is apart of a bicycle.

Do you think that because my wants are apart of the 'overall makeup' of who I am that we should speak to each as if one? Although it's true that I've gotten my bike fixed while doing nothing more than getting its tire fixed, there is a difference between the bike and it's tire. Had it been something else wrong, I could have fixed that and though it would still be true that I got my bike fixed, it wouldn't be true that the tire was fixed.

My tire and bike are no more one and the same than are my wants and I.

 

[fast]

Ruby,

Don't allow knowledge to interfere with your assessment of whether or not an event is possible. What is possible becomes twisted otherwise.

If I throw a coin, there are two possible sides it can land on. Or three if you insist on it's edge as being counted. Same with a die, except there are 6 possibilities.

If you agree so far, great, but if you truly agree, hold on tight and don't let others sway you with trickery into thinking otherwise.

I'm going to the front of the house. You go to the backyard. I'm going to toss a quarter across the house. Before I do, is landing on heads a possibility? A possibility of what actually can happen, it is.

Now, I'm throwing it ... it's flying through the air ... it's above the top of the house ... <pause>

Are you going to recant your story? Do you now no longer believe that landing on heads is a possibility? No, not yet; some might; some say there's only one possibility. There's thought behind their reasoning, but I object to it. At any rate, ... <resume>

The quarter is falling towards the ground, and before it's about to hit, you close your eyes and keep them closed. Do you change your story yet but now for different reasons? No, that's awesome.

Let's make this a little more hardcore. Your eyes remain closed and a group of people that were with me in the front yard are now back there with you gazing at the coin upon the ground. They can clearly see what it ACTUALLY landed on.

Eyes still closed, I ask yet again, was landing on heads a possibility?

Open your eyes and see. You don't get the luxury of seeing possibilities. To think so is to confuse possibility with actuality. Others might start talking smack about how it was never possible given the conditions at the point the coin left my hand, but concentrate on what you originally believed before knowledge of what ACTUALLY happened.

The event was not set in stone. So many things could have altered what happened. A bird could of pooped on it as it was flipping in the air. It is therefore a CONTINGENT event, not a NECESSARY event.

All actual events are possible events, but not all possible events are actual events. What's possible is a question about the possibility of an actual event. Don't allow your knowledge of the actual event skew your insight of the question regarding possibility.

Now, let's suppose that I was privileged to have already saw the storyline of life and all it's actual happenings and I wrote about your choice of picking up that quarter (that landed on tails by the way) --back on that beautiful sun filled day.

This post is getting long. Any questions yet?

 

[ruby sparks]

I do have a question. What has this to do with free will? I'm not being disrespectful or cynical in the slightest.

At the moment, I'm thinking it has to do with determinism (or predeterminism) the lack of which (even if it were true) would not, imo, provide free will. It would merely be indeterminancy. I'm fine, by and large, with the idea of indeterminancy, because I allow for the possibility of the truly random.

But I have a feeling that you might be talking about something else?

- - - Updated - - -

Now, let's suppose that I was privileged to have already saw the storyline of life and all it's actual happenings and I wrote about your choice of picking up that quarter (that landed on tails by the way) --back on that beautiful sun filled day.

Please continue.

 

[OLDMAN]

Maybe you can't stop yourself from wanting that ice cream.

But you can stop yourself from eating it.

That is possible. People actually do it.

Those with a practiced will.

Many never give their will practice and strengthen it.

Some don't even know they have one. Leaves blown about.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is making this distinction?

I am not.

All of AI is included in the idea of robotic

That's right, you are not making a distinction where clearly there is a distinction to be made. If a system is capable of learning and adapting, it is not 'robotic' system in the sense of a car body spot welder....these are two different sets of abilities, one is able to make decisions, the other is not.

No distinction exists.

Any programmed learning with a computer and software is robotic learning.

It has nothing to do with human intelligence beyond a human intelligence that thinks ahead and has freedom can design the program.

 

[untermensche]

Who can say what a conscious intention is?

Who can say what phenomena is involved?

Sam Harris doesn't know.

His talk of conscious intention is as empty as a Christian talking about the soul.

 

[fast]

I do have a question. What has this to do with free will? I'm not being disrespectful or cynical in the slightest.

At the moment, I'm thinking it has to do with determinism (or predeterminism) the lack of which (even if it were true) would not, imo, provide free will. It would merely be indeterminancy. I'm fine, by and large, with the idea of indeterminancy, because I allow for the possibility of the truly random.

But I have a feeling that you might be talking about something else?

- - - Updated - - -

Now, let's suppose that I was privileged to have already saw the storyline of life and all it's actual happenings and I wrote about your choice of picking up that quarter (that landed on tails by the way) --back on that beautiful sun filled day.

Please continue.

It does have to do with determinism, but there are two variant themes of it. Determinism is merely that every event has a cause. For instance, if we're riding down the road and see a fallen tree, then if determinism is true, then there was a cause for there being a fallen tree. If lightening struck it, then that is the cause. If the wind blew strongly, then that instead was the cause. Had the lightening not struck or the wind not blew, then there would have been some other cause. Some CONTINGENT event.

Before I begin wrapping things up, one more detour:

The JTB Theory of knowledge speaks of three necessary conditions. Excluding Gettier type examples (which speaks to something else anyhow), there is the Truth condition. Knowledge implies belief whereas the inverse is not true. This is similar in form to what I discussed earlier: knowledge implies truth whereas the inverse is not true.

There is something about this truth condition that shouldn't be forsaken. What's important is that P is true. IS true. Is is is.

The condition is that P is true. Nowhere, anywhere, in any way shape or form, is it so that the condition is "P must be true." No necessary event required ; contingent truths will do.

Are you on my heels?

ETA. I had said in agreement that it has to do with determinism, but though true, the main thrust was to keep you locked in to remembering (and embracing) the possibilities for what they are.

Possibilities are possibilities are possibilities. They do not become figments of our imagination upon learning of actualities.

 

[DBT]

Which implies a separation between you and your wants.

There's a difference between them. Lots of differences, actually. My wants have never been shot at.

I didn't say identical, I said inseparable. The brain is modular and multi-functional. Regulating body functions/chemistry, acquiring information from it senses, organs, etc, etc.

If one part of the psych feels like it has control over another, a set of wants, this does not mean that either is separate from the agent responsible for both sets of experiences, the wants that are causing difficulties and the perception of the need to overcome them....that being the experience of 'you' influencing your future wants.

Whether that works out or not depends not on 'free will' but how the brain processes information......your unwanted habits/wants may be impossible to eradicate.

 

[DBT]

No distinction exists.

I made the distinction. One system cannot learn and adapt, its actions are fixed to its programmed tasks, it is not responsive according to changing circumstances, it is not an intelligent system. The other system is able learn and adapt, reason and respond to changing circumstances, it is an intelligent system.

That is clearly a distinction. There is an undeniable difference between the two systems so just to claim 'no distinction exists' is ignoring an undeniable distinction.