According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[Jarhyn]

That was so many words wasted to repeat the PRATT "the big bang is god".

The preconditions being fixed creates the illusion that choice does not happen. But the non-contingence is an illusory, because it is clearly the case that not if but WHEN that state structure appears in a different place where the preconditions are different, different things happen.

The lack of freedom seen by hard determinists is an illusion created by their inability to truly understand relativity and that their reference frame is not the only valid one.

The issue is that the big bang has and has never had any directed agency. It didn't intend, it didn't design, and it didn't create any future state.

All of those things are only ever done after, as a function of what things are amid the rules that comprise how things change.

When something is acted upon and as a function of its states redirects that force, we say it is "responsible" for the "decision" on the state. Were other things responsible for directing that force towards the thing? Yes! But that does not change the fact that IT was responsible in ITS time for directing the force once it made its way to that part, and thus that part is responsible for the decision on the force in the moment.

As others have said this is getting boring and monotonous.

 

[DBT]

That was so many words wasted to repeat the PRATT "the big bang is god".

The preconditions being fixed creates the illusion that choice does not happen. But the non-contingence is an illusory, because it is clearly the case that not if but WHEN that state structure appears in a different place where the preconditions are different, different things happen.

The lack of freedom seen by hard determinists is an illusion created by their inability to truly understand relativity and that their reference frame is not the only valid one.

The issue is that the big bang has and has never had any directed agency. It didn't intend, it didn't design, and it didn't create any future state.

All of those things are only ever done after, as a function of what things are amid the rules that comprise how things change.

When something is acted upon and as a function of its states redirects that force, we say it is "responsible" for the "decision" on the state. Were other things responsible for directing that force towards the thing? Yes! But that does not change the fact that IT was responsible in ITS time for directing the force once it made its way to that part, and thus that part is responsible for the decision on the force in the moment.

As others have said this is getting boring and monotonous.

You are still barking up the wrong tree.

You ignore that it is the compatibilist who defines the terms and conditions for determinism, and that it is the compatibilist definition of determinism that does not permit alternate actions.

This should be very easy to grasp; I as an incompatibilist have no need to define determinism, the compatibilist does that.

I as an incompatibilist have no need to define free will, the compatibilist does that.

Your 'hard determinist' rationale is a Red Herring because the definition is one and the same. It's not the definition of determinism that's disputed, but the compatibilist definition of free will in relation to the compatibilist definition of free will.

How hard is this to grasp? Why the song and dance? Just accept that the compatibilist definition of free will fails to make a case in relation to the compatibilist definition of determinism, and relax and enjoy your life.....nothing will have changed.


Counterfactual Usage

''Another way someone could use “could have done otherwise” is by using what is called modal language to address subjunctive conditions which are in fact false (hence the term counterfactual). This is done by attaching an “if”to the “could have”. For example, in a deterministic universe, after Billy robs a bank, one could say “Billy could have decided not to rob the bank IF the conditions of the universe were different in a way that he didn’t (e.g. via a different initial condition of the universe)”.

In this sense we are using a “contingent IF” to build to the “could have done otherwise”. That “if” however, is irrelevant. Saying “if the conditions of the universe were different” misses the point that any change in initial conditions would never be up to the person. For the free will debate, that is what is important. One might as well say “if the conditions were such that pigs flew, there would and could have been flying pigs”.

 

[Jarhyn]

Good luck DBT. I'm done arguing with your flerf-ishness. You have revealed yourself to be just as capable as someone who doesn't accept the relativity of "down" and goes on about water sticking to balls.

 

[DBT]

Good luck DBT. I'm done arguing with your flerf-ishness. You have revealed yourself to be just as capable as someone who doesn't accept the relativity of "down" and goes on about water sticking to balls.

Sour grapes from a Master of the Dance.

Quite an art, a Dancer who effortlessly swirls around and around the point, yet never quite touches it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, presto magic necro-motivatus!

Apparently we are getting back into the debate over whether "free will" is a thing, what is meant by "freedom", what influence our "awareness" has on our actions, and what it is there for and means.

This is just as good a place as any to bicker over that if we have to bicker about this but the PoE thread isn't that.

First, we have to acknowledge the elephant in the room: the fact that the universe is a system of process upon mutable fields, and that different global conditions around the same local condition will result in different local conditions and events (this is known from the repeatability of physics).

This means that locations can be observed in a vacuum and considered in a range of global conditions.

The different local outcomes given different global conditions around the local condition are the FREEDOMS of the local condition.

These are "real facts about the local condition", and sometimes the global conditions itself has a constrained local condition that is set up to observe our plans about the first local condition such that the second local condition will change based on observation of the freedoms of the first local condition.

This results in the precipitation of a "will": selection of one of the freedoms of the local condition by the surrounding stuff, namely a part of the brain, and formulation into a plan for the future, actions to take and decision points to take them at.

When the bit of the brain that selects these selects them badly, we select that brain, as a social group, with the purpose of reconfiguring it, as it's actions in selection on freedoms are a result of its configuration.

As a result, you have a process of determining behavior that is "past aware and future-predictive" that can influence its own "future contingency plan" on the basis of ongoing present events and observations.

 

[DBT]

Computers have free will by that estimate, which is what you have claimed. Information processing by whatever means or complexity is not an example of free will no matter how passionately you assert it. It's not even a matter of 'will.'

 

[pood]

Computers have free will by that estimate, which is what you have claimed. Information processing by whatever means or complexity is not an example of free will no matter how passionately you assert it. It's not even a matter of 'will.'

Putting aside the issue of computers, water molecules aren’t wet, either.

 

[Jarhyn]

Computers have free will by that estimate, which is what you have claimed. Information processing by whatever means or complexity is not an example of free will no matter how passionately you assert it. It's not even a matter of 'will.'

Not the way you would want to define it, but reality isn't isomorphic to your definition.

Clearly you have a different definition for the term "deterministic" than I do.

A will "to do something" unto the satisfaction of the goal "to have it done" such that the will is observed to be free unto that degree of it's freedom is exactly something that we observe happening in information processing all the GD time.

 

[DBT]

Computers have free will by that estimate, which is what you have claimed. Information processing by whatever means or complexity is not an example of free will no matter how passionately you assert it. It's not even a matter of 'will.'

Putting aside the issue of computers, water molecules aren’t wet, either.

Which has nothing to do with neural network architecture and agency, or why Jarhyn felt so worked up that he had to resurrect a dead thread, where both sides have had their say and there's nothing new to add....or why I decided to respond despite knowing the outcome.

 

[DBT]

Computers have free will by that estimate, which is what you have claimed. Information processing by whatever means or complexity is not an example of free will no matter how passionately you assert it. It's not even a matter of 'will.'

Not the way you would want to define it, but reality isn't isomorphic to your definition.

It's not how I define it, but how it is defined. Where computers do not have a conscious experience of the world because neither their hardware or software is able to generate consciousness as we and other animals experience the world.

Which means that is you, Jarhyn and not me that must create a special definition of consciousness and will to make the claim that computers are conscious and have will.

Clearly you have a different definition for the term "deterministic" than I do.

A will "to do something" unto the satisfaction of the goal "to have it done" such that the will is observed to be free unto that degree of it's freedom is exactly something that we observe happening in information processing all the GD time.

Equivocation, you are still trying to conflate function and will. Computers and brains have functions, but only the brain has the means and ability (millions of years of evolution) to generate conscious experience of the world, including will.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not how I define it, but how it is defined

We keep pointing out to you that your definition of free will includes elements not isomorphic to reality. Your definition is wrong.

Equivocation, you are still trying to conflate function and will

No such thing is happening. I am finding will inside function, right where it actually exists as a thing and you are sore that this is possible.

 

[Politesse]

6 months and 300 posts in... am I still the only person who has actually read this book?

 

[DBT]

It's not how I define it, but how it is defined

We keep pointing out to you that your definition of free will includes elements not isomorphic to reality. Your definition is wrong.

You are wrong regardless of how many times you 'point it out.'

You are wrong for the simple reason that it is the non-chosen state and condition of the brain that determines what you feel, think, decide and do.

Never mind memory loss or structural issues, a simple brain fart demonstrates what I am pointing out, that what happens in any given moment depends on the state and condition of the brain in that moment.

Consequently your 'elements not isomorphic to reality' defense just doesn't cut it.

Sorry, but you may want to try another angle.

Equivocation, you are still trying to conflate function and will

No such thing is happening. I am finding will inside function, right where it actually exists as a thing and you are sore that this is possible.

It's implied in your claim that computers have consciousness and will, and it's quite explicit in your remark '' I am finding will inside function''

You may find will present as a function within a system that has the capacity to generate will - a brain - but will and function are not one and the same thing.

A brain can have both function and will, but unconscious machinery without a will of its own, just has function, AI may advance to the point where it has function, consciousness and will, but its not at that point yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

non-chosen state and condition of the brain that determines what you feel, think, decide and do.

What is it about the state of the brain that you believe a brain must be incapable of choosing how to change its own state based on its own state?

Literally 99% of every machine examined by, designed by, or thought about by every software engineer manages its own state, and so it's current and future state are dependent on its past and current state, and its overall configuration. It decides on its own state.

 

[DBT]

non-chosen state and condition of the brain that determines what you feel, think, decide and do.

What is it about the state of the brain that you believe a brain must be incapable of choosing how to change its own state based on its own state?

The brain is constantly changing. It changes from moment to moment, day to day, year after year. It's the mechanisms of change that don't include free will.

Life experiences change the brain, aging changes the brain, what you experience changes the brain, and in the process of change, you are changed.

Literally 99% of every machine examined by, designed by, or thought about by every software engineer manages its own state, and so it's current and future state are dependent on its past and current state, and its overall configuration. It decides on its own state.

What you overlook is that nothing happens in isolation, that the world and its events informs the brain (and memory function) shapes response, where the process of change happens outside of conscious awareness or control and has nothing whatsoever to do with free will.

To repeat, we experience the world and self according to the state and condition of the brain in any given instance in time, Glitches, habits, rituals, needs, wants, bad decisions, good decisions, blank moments, mind racing, asleep, drowsy, awake, hungry, cold, bored, happy, sad....

 

[Jarhyn]

It's the mechanisms of change that don't include free will

This is false.

Also it is based on a poor understanding of change insofar as what changes and why.

There ARE events that happen in "relative isolation", and some, many in fact, are events that happen "internal" to the brain that change its own state.

Do you not understand how meditation on some state within you until the state changes the way you want it to, is a purposeful change to one's own mind and state?

 

[DBT]

It's the mechanisms of change that don't include free will

This is false.

Nah, it's true, Neural networks process information based on an interaction of information input interacting with memory by means of the architecture of the system, the type of brain doing the work, a sparrow brain, a dog brain, a human brain, capacity, attributes....nothing to do with will, yet alone free will.

Also it is based on a poor understanding of change insofar as what changes and why.

There ARE events that happen in "relative isolation", and some, many in fact, are events that happen "internal" to the brain that change its own state.

Do you not understand how meditation on some state within you until the state changes the way you want it to, is a purposeful change to one's own mind and state?

You keep asserting 'poor understanding' yet demonstrate that you fail to grasp that it is the architecture - and therefore function of a brain - that is not chosen or willed. That it is the architecture of the brain that generates output in the form of of thoughts, feelings and actions. That it is well supported that it's the state and condition of a brain that enables our abilities, how we think and act. And of course, will is generated as an aspect of thought and action, we feel the need to do things.

It's not even controversial.

To repeat;

Quote;
''The Soon et al paper jumps right into the middle of these issues. It shows us how limited, even misleading, our introspections are. According to the authors, many seconds before we are aware that we have made a decision, we have -- or at least, our brain has! All of the data of cognitive neuroscience are pushing us to replace the idea of mind-body duality, which is so intuitive, with the idea that mental processes are brain processes. But these results on the neural processes underlying free decisions rub our noses in it! One can assimilate findings about color vision or motor control being brain functions a lot more easily than findings about consciously experienced "free will" being a brain function, and hence physically determined and not free at all!''


''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system -- After all, computers are rational physical systems!'' - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuro-ethicist.

 

[Jarhyn]

You keep asserting 'poor understanding' yet demonstrate that you fail to grasp that it is the architecture - and therefore function of a brain - that is not chosen or willed

No. I have explained many times over just as many years that this claim is both false and straw-man.

Parts of it are chosen according to the will it holds, but something does not need to "choose to be itself" to "have choice". From there, the rest of your argument falls apart, I'm afraid.

 

[DBT]

You keep asserting 'poor understanding' yet demonstrate that you fail to grasp that it is the architecture - and therefore function of a brain - that is not chosen or willed

No. I have explained many times over just as many years that this claim is both false and straw-man.

You have no alternative. You have evidence and you have no argument. You assert your beliefs. There is no dualism. the agency of consciousness is not magic, or immaterial soul or spirit, there is no independent, autonomous free will to regulate the functions of the system.

The state of the system is it, The condition and state of the system in any given instance is the state and condition of you as a conscious entity.

Whether you like it or not, that's how it works according to the evidence, not your beliefs or your assertions.

Parts of it are chosen according to the will it holds, but something does not need to "choose to be itself" to "have choice". From there, the rest of your argument falls apart, I'm afraid.

Nah, when you say the 'will it holds' you mean function, and function is a matter of neural architecture.

Brains have the evolved ability and capacity to acquire and store information (memory function) and generate conscious experience of the world and self, thought and response.....and of course, contrary to your assertions, machinery such as computers as yet have no such ability

 

[Jarhyn]

function is a matter of neural architecture

And neural architecture contains the contingent switches that switch on IF something happens and switch OFF if something else happens. It WILL switch on and it WILL switch off. This is about the encoded will. Are you just blind to the existence of contingent mechanisms and how this comes back to the "will" of "free will"?