How long until humanity creates an AI that is better at arguing than...

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it's not just a feeling that I made that choice. I made that choice. And the assessment is a usual assessment. For example, if I say I'm annoyed, or angry, or happy, etc., usually those assessments are true. Why would the assessment that I'm writing this of my own free will be so suspect that you reply in such a fashion?

As for the cockroach, I have no such information (the "cannot" part goes a bit too far; we can probably tell it feels pain sometimes, but not the point). I was using the example to convey the idea that it may not be just about a lack of coercion. Free will might require some kind of mind, in addition to lack of coercion.

What I try to convey is that "free will" doesnt say anything else than that choice was made by your brain and you feel that you made that choice. There is no more to it.

If I say I'm writing this of my own free will, I'm silent about whether I'm a brain or a soul or something else.
But no matter, I'm saying is that the claim is true, in the ordinary sense of that expression in English.

 

[Juma]

What I try to convey is that "free will" doesnt say anything else than that choice was made by your brain and you feel that you made that choice. There is no more to it.

If I say I'm writing this of my own free will, I'm silent about whether I'm a brain or a soul or something else.
But no matter, I'm saying is that the claim is true, in the ordinary sense of that expression in English.

When you say that you do it of your own free will you say nothing but that you EXPERIENCE that you do it of your own free will. Thus it is a statement of your experience of the action, not how it actually was performed by your body.

 

[DBT]

''Volition'' better represents the neural/cognitive process (which is not free will) by which decisions are made;

'Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action'' - Wiki

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If I say I'm writing this of my own free will, I'm silent about whether I'm a brain or a soul or something else.
But no matter, I'm saying is that the claim is true, in the ordinary sense of that expression in English.

When you say that you do it of your own free will you say nothing but that you EXPERIENCE that you do it of your own free will. Thus it is a statement of your experience of the action, not how it actually was performed by your body.

It was performed by me; there is no "my body" separated from me. And what I say is that I did it of my own free will. It does not mean the same as saying I experience I did it of my own free will (e.g., in a movie, someone believes he's acting of his own free will, but is actually being controlled by a telepathic entity; the meaning of the words does not seem to preclude that.).

 

[Juma]

When you say that you do it of your own free will you say nothing but that you EXPERIENCE that you do it of your own free will. Thus it is a statement of your experience of the action, not how it actually was performed by your body.

It was performed by me; there is no "my body" separated from me. And what I say is that I did it of my own free will. It does not mean the same as saying I experience I did it of my own free will (e.g., in a movie, someone believes he's acting of his own free will, but is actually being controlled by a telepathic entity; the meaning of the words does not seem to preclude that.).

So if someone reprogrammed you (by some sinister drug) so that you started to hate strawberries, would you then say that any further rejection of offered strawberries would be an act chosen by your own free will?

 

[DBT]

Self identity, personality, character and the ability to form thoughts and make decision can break down (and does) even while the body/organism is otherwise functional, limbs and organs in working order, the senses acquiring information. Yet the ability to think and decide coherently is no longer active, no longer present.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It was performed by me; there is no "my body" separated from me. And what I say is that I did it of my own free will. It does not mean the same as saying I experience I did it of my own free will (e.g., in a movie, someone believes he's acting of his own free will, but is actually being controlled by a telepathic entity; the meaning of the words does not seem to preclude that.).

So if someone reprogrammed you (by some sinister drug) so that you started to hate strawberries, would you then say that any further rejection of offered strawberries would be an act chosen by your own free will?

No, that's not what I'm saying. On the contrary, that would not be of my own free will, as long as the drug interferes with my normal mental processes.
It's a different thing if the reprogramming results in also normal human processes but different ones (probably big reprogramming needed); in that case, the matter becomes difficult to assess. It's a controversial issue even among philosophers who accept free will (most do), though I'm tentatively inclined to say the resulting entity acts of his own free will, even if I was altered against it.
In any event, folk psychology isn't precise to any degree of accuracy. When you get to borderline cases, eventually there might not be an answer (but then again, none of the terms we use to describe the world around us is precise to any degree of accuracy).

 

[Juma]

So if someone reprogrammed you (by some sinister drug) so that you started to hate strawberries, would you then say that any further rejection of offered strawberries would be an act chosen by your own free will?

No, that's not what I'm saying. On the contrary, that would not be of my own free will, as long as the drug interferes with my normal mental processes.

So the inportant here is "normal"? If A is born with genes that makes him dislike strawberries, is it still not free will to not eat strawberries.

Free will is doing what you want to do.

 

[fromderinside]

No, that's not what I'm saying. On the contrary, that would not be of my own free will, as long as the drug interferes with my normal mental processes.

So the inportant here is "normal"? If A is born with genes that makes him dislike strawberries, is it still not free will to not eat strawberries.

Free will is doing what you want to do.

...or want to not do.

If we strip back to motives, want, then indeed we have free will. If we relate to all else then we have no free will. Seems to me this is the same as saying common or personal sense of the construct 'free will'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, that's not what I'm saying. On the contrary, that would not be of my own free will, as long as the drug interferes with my normal mental processes.

So the inportant here is "normal"? If A is born with genes that makes him dislike strawberries, is it still not free will to not eat strawberries.

Free will is doing what you want to do.

That depends on whether the dislike involves an abnormal thought process, and if so, whether the abnormality interferes in the way that would block freedom, as your scenario clearly suggests.
For example, some mutations might change the brain in ways that create mental illnesses, and others change it in ways that don't.
Some mutations might similarly change the brain in ways that reduce freedom, and others might change it in ways that don't.
Without knowing the case better, I can't tell.
But in some borderline cases, even more info wouldn't do. As I said, folk psychology isn't precise to any degree of accuracy. When you get to borderline cases, eventually there might not be an answer (but then again, none of the terms we use to describe the world around us is precise to any degree of accuracy).

 

[Juma]

So the inportant here is "normal"? If A is born with genes that makes him dislike strawberries, is it still not free will to not eat strawberries.

Free will is doing what you want to do.

That depends on whether the dislike involves an abnormal thought process,

No, it doesnt. A "normal" human being is preprogrammed with a lot of likes and dislikes. And during life it gaines and loose such progeammings. These programmings is what makes you, you. You dont select theese.

An "abnormal" setup just makes the person different.

Free will is to act from your wants and you cannot choose your wants.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That depends on whether the dislike involves an abnormal thought process,

No, it doesnt. A "normal" human being is preprogrammed with a lot of likes and dislikes. And during life it gaines and loose such progeammings. These programmings is what makes you, you. You dont select theese.

An "abnormal" setup just makes the person different.

Free will is to act from your wants and you cannot choose your wants.

No, that's just not true.
For example, some choices (or generally mental processes) are neither instances of a mental illness or abnormal.
Some choices (or generally mental processes) are not instances of a mental illness though they are abnormal.
Some abnormal choices (or generally mental processes) are abnormal and instances of a mental illness.
Similarly, some choices neither abnormal nor unfree.
Some choices aren't unfree though they are abnormal.
Some abnormal choices (i.e., resulting from abnormal processes) aren't free (and so are some normal choices, e.g., under threat).

 

[DBT]

Given poor definitions and references, ignoring or brushing aside the means by which our conscious experience of thought and decision making is shaped, formed and generated by unchosen neuronal states, the term 'free will' is essentially irrelevant. We think as we do and decide as we do on the basis of brain state, and not 'will.'

 

[Angra Mainyu]

We decide on the basis of what we will, very often. The fact that our will is caused does not conflict with that.
For that matter, someone might say we don't decide on the basis of brain state because we decide on the basis of particle interactions, since our neurons are made of particles and their existence and states were caused by previous particle interactions, etc. But that would be mistaken. The fact that our brain states have causes doesn't mean they aren't causes too.
We decide on the basis of particle interactions.
We decide on the basis of brain states - now I'm looking at the matter at a different level.
We decide on the basis of what we want, what we believe, etc. - now I'm looking at the matter at yet another different level.

 

[DBT]

'What we will' is part and parcel of the cognitive process, volition, the means by which experience is formed, hence 'will' is shaped and formed and generated along with all related thoughts, feeling and decisions that are made, thus giving the illusion that these are 'freely willed'

 

[Juma]

No, it doesnt. A "normal" human being is preprogrammed with a lot of likes and dislikes. And during life it gaines and loose such progeammings. These programmings is what makes you, you. You dont select theese.

An "abnormal" setup just makes the person different.

Free will is to act from your wants and you cannot choose your wants.

No, that's just not true.
For example, some choices (or generally mental processes) are neither instances of a mental illness or abnormal.
Some choices (or generally mental processes) are not instances of a mental illness though they are abnormal.
Some abnormal choices (or generally mental processes) are abnormal and instances of a mental illness.
Similarly, some choices neither abnormal nor unfree.
Some choices aren't unfree though they are abnormal.
Some abnormal choices (i.e., resulting from abnormal processes) aren't free (and so are some normal choices, e.g., under threat).

It has nothing to do with abnormallity. A normsl human is just a specific set up of wants.

An agent without wants wont do anything.
To make an agent actually do something it must have wants and goals. It must like to get energy (food), etc.

This is totally independent of wether the agent sctually are aware or not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It has nothing to do with abnormallity. A normsl human is just a specific set up of wants.

No, that's not a normal human, but assuming it were, this would still have something to do with abnormality; my examples hold irrespective of that.

An agent without wants wont do anything.
To make an agent actually do something it must have wants and goals. It must like to get energy (food), etc.

This is totally independent of wether the agent sctually are aware or not.

Maybe it must have wants; maybe that's one psychological possibility, and agents only with aversions are possible. But regardless, this is beside the point.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Derail.
EB

So that has become your standard tactic now? Everytime you cannot counter you try to dismiss the counter as "derail" or "wasting time".

This is a procès d'intention. And this is very baaad.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

(and Speakpigeon was making a mistaken assumption of agreement on the FW issue).

No. I was merely loudly entertaining a fiction for the sake of articulating an inference from a particular view. My own position is that we don't know the answers to this kind of questions.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I mean by "free will" is what people usually mean in English when they say they or someone else did something of their own free will. I would give the same answer in the case of hatred/hate, cruelty, kindness, etc. If that does not make the matter more clear to you, I would need more details as to why not before I can say anything else to clarify.

Interesting answer I say. It's a way of operationalising meaning and there are precedents for this. However, here "what people usually mean" remains unclear. We don't necessarily all mean the same thing. At least, and excluding scholarly debates about Free Will, you would have to show that most of ordinary people do mean the same thing, or perhaps, that we all mean the same thing when we are not engaged in any scholarly debate. That's possibly true, especially if there is indeed free will. After all, no one is really disputing that the colour red or that pain exist.
EB