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

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course I can't. But that, too, doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I'm not pretending I know you don't have free will, I'm not that kind of magical being. I'm just laying out the very reasonable grounds from which I can confidently infer (not deduce) that you don't have free will.

I'm afraid I don't see it. The issue is that the prior probability that I'm not writing this of my own free will is extremely low (prior to your arguments or the arguments of another error theorist about FW talk). It's akin to the claims of the moral error theorist, the color error theorist, the error theorist about folk psychology, etc. I'm not saying the prior is in all of those cases the same (they're not), but that in all cases, it's astronomically slim, so that you - or another error theorist - has a very steep mountain to climb so to speak.
Moreover, I'm already familiar with many of the arguments of FW error theorists. I'm not talking about clearly misguided arguments like those made by DBT or a number of scientists, but also more subtle philosophical arguments, including those that attempt to use the results of experimental philosophy to make a linguistic case.
So far, in my assessment compatibilists clearly win.
Of course, given that you're not interested in changing my minds, that's okay I guess.

All you can possibly know is that you have the impression of free will. Whether you really have free will is something else.

No, that's not the case. It's like saying all I can possible know is that I have the impression that the headphones I'm looking at are blue, or that raping people just for fun is morally wrong, etc. I would say you're mistaken.

I'm sure you have beliefs. The notion of belief doesn't imply anything metaphysical beyond the obvious I think therefore I am.

Actually, "I think therefore I am" is itself complicated (what did he actually mean?), but in any case, there are of course philosophers who believe the notion of belief has ontological commitments that aren't met. They are mistaken about the meaning of the words. My position is that (sophisticated, not crude) FW error theorists also have mistaken theories about the meaning of the words.
Still, if you don't want to convince me, that's fine. But if you do, I would like to see your argument for the error theory. Telling me I just have the impression that I have FW is not a good argument.

That's what is called 'naive realism': Naive realists think red flowers exist just because they have the impression of seeing red flowers. Instead, you could think less naively that maybe there's something else such that you end up having the impression of seeing red flowers. You wouldn't know which is the case. The something else may be just your mind or it may be an act of God or it may be a bunch of quarks and what not. You can stick to naive realism, though, I'm not interested in trying to change your mind.

That's realism, and it's correct. It's not naive, though I do reckon that naive realists might be correct, though I'm not sure since it depends on what you mean by "realism" (e.g., roughly if aliens from another planet develop another visual system that associates the perception of red with other wavelengths, etc., they will have alien-color talk, not color talk. They will also make true claims about alien color, etc.; whether that's realism depends on your definition of "realism", so I don't know).
I've read arguments of color error theorists. They are either just confused, or are smart and coherent but have a mistaken theory about the meaning of the words, believing that color words have ontological commitments they do not have (similar to what you seem to believe about ordinary free will talk, but not about beliefs; others are mistaken about the commitments of "belief", etc.).
But regardless, since you're not interested in convincing me, and you won't make your case for error theories of color, FW, etc., I don't see more room for further discussion on the subjects (you could keep repeating I'm wrong and I have no way of knowing, and I will keep replying in the same manner, but that's kind of pointless).

Just one question: do you also believe in an error theory about moral blame, guilt, etc.; I mean, if a serial killer didn't kill anyone of his own free will, it seems to me that's an adequate defense. It so seems to several (perhaps most) of the philophers who support a FW error theory, though there is a range of opinions on that, since different semi-compatibilists accept only partial moral error theories as a consequence of their FW error theory.

 

[ryan]

Whatever you mean by "will", I'm saying I'm writing this post of my own free will, in the usual sense of the word.

I suggest that you stop writing "in the usual sense of the word" sinse that is extremely vague.

Do you believe that you could have willingly choised to do otherwise if everything was exactly the same?

Thing is this:

You have your will. It is in no way "free" as in "causally detached".

If Newtonian mechanics were the final answer, then you and DBT are right, but ...

Imagine a robot that uses probabilistic inputs of quantum mechanics as a control. It is free to make certain "choices"/actions within a limited set of options.

 

[ryan]

No, the evidence is not there, and I don't appear to be either of that. It may appear like that to you, but that's another matter. I already explained why your arguments miss the point, and the new ones do the same. It's time for me to leave it at that.

I don't miss the point at all. The point being that it is the immediate information state of the brain that determines its immediate output in terms of conscious experience, thoughts, decisions and actions. A momentary connectivity failure expresses itself as the inability to remember a name, where you placed something and so on. What the brain is doing according to its information state being the totality of your experience, which does not allow an alternative in that instance. So if you have forgotten an name, you cannot choose to remember that name. Instead, the memory is restored once the connections are made and conscious report initiated....at which point ''you'' consciously remember.

With the intricacies of the brain, it should seem obvious that our choices are not linear or deterministic like in a universe with only Newtonian mechanics.

It should also seem obvious that QM is a manifestation of what we are mentally since the freedom of QM is exactly what we would expect from our sense of agency.

 

[Juma]

I suggest that you stop writing "in the usual sense of the word" sinse that is extremely vague.

Do you believe that you could have willingly choised to do otherwise if everything was exactly the same?

Thing is this:

You have your will. It is in no way "free" as in "causally detached".

If Newtonian mechanics were the final answer, then you and DBT are right, but ...

Imagine a robot that uses probabilistic inputs of quantum mechanics as a control. It is free to make certain "choices"/actions within a limited set of options.

It has nothing to do with "newtonian mechanics". We have already been trough this.

 

[skepticalbip]

I seems to me that "free will" arguments would be more suited to the philosophy forum.

I would think that the question of AI would be if there can be an AI designed that can simulate or outperform human thought.

 

[ryan]

If Newtonian mechanics were the final answer, then you and DBT are right, but ...

Imagine a robot that uses probabilistic inputs of quantum mechanics as a control. It is free to make certain "choices"/actions within a limited set of options.

It has nothing to do with "newtonian mechanics". We have already been trough this.

Your denial of the possibility of free will seems to be based on the necessity that it is causally detached, in which case we would have unpredictable events - just like the ones we have with QM.

 

[Juma]

It has nothing to do with "newtonian mechanics". We have already been trough this.

Your denial of the possibility of free will seems to be based on the necessity that it is causally detached, in which case we would have unpredictable events - just like the ones we have with QM.

No, my denial of "free will" based in the logical inconsistency that results from the fact that will requires causality and "free will" denies it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I seems to me that "free will" arguments would be more suited to the philosophy forum.

I would think that the question of AI would be if there can be an AI designed that can simulate or outperform human thought.

There is no reason to think otherwise, given enough computing power and a lot of time to program it. It might take decades, centuries, who knows, but it seems to be an engineering problem, not a "laws of physics" problem.

 

[skepticalbip]

I seems to me that "free will" arguments would be more suited to the philosophy forum.

I would think that the question of AI would be if there can be an AI designed that can simulate or outperform human thought.

There is no reason to think otherwise, given enough computing power and a lot of time to program it. It might take decades, centuries, who knows, but it seems to be an engineering problem, not a "laws of physics" problem.

No argument from me. But there are some who devoutly believe that humanity is an apex of mental ability that can never eclipsed.

ETA:
But I think that humanity's mental abilities will be surpassed by AI much sooner than many think, maybe in only a few decades.

 

[ryan]

Your denial of the possibility of free will seems to be based on the necessity that it is causally detached, in which case we would have unpredictable events - just like the ones we have with QM.

No, my denial of "free will" based in the logical inconsistency that results from the fact that will requires causality and "free will" denies it.

Causality is not one-to-one like in Newtonian mechanics. There are multiple possibilities, albeit with limits. I may be constrained to option A or option B. With the right QM structured process in the brain, either can happen, and it feels like either can happen. This would be strong evidence that choice may not be only an illusion.

 

[DBT]

I suggest that you stop writing "in the usual sense of the word" sinse that is extremely vague.

Do you believe that you could have willingly choised to do otherwise if everything was exactly the same?

Thing is this:

You have your will. It is in no way "free" as in "causally detached".

If Newtonian mechanics were the final answer, then you and DBT are right, but ....

Quantum probability doesn't enable free will. Nor does randomness. Decision making/information processing being performed by the architecture of neural networks, hence it is specifically the information condition of the neural network that determines its output, or absence of output.

 

[DBT]

With the intricacies of the brain, it should seem obvious that our choices are not linear or deterministic like in a universe with only Newtonian mechanics.
.

The brain is a parallel processor, but nevertheless information is being processed and behaviour generated according to an interaction of sensory inputs and memory. Cost to benefit ratio. Memory loss destroys this ability entirely.

 

[ryan]

If Newtonian mechanics were the final answer, then you and DBT are right, but ....

Quantum probability doesn't enable free will. Nor does randomness. Decision making/information processing being performed by the architecture of neural networks, hence it is specifically the information condition of the neural network that determines its output, or absence of output.

QM would be the free will, if the mind is really equivalent to a chemical process in the brain.

Don't you find it curious that QM is finding its way into biological processes when they said it couldn't before. Now QM math accurately explains decision making processes. Admittedly, their is only the one good theory (Penrose) of actual QM processes in the brain. But come on, it is so clear that QM will be found in some aspect, in some way, no matter how small, in decisions having some intrinsic QM activity.

 

[ryan]

With the intricacies of the brain, it should seem obvious that our choices are not linear or deterministic like in a universe with only Newtonian mechanics.
.

The brain is a parallel processor, but nevertheless information is being processed and behaviour generated according to an interaction of sensory inputs and memory. Cost to benefit ratio. Memory loss destroys this ability entirely.

Memory selection is not yet fully understood. How I choose to bring up certain memories could be a vastly complex process involving quantum entanglement and quantum processing.

 

[Juma]

No, my denial of "free will" based in the logical inconsistency that results from the fact that will requires causality and "free will" denies it.

Causality is not one-to-one like in Newtonian mechanics. There are multiple possibilities, albeit with limits. I may be constrained to option A or option B. With the right QM structured process in the brain, either can happen, and it feels like either can happen. This would be strong evidence that choice may not be only an illusion.

If you will one thing and do snother then that wont feel as free will dude.

 

[ryan]

Causality is not one-to-one like in Newtonian mechanics. There are multiple possibilities, albeit with limits. I may be constrained to option A or option B. With the right QM structured process in the brain, either can happen, and it feels like either can happen. This would be strong evidence that choice may not be only an illusion.

If you will one thing and do snother then that wont feel as free will dude.

Of course outside causes can intervene.

 

[Juma]

If you will one thing and do snother then that wont feel as free will dude.

Of course outside causes can intervene.

Now you are just maning things up as you go along.

 

[ryan]

Of course outside causes can intervene.

Now you are just maning things up as you go along.

No, it's an obvious implication to what I was saying. If I decide to turn left as I walk, and someone shoots me in the head before I perform the action, then obviously there was an intervention exterior to my decision making process that prevented me from turning.

 

[DBT]

Quantum probability doesn't enable free will. Nor does randomness. Decision making/information processing being performed by the architecture of neural networks, hence it is specifically the information condition of the neural network that determines its output, or absence of output.

QM would be the free will, if the mind is really equivalent to a chemical process in the brain.

Doesn't work. QM is the substrata of all matter/energy objects, yet only a brain is able to process information. Information that is related to macro scale objects and their relationships and not probability wave function.

Don't you find it curious that QM is finding its way into biological processes when they said it couldn't before. Now QM math accurately explains decision making processes. Admittedly, their is only the one good theory (Penrose) of actual QM processes in the brain. But come on, it is so clear that QM will be found in some aspect, in some way, no matter how small, in decisions having some intrinsic QM activity.

QM probability wave function/collapse/particle position does not process or correlate information. That occurs on the neural network scale, synapses open or closed, receptors vacant or occupied, connections made. As I've already pointed out - a failure in dendrite connectivity means a failure to process the related information...which results in a mental glitch in conscious experience.

 

[DBT]

The brain is a parallel processor, but nevertheless information is being processed and behaviour generated according to an interaction of sensory inputs and memory. Cost to benefit ratio. Memory loss destroys this ability entirely.

Memory selection is not yet fully understood. How I choose to bring up certain memories could be a vastly complex process involving quantum entanglement and quantum processing.

It doesn't matter how poorly the mechanism of memory selection is understood.

What is very well understood is that memory function failure is so serious that it can (and does in some cases) progress to the point where any ability to make rational decisions has ended. The person is alive but no longer able to think coherently, decide, recognize everyday objects or family members, friends or him or her self.

There lies the illusion of free will. While the underlying system that produces our conscious experience, and our self awareness, is functioning we have the impression of being in control, being able to decide and act, but when connectivity begins the unravel, the illusion of control is exposed for what it is.

Invoking QM or randomness is no help. Architecture and connectivity being the shaper, former and generator of us and our conscious experience.