What is free will?

[Underseer]

Hopefully, we all acknowledge that software can make choices.

Anyone who has ever read a bank statement understands that the choices made by software can have an impact on the real world.

Let us imagine two pieces of software:

• One makes choices but does not have free will
• The other makes choices and has free will

How would you go about distinguishing between the two? How would you tell the difference between the software that makes choices and has free will from the software that makes choices and does not have free will?

 

[Juma]

Thats easy to answer:
1) list all different concepts/definitions of ”free will” there are (or at least the 10 most common)
2) for each on check if their specific criterias are met or not

 

[DBT]

A decision is made either way. Some folks just like the idea of 'free will' - the idea of having freedom of will seemingly setting us apart from the machines and the beasts, the assumption that being able to consciously select options is an example of our free will.

 

[steve_bank]

To me the hypothetical free will is the ability to make an unconditioned independent choice.

I do not think it exists. No matter what we are conditioned by experince and emotions over ride logic.

 

[untermensche]

Software does not "make" choices.

It has alternative paths that have already been built.

It can't do something it wasn't programmed to do.

It can't create a new idea.

It may be able to doodle.

 

[DBT]

Software selects an option or options based on a given set of criteria. That is also what a brain does, select, whether consciously or unconsciously, an option or options based on a given set of criteria, wants, needs, fears, desires, habits, addictions, etc, etc....including pattern recognition leading to ideas and problem solving.


Quote;
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

 

[untermensche]

Software does not know where it is. It does not know where it is going. It does not care about anything.

It does not make a choice in the sense an animal makes a choice.

It is not analogous.

It follows or doesn't follow paths clearly outlined.

While a human makes choices based on ideas in a mind that is unlike any other mind where no pathways have been outlined ahead of time.

That is something the mind does. Imagine a pathway. Then it directs the animal to follow it.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, pattern recognition. The problem is interpreting patterns subjectively. Creationists see natural patterns as evidence of hod.

The brain is not a cold logical computer. We weigh decisions based on subjective experience and emotion.

 

[Politesse]

Hopefully, we all acknowledge that software can make choices.

Anyone who has ever read a bank statement understands that the choices made by software can have an impact on the real world.

Let us imagine two pieces of software:

• One makes choices but does not have free will
• The other makes choices and has free will

How would you go about distinguishing between the two? How would you tell the difference between the software that makes choices and has free will from the software that makes choices and does not have free will?

A theological fantasy, in my opinion, and I am a theist of sorts. I am continually puzzled by why non-Christians are so attached to the idea, when it is so often used to justify pernicious dogmas like hellfire and misogyny.

 

[DBT]

Software does not know where it is. It does not know where it is going. It does not care about anything.

It does not make a choice in the sense an animal makes a choice.

It is not analogous.

A decision made is a decision made regardless of it being conscious or not. We, specifically the brain, make many unconscious decisions, habitual, knee jerk reactions, etc, quite often, yet suffer the consequences because they are options taken, options that hold their own consequences, a path taken....

 

[rousseau]

Free will is having the conscious power to not make more free will threads.

Or post in them.

Ok I've been drinking.

 

[DBT]

Free will is having the conscious power to not make more free will threads.

Or post in them.

Ok I've been drinking.

Yet here you are posting on a free will thread, ha ha. As are the usual suspects, including me.

 

[Copernicus]

Hopefully, we all acknowledge that software can make choices.

Anyone who has ever read a bank statement understands that the choices made by software can have an impact on the real world.

Let us imagine two pieces of software:

• One makes choices but does not have free will
• The other makes choices and has free will

How would you go about distinguishing between the two? How would you tell the difference between the software that makes choices and has free will from the software that makes choices and does not have free will?

A theological fantasy, in my opinion, and I am a theist of sorts. I am continually puzzled by why non-Christians are so attached to the idea, when it is so often used to justify pernicious dogmas like hellfire and misogyny.

I agree. Those who believe in an omnimax God face the problem of rationalizing God's ability to assign blame to human actions. He holds humans accountable for their actions, but how can they be responsible if God knew how they would behave before he even created them? From the perspective of such a being, people could not choose to do anything other than what he knew they would do. Hence, they have no real choice from God's perspective. People can judge each other's behavior, because they do not know how people will choose to act in advance, but the dilemma arises out of God's nature as an omniscient being. True "free will" cannot exist if the future can be known with absolute certainty.

In my opinion, people twist themselves up in knots over a non-theological version of "free will", because they tend to confuse unpredictability with indeterminacy. In order to make a choice of any kind, one has to have a prioritized list of conflicting desires or goals. This is what we program into robots--machines that make choices. As with machine agents, human agents always implement the highest priority on the list. The sense of "freedom" comes about in hindsight--when we look back and reevaluate our priorities. If we could go back and choose a different behavior, then we have the sense that the choice we made was "free". But it was only ever free in hindsight, when we can imagine a different prioritization of goals. At the time we make our choices, the priorities are fixed.

 

[untermensche]

Software does not know where it is. It does not know where it is going. It does not care about anything.

It does not make a choice in the sense an animal makes a choice.

It is not analogous.

A decision made is a decision made regardless of it being conscious or not. We, specifically the brain, make many unconscious decisions, habitual, knee jerk reactions, etc, quite often, yet suffer the consequences because they are options taken, options that hold their own consequences, a path taken....

A path is taken.

There is nothing to make a decision so no decision is made.

Nothing said I think I will follow this path.

A path was taken and nothing knew there was even a path or that there was a different path.

Computer software and computers are not analogous to an animal.

 

[steve_bank]

The Christian narrative is god gave then free will. Otherwise they are just god's automatons.

 

[Copernicus]

It is important to remember that there is a physical time interval between nerve stimulus in the peripheral system and the arrival of the signal in the brain. Our sense of the "present" is based on time of sensation, but that time is always a fraction of a second after the actual detection. And the central nervous system still has to integrate any incoming sense data with other sense data in order to update its internal model of reality. Similarly, any action issued to the periphery of the body necessarily takes place in advance of actual movement. So making a decision is always dependent on a slightly outdated model of reality, and volition is always timed to anticipate a future change in the model of the "present". Hence, any "free" volitional act is going to depend on a projected version of outdated sense data. Conscious acts of volition are therefore an illusion of behaving in real time. Our sense of so-called freedom to act is really something that has to come about in hindsight--after considerable brain activity has already taken place.

 

[untermensche]

That is a modern myth.

The mind is a decision making device. It can learn to make better decisions. It can also decide to learn very little.

Experiments looking at external stimulation and bodily movements tell us nothing about a mind making a decision.

Talking about fractions of a second tells us nothing about a mind making a decision. Many decisions have a lot of time in which to make them.

You need to look at a mind to see how a mind makes a decision. Not look at the timing of neurons.

Do we have a study where a mind is objectively defined?

 

[DBT]

Software does not know where it is. It does not know where it is going. It does not care about anything.

It does not make a choice in the sense an animal makes a choice.

It is not analogous.

A decision made is a decision made regardless of it being conscious or not. We, specifically the brain, make many unconscious decisions, habitual, knee jerk reactions, etc, quite often, yet suffer the consequences because they are options taken, options that hold their own consequences, a path taken....

A path is taken.

There is nothing to make a decision so no decision is made.

Nothing said I think I will follow this path.

A path was taken and nothing knew there was even a path or that there was a different path.

Computer software and computers are not analogous to an animal.

Saying that path is taken is referring to a decision being made, this way instead of that way, this object instead of that object, the choice being made for a variety of reasons, the reasons for the selection/decision being made being the criteria for that decision.

 

[untermensche]

Saying that path is taken is referring to a decision being made....

The decision was made by the programmer, not the program.

The program is just doing what it was programmed to do.

The program is passive, not active.

A decision is active.

You are just pretending a human made decision is in any way analogous.

 

[DBT]

Saying that path is taken is referring to a decision being made....

The decision was made by the programmer, not the program.

The program is just doing what it was programmed to do.

The program is passive, not active.

A decision is active.

You are just pretending a human made decision is in any way analogous.

The decision is determined by the algorithms and the criteria, the programmer does not need to monitor each decision that is made by the software....just as we as as conscious entities are not aware of the brain activity that generates our being and our experience of the world.