-
Features
What is free will?
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
fast
Contributor
Learn? That's a bit of a stretch on what it means to say of WHAT can learn. The word is a reasonable choice when trying to communicate a close idea, but close and the same are different. The meaning of "learn" is being skewed (broadened to include things that are incapable of learning.) Do computers know more than they did before learning? No, not technically because neither can a computer learn anymore than it can know anything.
People, in their endeavor to communicate ideas, are forgetting (or perhaps in many cases never even realizing) that the "almost like" caveat is being mistakingly dropped.
untermensche
Contributor
The word "learn" is very stretchy.
It is not specific.
A robot could be programmed to learn how to find the end of a maze.
How is that not possible?
fast
Contributor
A robot can be programmed, and with a very specialized program, it could function and process inputted data to 'find' the end of a maze. We don't always readily have words that refer to what is specifically being referred to, so we either borrow terms for alternative purposes or outright hijack them by what I'll call tiering up.
Imagine a typical triangle with a northern point. Below the point is the middle of a horizontal line. Let the left be point A and the right be point B. The top point is point C.
From left to right, on the same plane or line, I could list subsets like "Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska." If we tier up, we will see the word, "state" (a superset to what falls below).
If A is male and B female, we could tier up and find the word "person" at point C.
To me, "learn" is point A. Here, it can only refer to things with biological minds. Point B would be similar except it would only apply to nonbiological entities. We don't have the diversity of words to cover all the corresponding point A's, so here we sit with a pleathora of misused words. Computers don't think. They don't have a brain. They don't learn. They don't do anything of the things we would ordinarily ascribe to creatures--with minds capable of having knowledge.
So, people will (ha ha) define their terms. But how? By tiering up! They will relocate "learn" from point A to point C and define it such that it covers (at B) what it did not do at point A.
DBT
Contributor
Yes you are. It is there for anyone to see. A robotic response is programmed, but an intelligent system is capable of learning and therefore does not need to be programmed to adjust its own behaviour, it learns, it has the capacity to learn
Yet you can't see your own category error.
The ability to learn and adapt is intelligence, which is the opposite of a robotic response. Intelligence is not a matter of will or free will. Intelligence is the capacity to acquire, process and make sense of information.
untermensche
Contributor
Yes a robotic response is programmed.
What is going to be learned and how it will be learned is programmed in ahead of time.
It is still learning for the robot. The maze must still be learned before the robot can move through it without errors.
But with humans what is learned is not programmed in ahead of time.
For humans to learn freedom is necessary. A mind capable of freely accepting and rejecting ideas at will.
Unlike a robot.
Then a robot that learns and adapts has intelligence.
The robot that learns the maze and adapts it's behavior to finish it without error has intelligence.
According to your definition, for what it is worth.
untermensche
Contributor
Traveling into the past while keeping the body intact is possible.
This is an idea that can be rejected or accepted.
There is no evidence either way.
To accept or reject it is a free action in a mind that is free to make such actions.
To not make a judgement about it is another possible free action.
If the mind is not free to make these kinds of judgements what specifically prevents it?
Not some gibberish about the brain creating the mind therefore it is impossible somehow that is never explained. That is absolute nonsense.
What prevents the mind from making these kinds of judgments?
Who can say there are any constraints on the mind to make these kinds of judgements?
And if they do what are the specific constraints?
What specific mechanism in the brain prevents the mind from doing it?
Appeals to the whole brain and no specific mechanism are as empty as appeals to the gods.
This is an idea that can be rejected or accepted.
There is no evidence either way.
To accept or reject it is a free action in a mind that is free to make such actions.
To not make a judgement about it is another possible free action.
If the mind is not free to make these kinds of judgements what specifically prevents it?
Not some gibberish about the brain creating the mind therefore it is impossible somehow that is never explained. That is absolute nonsense.
What prevents the mind from making these kinds of judgments?
Who can say there are any constraints on the mind to make these kinds of judgements?
And if they do what are the specific constraints?
What specific mechanism in the brain prevents the mind from doing it?
Appeals to the whole brain and no specific mechanism are as empty as appeals to the gods.
fast
Contributor
It's mighty difficult to control our wants of today, but there are things we can do to influence our wants of tomorrow.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Yes but we do not have (it seems) free will to do the things that will influence tomorrow's wants.
untermensche
Contributor
Nonsense.
I can decide if I will walk my dog.
I can decide when I will walk my dog.
I can decide where I will walk my dog.
I can decide many things.
It is some strange delusion to say I can't.
fast
Contributor
What I have in mind are little things. I didn't like nor wanted broccoli, but trying it even when I didn't particularly care to eventually led to having a taste for it. Removing yourself from a sphere of influence you wanted to be around may eventually erode tour current wants of association. Undertaking the habit forming behavior of wearing a seatbelt may (counterintuitively) alter your internal wants over time.
I can't walk into a grociery store and actually (and truly) want veal; no way, no how, and no matter what I do, I won't want it today, but if I decide to buy some and eat it, and continue to do so over time, that self torture might have a way of manifesting itself in the form of an actual change of taste for it.
There's a particular kind of music I don't like, but if I intentionally set aside a few minutes a day to listen to but a single song, and if I increase it to 30 minutes every other day, a time may come where certain aspects would be appreciated that would not likely happen over the short run.
So, although we may not be able to have a direct impact on our current wants, there are things we can directly do that may serve to at least indirectly alter our wants of later.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I totally agree.
What I would call this though, is sophisticated agency. A somewhat unique and quite ......amazing...in many ways, human capacity, that I very much appreciate having. It is, imo, partial freedom, much much more freedom, and less restraints, than (it seems) almost any other living creature that we currently know of. Perhaps some day, we will know of aliens who possess even more of these capacities, or perhaps one day what we call artificial intelligences will have more of it/them.
I am always more interested in understanding (and if possible exercising and improving) these capacities than I am in debating whether they are free will or not, mostly because they aren't (free will) by any reasonably rational or accurate definition, imo. 'Free will exists' or 'Free will does not exist' are often just headline grabbers and in some ways miss the point, the point (or question) being, "exactly what capacities do we (humans in general since it will vary among individuals) have"?
fast
Contributor
In reminded of the times I see a cat scratch either itself or something else. There are common peculiarities like so many other cats. Sure, each of my cats are unique and with their own personalities. Some are more loving, aggressive, submissive, or fragile (and apparently horny) than others, so while they are similar in what seems to be predicable ways about them in general, there are differences that vary among them.
Applying that insight to us, we do seem constrained in certain common themes that either bless or plague our societies, yet as individuals with at least an ability to exercise our 'sophisticated agency,' (nice term, btw), there will be some of us that transcend beyond the norm and reach heights that many may not. So, like a bell curve with extremes, people have a wider variety of capacities--yet somehow still limited by the peculiarities common amongst us all.
As far as free will goes, I stand by the compatibilists perspective yet have reservation that it might not truly address the underlying original issue that shares ambiguous nonclamature.
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.
Applying that insight to us, we do seem constrained in certain common themes that either bless or plague our societies, yet as individuals with at least an ability to exercise our 'sophisticated agency,' (nice term, btw), there will be some of us that transcend beyond the norm and reach heights that many may not. So, like a bell curve with extremes, people have a wider variety of capacities--yet somehow still limited by the peculiarities common amongst us all.
As far as free will goes, I stand by the compatibilists perspective yet have reservation that it might not truly address the underlying original issue that shares ambiguous nonclamature.
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.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Indeed.
'Human agency' varies as humans do. Someone with Aspberger's Syndrome, for example....or.....just someone with a higher or lower IQ......or...a teenager... or someone who has had particularly strong developmental experiences that have resulted in inflexible or entrenched habitual thoughts and behaviours.....
So, the term 'human agency' is of course very general. And indeed probably varies from instant to instant in any one individual also (see: drowsiness for example). I expect mine will diminish as I grow increasingly older. My mother in law is currently developing quite severe dementia and an associated reduction in her capacities for agency. I'm keen to make the most of mine while I still have what I have of it.
If one insists on accepting or prefers to opt for a pragmatic fudge, compatibilism is arguably one of the better ones.
In my opinion, it hides more than it reveals, but hey.
I have a reluctance to discuss free will in terms of theism. It's too hypothetical. It feels a bit like saying, if there was treasure at the end of a rainbow, what would it be like? There probably is no such thing, so the value of speculating is arguably minimal.
Or....I may not have understood your point.
Last edited:
But you weren't born with these abilities, you learned them. Were you without free will at birth and developed it later? Every movement you learned as a baby was learned before you even knew you existed. Yet you claim "I" am in charge.
untermensche
Contributor
Yes. I learned how to control my will slowly as I grew.
The mind should grow, and grow stronger, if one is healthy and challenged.
fast
Contributor
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.
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.
DBT
Contributor
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.
DBT
Contributor
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'