What’s your definition of free will?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
Yes, unimportant. Nevertheless it is intriguing to know that a full six seconds before you think you have chosen A or B some guy or gal looking at your brain already knew what you would choose.
This doesn't mean free will does not exist. It does show, as do other experiments, that we believe we have authorship in certain situations when we do not. Also as an aside we are more likely to claim authorship if the outcome is good and less likely to claim authorship if the outcome is bad! We are perversely arrogant creatures!
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13875
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
I'm not sure, Steve. I think that the computer would also have to be sentient by which I mean it would have to be able to feel pain and pleasure, as well as the social concomitants of pain and pleasure which would create the compound feelings that humans experience.Steve3007 wrote:So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
You're talking hardware, the software program is the mystery - no manufacturer label on it, source unknown.So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
I think arguments over definitions are boring, personally. What is fascinating for me are arguments over concepts that have some relevance in the real world. As far as any of us can tell, we have the ability to choose between options, and we do that hundreds or thousands of times a day. It's true that every action of a neuron in the brain has causes - but so what? We're not aware of that process. So some of you may enjoy discussing the minutiae of the definition of free will, but for me it's a question of whether such a disagreement has any practical meaning. If not, I have no interest in it.
The only practical importance of whether there is free will, I guess, is whether any of us is responsible for his actions. If we are not, then some might say that we shouldn't punish anyone, since they are only acting on what was inevitable. But the corollary is that we shouldn't praise anyone either, since they are also just acting on what was inevitable. Do you really not want to criticize Hitler, or slavery, or mass murderers? And do you not want to have the right to praise Einstein or Pope Francis (or Obama or Reagan)?
At the most basic level of quarks and quantum uncertainty, we are indeed automatons, acting according to causes beyond our control. But at any meaningful level, we have the ability to make choices - practical choices, moral choices. Believing otherwise is silly, to me.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
Rather than empathy, I expect an advanced AI could comprehend situations informationally to be point of being largely appropriate in human company, as long as one is not expecting a genuine connection as we can have with other biology. Sensitivity would be key.Belinda wrote:I'm not sure, Steve. I think that the computer would also have to be sentient by which I mean it would have to be able to feel pain and pleasure, as well as the social concomitants of pain and pleasure which would create the compound feelings that humans experience.Steve3007 wrote:So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
I don't like the idea of giving AI the capacity to feel. To start, a blunder during early stages could result in agonising uncontrolled suffering in AI guinea pigs. More broadly, isn't transcending suffering what life's project is all about? Why not give our creations the gift of a suffering-free existence? Or give them the capacity to experience the bliss enjoyed by master meditators. If they take over they might treat us more kindly if we programmed them to be intrinsically happy or neutral :)
Surely at some stage reason with a spattering of lateral thinking should suffice, with mild reminders spurring intelligent entities to action without needing the blunt instrument of searing pain.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13875
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
I base my opinion on the little I know about brain structure, nerve cells, and neurochemicals. I hardly need to say that there are neuroscientists who know much more than I.Felix wrote:You're talking hardware, the software program is the mystery - no manufacturer label on it, source unknown.So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
Felix, I don't really know what you mean by 'software'. I guess that you might mean learning, predispositions, habits, skills, or memories. Each of those is included in brain structure,nerve cells, and brain chemicals.
-- Updated Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:29 pm to add the following --
Greta wrote:
I couldn't agree more Greta. I guess that Mary Shelley thought the same when she described the initial suffering of Frankenstein's monster , before his suffering turned outward as revenge.I don't like the idea of giving AI the capacity to feel. To start, a blunder during early stages could result in agonising uncontrolled suffering in AI guinea pigs.
The thing about Frankenstein's monster who could retaliate is that this is happening now when we have created a monstrous world regime which will turn on us with terrible effect.
- PhiloJ
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: June 12th, 2016, 10:11 pm
- Location: Denmark
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
You do not need free will to criticize Hitler, slavers, or mass murderers, you simply look at them more like they are flawed human beings, and less like they are the big bad evil.Wilson wrote:My definition of "free will" is the ability to decide among options.
I think arguments over definitions are boring, personally. What is fascinating for me are arguments over concepts that have some relevance in the real world. As far as any of us can tell, we have the ability to choose between options, and we do that hundreds or thousands of times a day. It's true that every action of a neuron in the brain has causes - but so what? We're not aware of that process. So some of you may enjoy discussing the minutiae of the definition of free will, but for me it's a question of whether such a disagreement has any practical meaning. If not, I have no interest in it.
The only practical importance of whether there is free will, I guess, is whether any of us is responsible for his actions. If we are not, then some might say that we shouldn't punish anyone, since they are only acting on what was inevitable. But the corollary is that we shouldn't praise anyone either, since they are also just acting on what was inevitable. Do you really not want to criticize Hitler, or slavery, or mass murderers? And do you not want to have the right to praise Einstein or Pope Francis (or Obama or Reagan)?
At the most basic level of quarks and quantum uncertainty, we are indeed automatons, acting according to causes beyond our control. But at any meaningful level, we have the ability to make choices - practical choices, moral choices. Believing otherwise is silly, to me.
But when that is said, the reason for putting people that destroy communities into jail is simply because we don't know how to "help" them get better, or we just don't have enough resources.
punishment to me seems like a foolish idea to me, in the end, it helps a lot less then if you used other methods.
And why not praise anyone simply because they don't have free will?
(The world becomes a lot more scary if you don't believe in free will, but it can also bring a lot more of understanding to the surface)
Oh, and please don't take this as an attack on your beliefs.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
Free will means acting consciously, independent of mechanical influences. That is the best way to understand it: in terms of consciousness versus mechanicalness.
A conscious entity has a free will. A machine has no free will.
The conscious entity decides, chooses, wills, its actions. A machine decides nothing, chooses nothing, wills nothing. It runs. It only moves and changes as a result of mechanical forces, whether physical, chemical, electrical or whatever. There is no independent action outside of the mindless interaction of various mechanical forces.
A good way to understand what I'm talking about, as usual, is to see it in yourself. The physical body runs as a machine, so anything your voluntary muscles "do" in response to the doings of the physical body would not be free will. But if it can be said that the actions of one's voluntary muscle system are not the result of the doings of the physical body, then perhaps that could be free will.
For example, if I pinch you or tickle you, and you laugh or cry, that is not free will, because you laughing or crying were merely in response to my pinching or tickling. You had no choice but to laugh or cry based upon the circumstances and conditions in which you happen to be in.
However, if you feel the impulse to laugh or cry, but struggle against it (use your will) , and instead do not laugh or cry, then that might be an act of free will. There appears to be something separate and conscious here, independent of the mechanical physical body, resisting and overcoming it. You felt the impulse to laugh or cry, but resisted. This could be free will, assuming that this resistance was not also merely a response to some other mechanical influence.
Free will is the property of conscious beings, so if you can understand the crucial difference between conscious entities and mere machines, you might be able to understand the crucial difference between free will and something just happening.
If a phenomenon is the result of free will, then this implies that some conscious entity did it. But if the phenomenon is not the result of free will, then it means that it just happened...
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
If we can't blame people for what they do, then we can't praise people for what they do - since we're all just acting as preordained. Right? That's only logical.PhiloJ wrote: You do not need free will to criticize Hitler, slavers, or mass murderers, you simply look at them more like they are flawed human beings, and less like they are the big bad evil.
But when that is said, the reason for putting people that destroy communities into jail is simply because we don't know how to "help" them get better, or we just don't have enough resources.
punishment to me seems like a foolish idea to me, in the end, it helps a lot less then if you used other methods.
And why not praise anyone simply because they don't have free will?
(The world becomes a lot more scary if you don't believe in free will, but it can also bring a lot more of understanding to the surface)
Oh, and please don't take this as an attack on your beliefs.
Personally, I feel very comfortable blaming certain people, and praising others. Anger is a valid emotion, and I don't see anything wrong with expressing it. Being accepting of bad behavior can have negative effects on a community. Wanting to punish wrongdoers is built into our personalities. It's unnatural to turn the other cheek, and it can encourage further outrages. There are certain people who take advantage of others' kindness.
By the way, I myself am not what you would call an angry person. I'm fairly empathetic, but only for those who haven't had a pattern of nasty behavior. If someone has shown himself to be an a-hole, I wish for evil to befall him. In other words, I'm moderately judgmental. Others may be more forgiving. My own view is that there are people who because of heredity and life experiences have become prone to antisocial behavior. Even though at some level our personalities are beyond our own control, I choose to limit my sympathy for such individuals. You may choose differently. Neither approach can be shown logically to be more valid than the other. I like mine.
- PhiloJ
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: June 12th, 2016, 10:11 pm
- Location: Denmark
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
But there are still some people who just have had a bad life, e.g. Growing up in a sh*t environment, so you're emotionally unstable, and, or constantly having a negative emotions. (Which makes up a high number of criminals, at least in my country)Wilson wrote:If we can't blame people for what they do, then we can't praise people for what they do - since we're all just acting as preordained. Right? That's only logical.PhiloJ wrote: You do not need free will to criticize Hitler, slavers, or mass murderers, you simply look at them more like they are flawed human beings, and less like they are the big bad evil.
But when that is said, the reason for putting people that destroy communities into jail is simply because we don't know how to "help" them get better, or we just don't have enough resources.
punishment to me seems like a foolish idea to me, in the end, it helps a lot less then if you used other methods.
And why not praise anyone simply because they don't have free will?
(The world becomes a lot more scary if you don't believe in free will, but it can also bring a lot more of understanding to the surface)
Oh, and please don't take this as an attack on your beliefs.
Personally, I feel very comfortable blaming certain people, and praising others. Anger is a valid emotion, and I don't see anything wrong with expressing it. Being accepting of bad behavior can have negative effects on a community. Wanting to punish wrongdoers is built into our personalities. It's unnatural to turn the other cheek, and it can encourage further outrages. There are certain people who take advantage of others' kindness.
By the way, I myself am not what you would call an angry person. I'm fairly empathetic, but only for those who haven't had a pattern of nasty behavior. If someone has shown himself to be an a-hole, I wish for evil to befall him. In other words, I'm moderately judgmental. Others may be more forgiving. My own view is that there are people who because of heredity and life experiences have become prone to antisocial behavior. Even though at some level our personalities are beyond our own control, I choose to limit my sympathy for such individuals. You may choose differently. Neither approach can be shown logically to be more valid than the other. I like mine.
And we can still help some of these people, or even better, help children that are growing up in a sh*t environment, so they don't get traumatized because of their childhood.
But sadly we don't know how to help everyone to get better, or we just don't have enough resources.
But it's important to know that people that seem evil, are being controlled by it, they are not evil.
And i can see your point, but punishment doesn't help people get better, it only sets them into a pit of fear, and that in turn makes them more desperate to get out of the pain.
Not everyone are able to be helped, but those who are, shouldn't be turned down.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13875
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
i expect that we all would sympathise with Wilson's reaction to criminals and crimes. I sympathise with Wilson's reaction, and my immediate reaction is to blame criminals and to feel anger and fear towards them. I'd not sympathise with any criminal ranging from the youths who leave litter in my nice public park to the man who fired a gun into a crowded public space.If we can't blame people for what they do, then we can't praise people for what they do - since we're all just acting as preordained. Right? That's only logical.
Personally, I feel very comfortable blaming certain people, and praising others. Anger is a valid emotion, and I don't see anything wrong with expressing it. Being accepting of bad behavior can have negative effects on a community. Wanting to punish wrongdoers is built into our personalities. It's unnatural to turn the other cheek, and it can encourage further outrages. There are certain people who take advantage of others' kindness.
By the way, I myself am not what you would call an angry person. I'm fairly empathetic, but only for those who haven't had a pattern of nasty behavior. If someone has shown himself to be an a-hole, I wish for evil to befall him. In other words, I'm moderately judgmental. Others may be more forgiving. My own view is that there are people who because of heredity and life experiences have become prone to antisocial behavior. Even though at some level our personalities are beyond our own control, I choose to limit my sympathy for such individuals. You may choose differently. Neither approach can be shown logically to be more valid than the other. I like mine.
The problem is not how we feel about criminals but what we are to do about them. Understanding criminals' motives is not sympathising with criminals. In order to understand motives we need to stop blaming which doesn't do anything to stop bad motivations and might encourage the stupid and the undisciplined to join the club. Praising good motives and good behaviour does help to reform bad people and helps to stop others turning bad.
Understanding the causes of behaviour arises from causal determinism.
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
Sort of. The problem is that they still aren't seeing anything you don't know yourself. The measurement is not that they know what you will do 11 seconds before you do, It's that they know what you're likely to do up to 11 seconds before you've reached a final decision. You're thinking about something, examining that thinking can give you an idea of what you'll do, particularly if you really don't care about the result and are thus unlikely to change anything. But you can also examing your thinking to see what you're likely to decide - the brain scanner doesn't give you anything you don't have already.Burning ghost wrote:Togo -
Yes, unimportant. Nevertheless it is intriguing to know that a full six seconds before you think you have chosen A or B some guy or gal looking at your brain already knew what you would choose.
Well, sort of. The only experiments I can think of (outside of lesion studies, which aren't a normal brain) involve mirrors that fool you into thinking that someone else's hand movements are your own. That is interesting, as it suggests that conscious control is very much a supervisory function, that doesn't control movement unless specifically invoked. 'Authorship's is a fairly slippery concept, that can mean anything from direct conscious control, to failing to prevent an action, to the ascription of motives to certain actions, to a sense of personal responsibility.Burning ghost wrote:This doesn't mean free will does not exist. It does show, as do other experiments, that we believe we have authorship in certain situations when we do not.
Experiments also show that we tend to ascribe decisions by other people to enviromental factors, and our own decisions to internal factors.Burning ghost wrote: Also as an aside we are more likely to claim authorship if the outcome is good and less likely to claim authorship if the outcome is bad! We are perversely arrogant creatures!
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13875
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
Togo, by "internal factors" do you mean that we tend to ascribe our own decisions to a free will sort of thing, or do you mean that we tend to ascribe our own decisions to indigestion or lack of sleep sort of thing?Experiments also show that we tend to ascribe decisions by other people to enviromental factors, and our own decisions to internal factors.
By "environmental factors" do you mean indigestion or lack of sleep sort of thing, or do you mean there's a policeman coming ,or a spider in the bath sort of thing?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What’s your definition of free will?
Belinda, I like the Frankenstein analogy. The adult ability to contain and to some extent control our emotions is a hard-won skill. I do maintain the emotions are the key to what we see as free will, since we completely lack motivation without them. If machines are given emotions then they will be motivated to do things rather than following a script. Still, as discussed, that's not something researchers should be careful with until they know what they are doing, but I expect that at some stage, somewhere, someone will risk inflicting enormous unnecessary pain on their AI.Belinda wrote:I couldn't agree more Greta. I guess that Mary Shelley thought the same when she described the initial suffering of Frankenstein's monster , before his suffering turned outward as revenge.I don't like the idea of giving AI the capacity to feel. To start, a blunder during early stages could result in agonising uncontrolled suffering in AI guinea pigs.
The thing about Frankenstein's monster who could retaliate is that this is happening now when we have created a monstrous world regime which will turn on us with terrible effect.
As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023