What’s your definition of free will?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Steve3007 »

So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Burning ghost »

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.

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! :)
AKA badgerjelly
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Steve3007 wrote:So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
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.
Socialist
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Felix »

So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
You're talking hardware, the software program is the mystery - no manufacturer label on it, source unknown.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Wilson »

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.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Sy Borg »

Belinda wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
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.
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.

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.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Felix wrote:
So, if the frontal cortex could be simulated in some kind of neural network, could a computer have empathy?
You're talking hardware, the software program is the mystery - no manufacturer label on it, source unknown.
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, 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 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.
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.

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.
Socialist
User avatar
PhiloJ
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 12th, 2016, 10:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by PhiloJ »

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.
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.
User avatar
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?

Post by Atreyu »

Well, first of all, I cannot fathom an 'unfree will', that would not be a 'will' at all, it would be a phony, an imitation will. So I can only really define 'will', which to me is always 'free'. But for the sake of discussion I'll stick with your term.

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...
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Wilson »

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.
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.
User avatar
PhiloJ
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: June 12th, 2016, 10:11 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by PhiloJ »

Wilson wrote:
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.
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.
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)

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.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

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.

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.

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.

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.
Socialist
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Togo1 »

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.
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: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.
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: 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! :)
Experiments also show that we tend to ascribe decisions by other people to enviromental factors, and our own decisions to internal factors. :)
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13818
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Belinda »

Togo1 wrote:
Experiments also show that we tend to ascribe decisions by other people to enviromental factors, and our own decisions to internal factors. :)
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?

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?
Socialist
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What’s your definition of free will?

Post by Sy Borg »

Belinda wrote:
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.
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.

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.
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.

As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021