patrick.net

He's great, but his point on free will (that it is an illusion) is, well, not wrong, but misleading. We do have free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

We do have free will.

Define free will and then prove that it exists.

Ok, I would say free will means that at each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.
The question is what is "we" in this sentence. What factors are considered in what we do next: our neurons connections, based on our genes, our experience, our knowledge so far. i.e. everything we consider to be "we" on a day to day basis.

Heraclitusstudent says

At each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

You have not defined free will. If you cannot come up with a meaningful, unambiguous definition, then your statement "we do have free will" is meaningless.

Harris' approach to issues is facinating.

Extremely sharp and articulate fellow.

Dan8267 says

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

The key concept here is that of layers. This is what Harris is missing.

On the layer of the processor or VM, a computer doesn't have a choice. Harris looks at the brain at the physical layer and says we have no choice.
At the conscious level (or software equivalent) a computer can have a choice and make a choice. Indeed even a chess program looks at possible alternatives and makes a choice.
This what Harris is missing. This is not a semantic trick. This actually what the words "choice" and "possible alternative" mean.
The contention that we have to violate the laws of physics to claim we are free to choose one way or an other doesn't make sense. This would only make sense if looked only at the physical layer.
Free will happens in us and could happen in computers but on a higher layer.

Also reentrant processes lead to chaotic systems. We know that at a physical level even a simple 3 body system with newton laws lead to solutions that are discontinuous after sufficient time. i.e. a tiny change in the start condition can lead to major change after enough time. So it goes for the brain. Harris makes it sound like because it is a deterministic physical process only one thing can happen. This may be true but this is totally misleading. Based on what we actually know of someone, virtually anything can happen at the physical layer.
On the "conscious" layer however, choices are very controlled: by logic, by knowledge, by preferences including very personal one. So the right layer to consider this, once again, is not the physical layer.

His reasoning is incomplete. It relies on deterministic nature of cause and effect. Specifically min. 10-10:30 where he talks about repeating cause/effect experiment trillion times in a row.
It's a bold assumption, and not necessarily correct. I don't know if there is free will or not, but if there is - it's nature probably has same underlying cause as quantum indeterminacy.

Or the other way around (wait for it... atheist's special is coming): quantum indeterminacy is a way in which God invalidates all that "well, as a combination of all factors the person had no choice but to act this or that way" reasoning and gives us free will.

mostly reader says

It's a bold assumption, and not necessarily correct. I don't know if there is free will or not, but if there is - it's nature probably has same underlying cause as quantum indeterminacy.

This is an other line of criticism, but I would refrain from saying free will is just based on random quantic noise.
Computers are designed to avoid such noise and I would think free will could arise in a program as well.

Heraclitusstudent says

mostly reader says

It's a bold assumption, and not necessarily correct. I don't know if there is free will or not, but if there is - it's nature probably has same underlying cause as quantum indeterminacy.

This is an other line of criticism, but I would refrain from saying free will is just based on random quantic noise.
Computers are designed to avoid such noise and I would think free will could arise in a program as well.

I'd refrain from using the word "just".
There is a multiplier involved (to put it in trivialized way - that whole butterfly thing).

mostly reader says

His reasoning is incomplete

Yes. I too don't agree with his assessment on free will. He suggests that his meditation got him to those insights. I get it and I think I get his point - still thinking about it, but I don't see it as anything close to a proof. He waves his hands and says you have to be a meditator to really get it (which I have been - on and off, over the years). I also have a problem with some of his other ideas, such as the angle he takes on god. But I do like him and agree his discussions are at a minimum always thought provoking. I think sometimes he's just intentionally provocative, such as with his argument with Chomsky which he lost. But I think that may have been more or less intentional - to get Chomsky's point out there, and knowing that Chomsky's might not be around too much longer (although I hope he is).

Very interesting points about AI, including some I never considered - regarding what if AI is never conscious, and yet can still lead to super intelligent entities ?

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

At each point in time, "we" make a choice of what to do next.

So does a computer. Does that have free will?

Heraclitusstudent says

The key concept here is that of layers.

This does not address the question I asked.

Heraclitusstudent says

The contention that we have to violate the laws of physics to claim we are free to choose one way or an other doesn't make sense.

Once again,

You have not defined free will. If you cannot come up with a meaningful, unambiguous definition, then your statement "we do have free will" is meaningless.

Sam Harris gave a clear and unambiguous definition of free will that accurately reflects what most people think of when they use the term. Free will means that the decision chosen is at least partially independent of the physical state of the universe. For example, if you make a decision about what color crayon to pick out of a box and then we reversed time to before you made that decision, you would make the exact same decision if every factor in that decision were the same. I.e. every atom in your brain and every atom and photon around you. Therefore, you don't have free will. You have freedom, but your choices are still deterministic. There is nothing supernatural at play.

If you have a different definition of free will then present it. But if it's not what people think of when using the term, then the meaning of any claims based on it are also altered.

Dan8267 says

For example, if you make a decision about what color crayon to pick out of a box and then we reversed time to before you made that decision, you would make the exact same decision if every factor in that decision were the same. I.e. every atom in your brain and every atom and photon around you. Therefore, you don't have free will. You have freedom, but your choices are still deterministic.

I would argue (but won't beyond this) that we don't know enough about consciousness or intelligence to reach this conclusion. I'm assuming that by "every factor" you mean all physical conditions and all history.

I see it as a hand waving argument.

And also it is a hand waving argument (in my view) to say that his conclusion not being true necessitates something supernatural being involved.

Note: I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he hasn't provided a proof that I consider valid. I'm guessing that he knows this, otherwise he would not refer to his meditation as one of the reasons this is clear to him.

Dan8267 says

This does not address the question I asked.

My definition of free will is: the capacity to choose what to do next, according to criteria that reflect who you are, your personal preferences as well as criteria local to a situation.

Nothing in this definition requires violating the laws of physics, or not doing the choice in a deterministic fashion.
And, of course, computers can have free will according to this definition.

Harris argues we really make no choices. We just have the illusion of making them. I argue that we really make choices, just on a different layer than the physical layer which is the layer he is really talking about.

Dan8267 says

if you make a decision about what color crayon to pick out of a box and then we reversed time to before you made that decision, you would make the exact same decision if every factor in that decision were the same.

Harris keeps coming back to this to define what people mean when they talk of free will in every day life. I don't think this is what people really mean. I think they really mean: "If I could go back knowing what I know now I could make a different decision.". And of course, they could. A slight change in knowledge can affect the way we take decisions.

To take a dump, or not take a dump, that is the question!

Heraclitusstudent says

My definition of free will is: the capacity to choose what to do next, according to criteria that reflect who you are, your personal preferences as well as criteria local to a situation.

Computers, viruses, amebas, and volcanoes all have free will according to this definition. What you are talking about has nothing to do with what everyone else means when they say free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

Harris keeps coming back to this to define what people mean when they talk of free will in every day life. I don't think this is what people really mean. I think they really mean: "If I could go back knowing what I know now I could make a different decision.".

That's not free will, nor is it what the typical person means by free will. An algorithm given different inputs may produce a different output. There is no "will" free or otherwise involved.

Nothing in what you are proposing is non-deterministic or non-predictable. You seem to now just be arguing nomenclature rather than anything to do with the nature of reality. As such, Sam Harris's point still stands. The decisions made by human beings are deterministic and could be, in principle, predicted with 100% accuracy ahead of time if sufficient knowledge about the configuration of all the atoms in a person and the person's immediate environment were known. And don't even bother with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or the Copenhagen Interpretation because you don't have to go subatomic to have sufficient information. Hell, you could get perfect predictions in practice going no further than the cellular level, and you probably don't even have to go that far.

[stupid comment limit]

When asking the question of whether or not free will exists, you should ask what exactly would change in our universe if free will were added or removed. If the answer is nothing, then the very concept of free will is meaningless.

So let's say for the sake of argument that free will, by whatever definition, existed in our universe. How would our universe change if it were removed? How would your decisions change if you didn't have free will. Be specific.

He wrote a whole book about this? Hope it makes more sense than "Finnegan's Wake".

Dan8267 says

viruses, amebas, and volcanoes all have free will according to this definition

No they don't: they never consider alternatives and pick one. They react to stimuli and or just represent an unfolding natural phenomena not making any choice.

Dan8267 says

That's not free will, nor is it what the typical person means by free will. An algorithm given different inputs may produce a different output. There is no "will" free or otherwise involved.

That's your opinion. And it's a mute argument anyway because people never think carefully about going back in the exact same state they were in at some point in the past.

Dan8267 says

Nothing in what you are proposing is non-deterministic or non-predictable.

So what?

Dan8267 says

So let's say for the sake of argument that free will, by whatever definition, existed in our universe. How would our universe change if it were removed? How would your decisions change if you didn't have free will. Be specific.

Removing free will would remove intelligent reaction to a new problem. It would remove playing chess. It would remove humans.

Heraclitusstudent says

No they don't: they never consider alternatives and pick one. They react to stimuli and or just represent an unfolding natural phenomena not making any choice.

Reacting to stimuli or following the laws of nature is decision making.

Computers
Make decisions by executing algorithms. The algorithms are ultimately executed by following electrical laws.

Viruses
Make decisions about when to release their genetic content. These decisions are made by chemical and mechanical processes that follow the laws of electromagnetic force interactions.

Amebas
Make decisions of where to move, how fast, what to try to eat, when to reproduce. These decisions are made using complicated machinery, but that machinery is composed entirely of atoms obeying immutable laws of physics.

Humans
Make decisions also based on complicated machinery, but that machinery is composed entirely of atoms obeying immutable laws of physics.

Volcanoes
Make decisions on when to blow and how much. These decisions are based on thermodynamics. Essentially it's no different than amebas or humans making decisions based on their atoms following immutable physical laws.

There is nothing magical about the atoms in a human body. They are no different than the atoms in a virus, an ameba, or a volcano. Everything you do is due to the atoms in your body mindlessly obeying the laws of nature. In order for you to deviate from what those atoms would do, you would have to get those atoms to disobey the laws of nature. And that is something you cannot do.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

That's not free will, nor is it what the typical person means by free will. An algorithm given different inputs may produce a different output. There is no "will" free or otherwise involved.

That's your opinion

No, it's not an opinion at all, nonetheless mine. It's a fact.

Heraclitusstudent says

And it's a mute argument anyway because people never think carefully about going back in the exact same state they were in at some point in the past.

The practicality of a thought experiment is irrelevant. The idea is still valid. The fact is that the universe contradicts your beliefs. And when that happens, it's not the universe that is wrong.

The concept of free will is essentially that our decisions are not determined entirely by atoms following the laws of nature. I.e., that there is something literally supernatural that allows us to do things that our atoms would not due simply following the laws of nature. This is, of course, entirely bullshit. Free will does not exist. It would violate basic causality if it did, and there would be ample evidence of the laws of nature being violated by collections of atoms that form sentient beings. No such evidence has ever been found and it would be obvious as a dick slapping you in the face if it did exist. It would be happening all the time.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what?

Free will requires some level of indeterminism, by definition, and some level of unpredictability, also by definition. If your decisions are completely deterministic or I can predict them with unerring accuracy, you cannot have free will.

Side note: This demonstrates that an omniscient god contradicts free will. We are not free to make any choices except for the exact ones such a god knows we will make.

Heraclitusstudent says

Removing free will would remove intelligent reaction to a new problem. It would remove playing chess. It would remove humans.

No on all three accounts. Free will and intelligence have nothing to do with each other, and free will is certainly not a prerequisite for intelligence. The lack of free will would not "remove humans" from existence. Nor would it prevent such humans from playing chess. Again, computer software can play chess better than any human that has ever existed or will ever exist. Do chess-playing programs have free will?

Dan8267 says

Reacting to stimuli or following the laws of nature is decision making.

So you would say that when I turn the light on, the light "makes the choice" to turn on.
What the fuck is wrong with you?

I'll repeat again: they never consider alternatives and pick one. Making a choice requires having knowledge on some environment, being able to consider alternatives, pick one, and then execute actions based on that choice. The actions are then deliberate choices, not automatic reactions.

Dan8267 says

That's your opinion

No, it's not an opinion at all, nonetheless mine. It's a fact.

No it isn't. Otherwise show me the statistic on what people think free will is or is not you used to determine it is a fact.

Dan8267 says

The practicality of a thought experiment is irrelevant. The idea is still valid. The fact is that the universe contradicts your beliefs. And when that happens, it's not the universe that is wrong.

You have no observed fact. You are talking of what you think people in general believe with no tangible basis whatsoever for that claim.
Don't come and tell me you have facts contradicting my beliefs.

Seriously if you don't have anything of value to add, STFU.

Dan8267 says

Free will and intelligence have nothing to do with each other, and free will is certainly not a prerequisite for intelligence.

That's as close as you can come from a fact free assertion.
I took the trouble of giving a definition including making a choice, meaning evaluating alternatives, meaning having knowledge on a given universe and being able to think through alternatives. If this doesn't require some level of intelligence, I don't know what does.
Apparently posting on an Internet board doesn't.

Heraclitusstudent says

So you would say that when I turn the light on, the light "makes the choice" to turn on.

I'm saying that according to your definition of free will, the light makes the choice to turn on. That's why your definition of free will is stupid and not reflective of what people are talking about.

And yes, this applies to whether or not it's a smart light switch. You change the environment and the light reacts to that changes. It's reaction may be simpler than that of a virus, and ameba, or a human, but all of these agents are just as deterministic.

Heraclitusstudent says

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I make compelling arguments that disprove your sentiments. You are too emotionally immature to accept that you are wrong or to not take it personally. There's nothing wrong with me. It's you who are wrong.

[stupid comment limit]

Heraclitusstudent says

I'll repeat again: they never consider alternatives and pick one.

Computers clearly consider alternatives and pick actions. Yet computers are composed of nothing but atoms doing nothing but following the laws of nature. Both light switches and humans are also composed nothing but atoms doing nothing but following the laws of nature. Complexity doesn't magically introduce supernatural factors. Both Turing machines and your brain are binary switches built with atoms performing logic that follows one and only one way from the laws of nature.

The degree of complexity does not alter the fact that the very process of considering multiple actions and picking one is deterministic. The light bulb picks to either light up or burn out. A computer program picks to either send out a Social Security check or not. A human picks whether to eat a sandwich or not. It's all deterministic.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Free will and intelligence have nothing to do with each other, and free will is certainly not a prerequisite for intelligence.

That's as close as you can come from a fact free assertion.

I took the trouble of giving a definition including making a choice, meaning evaluating alternatives, meaning having knowledge on a given universe and being able to think through alternatives. If this doesn't require some level of intelligence, I don't know what does.

Apparently posting on an Internet board doesn't.

It is hardly an assertion. It is an a priori conclusion that comes from the definitions of free will and intelligence. That's called deductive reasoning.

The fact that you are not smart enough to understand this or imagine intelligence without free will or vice versa is your failing, not the universe's. Just because you can't figure something out doesn't mean the universe can't implement it.

Free will is ultimately about non-determinism as I have shown several times now. If the decision you make, however complicated the process is to arrive at that decision, is determined entirely by atoms following the laws of nature with no deviation, then you have no more free will than a rock. That is the point you have been avoiding like the plague.

Heraclitusstudent says

No it isn't. Otherwise show me the statistic on what people think free will is or is not you used to determine it is a fact.

Jesus fucking Christ, are you really this dumb or just pretending? Do you even know what an opinion is? An opinion is not a fact that has not been proven. An opinion is a judgement that cannot be right or wrong even in principle. For example, people like the taste of shit is a factual statement, an incorrect fact, but nonetheless a factual statement not an opinion. Shit tastes good is an opinion. Christ, I learned this in kindergarten. Why haven't you mastered it.

And some facts are so apparent that there need not be a scientific study to confirm it. For example, I don't have to confirm that most people don't like the taste of shit. That's pretty obvious.

Just listen to how real people talk about free will. It's obvious what's going their their minds if you have any kind of listening skills.

Heraclitusstudent says

Seriously if you don't have anything of value to add, STFU.

Some people just can't handle having their false ideas challenged. This is why Trump won the election.

www.youtube.com/embed/WDZaUu-st0Y

www.youtube.com/embed/vCGtkDzELAI

Notes: Determinism does not require reductionism. Effects have causes, not necessarily "one single thing" but rather a collection of conditions. Also determinism doesn't mean morality and ethics are irrelevant. They are still important. In fact morality and ethics are both effect by the fact that free will does not exist. It is unjustifiable to punish a person, not as a deterrent or to prevent future crimes, but simply because the person deserves it. Our entire legal system is based on this false belief that people deserve punishment. So this is not simply an academic question.

www.youtube.com/embed/joCOWaaTj4A

Notes: Dennett is basically saying that free will doesn't exist, but we can use the term to refer to something that does: the ability to make conscious decisions, albeit ones that are deterministic, that are based on our values, which are also deterministic.

I have no problem with that, but it's not what philosophers, priests, popes, and the average person means by free will. So I wouldn't use the term "free will" for it, but rather "freedom". We are free from coercion to make decisions, but not free from determinism to make those decisions. Also, I agree that not having free will doesn't matter. What really matters is freedom.

Also Dennett is right that we have to give up the idea of moral blame, which is what I proposed when saying that punishing a person because he deserves it is wrong. I suspect that morally justifying inflicting pointless pain on another person is a primary reason people like to believe in free will. It justifies their bloodlust for vengeance.

Another great video...

www.youtube.com/embed/MzW-r_vPf50

Daniel is a student deeply engaged in brain science and philosophy of mind. He is an aspiring neuroscientist, writer, educator, and science communicator. In his free time, he enjoys biking, meditating, composing music, reading books, debating with his friends and family, and being alone with his thoughts.

Another advocate of what I've been saying...

www.youtube.com/embed/rfOMqehl-ZA

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

No it isn't. Otherwise show me the statistic on what people think free will is or is not you used to determine it is a fact.

Do you even know what an opinion is? An opinion is not a fact that has not been proven. An opinion is a judgement that cannot be right or wrong even in principle. For example, people like the taste of shit is a factual statement, an incorrect fact, but nonetheless a factual statement not an opinion.

We are considering 2 assertions:
A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."
B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

Since most people don't spend time thinking very deeply about the nature of freewill, nor about what the hell going back in time could possibly mean and entail, they don't have a very clear opinion of whether A or B is in fact true. Most people do not make though experiments for the purpose of clarifying what they mean in every day life. All people feel about free will in everyday life is "I'm choosing what I'm doing".
To claim A is true and not B is as far away as could be from a "Shit doesn't taste good" kind of fact. It is your opinion, not a fact. Period.

All these videos do no answer anything I said above.
Dennett basically agrees with me that there are 2 layers: the physical where there is no choice, and a layer above that (biological in his case), and that this 2nd layer functionally makes a choice.

Daniel Do makes exactly the same misguided claims as Harris based on looking at only the physical layer. Just because we can observe decisions in a brain before we become aware of them doesn't mean no choice is made. It's like saying that you can see a chess program make the choice before the piece is moved on the chess board. Only the last step registers consciously as a decision but there is a large number of mechanical steps before that are necessary but unseen. This doesn't refute the fact that a choice is made by the computer.

The moral argument is even worse. It completely ignores how reentrant the logic is: we can absolutely deliberately choose to give more weight to concern for others and this affects our future decisions. This parameter and others represent who we are as individuals. And we choose that.

Harris is a moral philosopher but he takes a stand on freewill that denies the very existence of moral. Criminal justice is not moral. Can we blame a computer for having a bug? No. Why? Because a computer (at least so far) doesn't have a routine that looks constantly at what he is doing and evaluate it against who an idea of who it is as individual computer and what his morality is. But we do have that routine. Whether the routine itself is deterministic is irrelevant to the fact that it exists.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

I'll repeat again: they never consider alternatives and pick one.

Computers clearly consider alternatives and pick actions. Yet computers are composed of nothing but atoms doing nothing but following the laws of nature. Both light switches and humans are also composed nothing but atoms doing nothing but following the laws of nature. Complexity doesn't magically introduce supernatural factors.

This is silly because no one is talking about supernatural factors. All we are talking about is whether functionally alternatives are considered and 1 is chosen.
This is what "making a choice" means. People make choices about what they are going to do next. THAT is a fact.

Heraclitusstudent says

We are considering 2 assertions:

A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."

B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

Since most people don't spend time thinking very deeply about the nature of freewill, nor about what the hell going back in time could possibly mean and entail, they don't have a very clear opinion of whether A or B is in fact true. Most people do not make though experiments for the purpose of clarifying what they mean in every day life. All people feel about free will in everyday life is "I'm choosing what I'm doing".

To claim A is true and not B is as far away as could be from a "Shit doesn't taste good" kind of fact. It is your opinion, not a fact. Period.

You are completely fucking wrong. The following statements are facts, true or false, not opinions.
1. The world is round.
2. The world is flat.
3. Most people today think the world is round.
4. Most people today think the world is flat.

It is not an opinion that "most people today think the world is round". This can be verified or disproved. You are simply wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

A - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in exactly the same situation and make a different choice."

This is exactly what every priest, philosopher, criminal judge, and moral or religious text has meant when talking about free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

B - "People believe freewill means that they could go back in time in the same situation knowing what they know after the 1st try, and make a different choice".

This is not what any priest, philosopher, criminal judge, and moral or religious text ever has meant when talking about free will. Furthermore, the following computer wholly and clearly meets this standard.

According to Heraclitusstudent, I have free will. Teleport me back in time and give me different data, and I will make different decisions.

Well, so would I. Change the pressure of the magma below me, and I'll choose not to erupt.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dennett basically agrees with me that there are 2 layers: the physical where there is no choice, and a layer above that (biological in his case), and that this 2nd layer functionally makes a choice.

No he doesn't, and appeal to authority means nothing anyway. What matters is the justification Dennett gives.

Dennett clearly states that the biological layer is a physical layer and is every bit deterministic as such. He is saying that choice is deterministic, and that's OK. Free will doesn't exist, but you could use the term to refer to deterministic choices if you wanted to. It would not mean remotely the same thing, but deterministic choices are all the freedom your will has, so deal with it.

A virus makes choices. An ameba makes choices. A computer makes choices. Choices do not require free will. Choices are deterministic. If you want to define choice as non-deterministic, then you do not make choices.