patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

So now you are claiming that because 1 mechanical machine has a quality, then all machines have it.

Do you really fucking believe I'm saying that, or are you just making a dishonest straw man argument?

Heraclitusstudent says

Obviously, in your argument above, the machine emulating the brain has a representation of the world and the possible alternatives, and as a process to evaluate these alternatives and pick the most desirable one. A clock doesn't have that. Your argument end there.

A deterministic (clock-like) computer can certainly have a representation of the world. You are still a deterministic decision maker. There is no freedom in you decision making. You are not free to choose any decision that the atoms in your body, brain, and environment didn't cause you to decide simply by following the laws of nature.

Heraclitusstudent says

I don't have time to watch 15 videos. Trying to baffle people by bombing the thread is not an argument.

So you demand evidence and then refuse to listen to it when presented. Look at the first minute of each video. That's all you need to do.

Heraclitusstudent says

If it says any about deterministic or non-deterministic choice, then by all means, quote it.

The videos say that your future is not written. That means non-deterministic choice. One of the video even tries to resolve the obvious conflict between that belief and the belief that god is omniscient. If god knows what you are going to do, you cannot choose otherwise or god does not know. God cannot be wrong.

Game, set, match. You are wrong. Just admit it.

Dan8267 says

A deterministic (clock-like) computer can certainly have a representation of the world. You are still a deterministic decision maker. There is no freedom in you decision making.

I don't disagree with this but this extremely misleading. The entire problem here is you are stuck on this notion that I can't escape determinism. But this is not the relevant point. Determinism can still lead me in pretty much any direction based on tiny variations in my brain.
No, the relevant factor is I make the choice I want based on criteria that are personal and local to my situation. And deterministic doesn't change that.

Dan8267 says

The videos say that your future is not written. That means non-deterministic choice.

All good so far because we are in a non deterministic universe.
Heraclitusstudent says

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.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle + chaos = non-deterministic universe.

Anything else?

Heraclitusstudent says

The entire problem here is you are stuck on this notion that I can't escape determinism.

Free will, by definition, is not deterministic. If your fate is already written, then you don't have free will. That's the entire point.

You just like the phrase free will and want people to keep using that phrase no matter what it means. Fine, define free will as an asshole. You now have free will. It doesn't mean your fate isn't already sealed.

[stupid comment limit]

Heraclitusstudent says

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle + chaos = non-deterministic universe.

Anything else?

Dan8267 says

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.

[fucking comment limit]

Even if you accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is crap, you still don't get free will.
1. Your will isn't determine by quantum probabilities anymore than a perfect naked copy of Scarlett Johansson is going to materialize on my lap. Your decisions are entirely predictable and set by cellular-level events which are not subject to quantum mechanics. Cells are just too fucking big.
2. Random probability is NOT free will either. Although non-determinism is a necessary condition for free will, it is not a sufficient condition. If your choices are controlled by me rolling a pair of dice, then it's not your will even if the dice are truly random and non-deterministic.
3. If you accepted that quantum randomness creates free will then a DOS-level computer running in a satellite in orbit has quadrillions of times more free will than you do. After all, it is quadrillions of times more susceptible to quantum events like the release of a cosmic ray than anything in your brain. Are you willing to say that computer from 1982 running inside a 30-year-old satellite has more free will than you do?

All you are doing is searching for some room to bullshit. It's a disingenuous argument.

I'll leave out the comment on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which was only meant to answer the religious claim that that free will means it's not written. That it's not written is a physical fact. But it is totally irrelevant to what I'm saying here.

I admitted in my first post in that thread that the deterministic claim about free will is not wrong. So deterministic or not is not even the question here. All I said is that it is misleading and not the right layer on which the process should be considered.

Indeed:
1 - there are 2 layers: the physical layer which (for the current purpose of describing the brain or a computer) is deterministic and so ON THIS LAYER there is no choice. The 2nd layer is the "conscious" layer at which a choice is made. Obviously this layer, being based on top of the physical layer, is deterministic as well. But still functionally it is making a choice - be it a deterministic choice.

2 - What you are saying is the conscious choice layer is fully controlled by the physical layer. Ok but you make it sound like it is the end of it. But in fact the reverse is true as well: by executing a choice, the conscious layer changes the chain of cause-effects on the physical layer.

Heraclitusstudent says

But in fact the reverse is true as well: by executing a choice, the conscious layer changes the chain of cause-effects on the physical layer.

It doesn't matter whether or not you are conscious. Your choices are as settled as any non-conscious decision making engine's choices. Being conscious does not add anything. The bottom line is that what you are going to do tomorrow has already been written. You cannot alter that any more than a lizard, a virus, or a pebble could. Consciousness does not introduce any magic.

This is like saying: it doesn't matter that there are high level languages and APIs, all developers should code in machine language because that's all it is eventually.

Well, as human beings, are we living in a world of firing neurons, or are we on the freeway wondering whether to pass that car in front of us?
In the second description of the same thing, you are in fact making a decision and executing that decision . It doesn't fucking matter that this decision was a deterministic sequence of firing neurons.

Which description is the most relevant to our experience as human beings?

Heraclitusstudent says

This is like saying: it doesn't matter that there are high level languages and APIs, all developers should code in machine language because that's all it is eventually.

No, it's not at all like saying that. It is useful to use a high-level language because developer are more productive that way. However, a computer can't do anything with high-level source code that cannot be translated into its machine language. This translation can be done in many sophisticated ways including just-in-time compiling, but ultimately all software has to be executed on your Turing machine as instructions supported by that Turing machine.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well, as human beings, are we living in a world of firing neurons

There is nothing magical about neurons. Yes, they are fascinating devices, but they are not inherently different from traditional digital gates, telephone relays, or mechanical gears. You don't get some magical free will simply because your replace one kind of cog for another. The type of cog doesn't change that what you are going to do tomorrow has already been determined.

Heraclitusstudent says

It doesn't fucking matter that this decision was a deterministic sequence of firing neurons.

It doesn't matter that the decision was made by firing neurons as opposed to mechanical gears. However, the fact that the machinery is deterministic does mean there is no room for free will. Your fate is still predestined. The same internal state and the same external factors results in the same decisions.

[stupid comment limit]

Heraclitusstudent says

Which description is the most relevant to our experience of human beings?

I don't care. It has nothing to do with whether or not free will exists.

This is an interesting question, but it's clear from this discussion that "what does free will mean?" should be agreed upon first.

Neither question is as trivial to me as some want to make it.

Here are some other questions. What does random mean ? Doesn't random chance affect countless things in our environment which in turn affect everyone's decisions - even if physically we operate in a deterministic way relative to our state at any specific time ?

Heraclitusstudent says

But in fact the reverse is true as well: by executing a choice, the conscious layer changes the chain of cause-effects on the physical layer.

Heraclitusstudent makes a good point. For example when Sam Harris decides to spend a month in meditation which probably reconfigures some of the neural pathways or otherwise changes his brain physically (in minute or subtle ways) it's clear that his resolve or will power is a factor in following through with this. This may be largely deterministic at any an point along the way, but who is to say whether his consciousness or even the consciousness of others doesn't impact on his ability to stick to his plan

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

Which description is the most relevant to our experience of human beings?

I don't care. It has nothing to do with whether or not free will exists.

Since again I already agreed that decisions are taken in a deterministic fashion in my first post, there is not much a discussion on that point. You're not following the plot here.

The question is which description of free will is more relevant to what we experience on a daily basis.

And obviously we don't experience the firing of neurons that leaves us no choice.
Instead we experience a world that we know, in which we anticipate and evaluate alternatives, in which we make choices, and which we execute these choices. This is the freewill people are used to. And it is real enough, in the sense that we do make these choices, and the rhetoric around the theme "we have no choice" is pointed at a different layer than our own experience.

Making choices in a deterministic fashion is not the same as not making choices.

Dan8267 says

There is nothing magical about neurons.

No one is arguing that.

marcus says

but it's clear from this discussion that "what does free will mean?" should be agreed upon first.

It's clear that Dan calls freewill something that has to be non-deterministic.
It's clear I call freewill the capacity for choice we experience on a daily basis.
We can debate endlessly on which definition is the right one.
The point here is that his definition leads to the belief we are not functionally making and executing choices, when in fact we are.
So what we experience as "our freewill" or "our capacity to choose", whatever you choose to call it, is real enough.

marcus says

This is an interesting question, but it's clear from this discussion that "what does free will mean?" should be agreed upon first.

The vocabulary you use is ultimately not important. It has no impact on the subject matter. The definition used in this discussion is what people throughout history meant by the term. I don't care to debate whether or not the term should be redefined for something more useful. I mean to demonstrate that the concept people have been clinging onto for the past 200,000 years is wrong. That is what is important.

marcus says

This may be largely deterministic at any an point along the way, but who is to say whether his consciousness or even the consciousness of others doesn't impact on his ability to stick to his plan

Whether his consciousness or even the consciousness of others impacts on his ability to stick to his plan does not in any way, shape, or form contradict determinism or allow for free will.

Heraclitusstudent says

The question is which description of free will is more relevant to what we experience on a daily basis.

Use a new term. The term free will is already taken by a concept hundreds of thousands of years old.

You could call this a cat.

But can you see how it would be confusing and counter-productive to do so?

If you want to define a new concept, assign it a new word. Why deliberately mislead your audience? Why make conversations about your new idea needlessly difficult?

Heraclitusstudent says

It's clear I call freewill the capacity for choice we experience on a daily basis.

And volcanoes, rocks, viruses, lizards, and gears meet that definition.

Also, why call that free will when it's deliberately confusing and people are going to think you mean something completely different?

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

There is nothing magical about neurons.

No one is arguing that.

You are making the argument that somehow decision making by neural networks is materially different than that made by digital gates, gears, genetic code, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, or electrodynamics. That seems damn magical.

Heraclitusstudent says

We can debate endlessly on which definition is the right one.

The question is meaningless. There is no such thing as a right definition or a wrong definition. It's the meaning of statements that are either true or false.

The age old concept of free will is incorrect. People believe in it because they are evolved to believe in agents of will and to attribute morality to will. That doesn't mean the actual universe has ever implemented free will. It hasn't.

[stupid comment limit]

As for the concept you presented, ill-defined and ill-named as it is, that concept also doesn't hold water as you make an artificial distinction between some physical processes and others. Again, I ask you...

Dan8267 says

Do amebas? If so, then show me the distinction between viruses, which you say don't, and amebas which you say do.

If not, then do earthworms? If so, then show me the distinction between amebas, which you say don't, and earthworms which you say do.

If not, then do flies? If so, then show me the distinction between earthworms, which you say don't, and flies which you say do.

If not, then do lizards? If so, then show me the distinction between flies, which you say don't, and lizards which you say do.

If not, then do dogs? If so, then show me the distinction between lizards, which you say don't, and dogs which you say do.

If not, then do monkeys? If so, then show me the distinction between dogs, which you say don't, and monkeys which you say do.

If not, then do chimps? If so, then show me the distinction between monkeys, which you say don't, and chimps which you say do.

If not, then do humans? If so, then show me the distinction between chimps, which you say don't, and humans which you say do.

If not, then you concede this argument.

These are questions you cannot answer. Anywhere you draw that line will be arbitrary and will cause contradictions. The real answer is that there is no magic line separating any of the above. We are all just atoms doing what atoms do. And quite frankly, if you appreciate atoms and what they do as much as you should, that's plenty spectacular enough. The natural world is beautiful enough as it is. It does not need any supernatural garnishments.

www.youtube.com/embed/LtT6Xkk-kzk

www.youtube.com/embed/VaMjhwFE1Zw

Dan8267 says

I mean to demonstrate that the concept people have been clinging onto for the past 200,000 years is wrong. That is what is important.

Okay. But it's not like this is original or that it's a break through. Many great thinkers have said what you are saying, and many great thinkers have disputed it. I'll admit it's an interesting question. I'll also admit that I have trouble with it.

For the sake of being moral and good, doesn't it make sense to believe in free will ? Doesn't believing that we have no free will in some cases allow one to rationalize immoral or unethical behavior ?

See Hume and "compatilism."

marcus says

But it's not like this is original or that it's a break through. Many great thinkers have said what you are saying, and many great thinkers have disputed it.

I didn't claim to have been the first to say free will does not exist. In fact this thread started with me posting Sam Harris's talk about the subject. I found it interesting and compelling and shared it. When Harris's statements were challenged, I defended them appropriately.

Also, it does not matter how great the thinkers were who advocated the idea of free will. They are still wrong. That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

marcus says

For the sake of being moral and good, doesn't it make sense to believe in free will ?

No, the false belief actually promotes evil. People use the concept of free will to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others who "deserve it". This was discussed in the videos above. The use of punishment by our legal system should only be for deterrent and rehabilitation, if that, and not to inflict suffering on the wicket.

marcus says

Doesn't believing that we have no free will in some cases allow one to rationalize immoral or unethical behavior ?

No.

Dan8267 says

No, the false belief actually promotes evil. People use the concept of free will to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others who "deserve it".

I understood Sam Harris' point here, but it's obviously true that one need not totally reject the idea of free will to have understanding of the many preconditions,external and internal causes of bad behavior that should decrease the the idea that one "deserves" punishment as opposed to taking them off the streets to protect the public. WE can view criminals with WAY more understanding of the causes of their behavior without saying free will does not exist.

Even if your argument here held up (which it doesn't), it would be supposing that how society views and treats criminals is the only good versus evil question we confront.

Dan8267 says

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Nobody has yet proven it. Hey - maybe you could become the most famous philosopher of the 21st century !!

If you reject Hume, how about Kant ?

https://philosophicalruminations.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/kant-on-free-will-and-determinism/

marcus says

it's obviously true that one need not totally reject the idea of free will to have understanding of the many preconditions,external and internal causes of bad behavior

Wrong. In order to understand the universe and everything that happens in it, you must understand natural laws, which leave no room for free will humbug.

If you want to understand how life works, you have to understand the mechanisms of atoms and cells, and you must reject that there is a "life force" that is breathed into inanimate objects to make them living. If you want to understand how sophisticated decision engines like human beings work, you must reject that there is a "free will" that is breathed into inanimate objects to make them capable of choice in a way materially different from apes, monkeys, flies, amoebas, bacteria, viruses, and rocks.

marcus says

Even if your argument here held up(which it doesn't),

Exactly what argument of mine does not hold up and why?

marcus says

Dan8267 says

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Nobody has yet proven it.

A fact that is not yet proven is still a fact, not an opinion. Why do some people have such difficulty grasping this concept?

The statement "I have a marble in my pocket" is either true or false regardless of whether or not you know the answer. The statement "pistachio ice cream tastes good" is an opinion, neither true nor false, regardless of whether or not you know if I like that flavor. Your knowledge does not affect whether a statement is a fact, a falsehood, or an opinion.

marcus says

Hey - maybe you could become the most famous philosopher of the 21st century !!

Who cares? I don't. I care about the truth, not who figures it out or who presents it. The messenger is irrelevant. I've been telling you that for like 8 years now.

marcus says

If you reject Hume, how about Kant ?

I took a test to determine which philosophers were aligned with my beliefs. Here are the results. 100% agreement with Kant before reading any of his stuff.

1. Immanuel Kant (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (99%)
3. John Stuart Mill (84%)
4. Ayn Rand (73%)
5. Jeremy Bentham (71%)
6. Prescriptivism (64%)
7. Spinoza (60%)
8. Stoics (58%)
9. Epicureans (49%)
10. Aquinas (46%)
11. David Hume (38%)
12. Nietzsche (38%)
13. Aristotle (37%)
14. Plato (34%)
15. Ockham (32%)
16. St. Augustine (29%)
17. Thomas Hobbes (25%)
18. Nel Noddings (24%)
19. Cynics (5%)

Despite a high Ayn Rand score, I disagree with most of her "morality", agreeing only with the idea of objective reality and rationality.

This universe is much too complex for anybody to deduce much at all.

If you aren't aware of certain information, your entire theories can be pretty far off.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Even if your argument here held up(which it doesn't),

Exactly what argument of mine does not hold up and why?

Dan8267 says

marcus says

For the sake of being moral and good, doesn't it make sense to believe in free will ?

No, the false belief actually promotes evil. People use the concept of free will to justify inflicting pain and suffering on others who "deserve it". This was discussed in the videos above. The use of punishment by our legal system should only be for deterrent and rehabilitation, if that, and not to inflict suffering on the wicket.

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions. The 2 primary ways this argument fails are:

1) This is only one example of "evil" that can be attributed to believing in free will. It's easy to come up with compelling arguments as to the moral benefits of people taking responsibility for their actions (i.e. believing that they have free will)

2) IT was wrong anyway. Because people "judging" the criminal could learn that most or sometimes even all of the reasons for the criminals behavior are not his fault, without rejecting free will in an absolute way.

931e says

This universe is much too complex for anybody to deduce much at all.

Empirically false. Science works. The proof is modern life. Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

Feigning ignorance is not humility, and it is not a virtue. One must know what one does know to learn what one does not know.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions.

By the way, FortWayne is a perfect example of this. How could you even doubt that some people believe that "evildoers" should suffer for their crimes? You've argued with Fort Douchebag. You know what he believes.

"Empirically false. Science works. The proof is modern life. Science got us to the moon, allowed us to create the modern world, doubled the human lifespan, made infant mortality almost unheard of.

Feigning ignorance is not humility, and it is not a virtue. One must know what one does know to learn what one does not know."

You seem to be quite bold in your confidence in your understanding of what "science" has and can accomplish. I like it but its definitely unfounded.

Nobody knows the origin of life or how it all began. Nobody knows why we hallucinate every night as we sleep. Some of these things science cannot and will never prove in a scientific manner.

Dan8267 says

How could you even doubt that some people believe that "evildoers" should suffer for their crimes?

How could you possibly think I might possibly doubt that.

Are you not capable of trying to understand what the other person is saying?

marcus says

How could you possibly think I might possibly doubt that.

marcus says

You give one example of harm that comes from believing in free will, becasue believing in free will, leads people to suppose that the criminal was fully responsible for his actions. The 2 primary ways this argument fails are:

Sure sounds like you are arguing that the believe in free will doesn't have significant bad consequences.

marcus says

Are you not capable of trying to understand what the other person is saying?

Depends on how articulate they are. My interpretation of what you said was very reasonable. If it's not what you meant, then write more clearly and to the point.