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?