Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Put another way,the challenge is to design a machine that experiences red in the same subjective way I do. Note - I said 'subjectively', not 'functionally'. Functionally is easy!
You only need to design a machine that DESCRIBES its experience of red in the same subjective way you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Acomputer with the number $0000FF in a memory cell is not having the same experince of redness that I do when I see a london bus. I know that because I know a bit about how computers work - they are not designed or constructed to have subjective experience. I suppose someone could ask how I can be so sure aout that comutersdon't have the same subective exeriences as people. My answer is that even if that were so, it doesn't explain how it works!
Here's an interesting bit of info, some humans who were born blind, and who have had their sight restored, choose to keep their eyes closed because they are unable to make sense of shapes and colors. To them, sight is a mass of fractured kaleidoscope nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
This should be your first clue.I defy anyone to put what it is like to be 'subjectively conscious' or 'aware' into plain unamiguous words without relying on circularity.
"Consciousness" is purely Qualitative, logically incoherent, unmeasurable, unfalsifiable nonsense.
Any sufficiently sophisticated device indistinguishable from a human being would necessarily have the same (unverifiable) quality of "consciousness".
It's not a secret sauce or magic fairy dust.
It's simply a complex collection of evolutionary social behaviors.
We identify "consciousness" by its associated behaviors.
The behaviors themselves are "consciousness".
Whatever mechanism causes those behaviors is interchangeable (chemical or electrical or mechanical).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can't say whether or not god is any of these things.
You don't truly know.
You were educated in such a way as to blindly accept what you are taught.
Not because they are real true facts, but because they are redefinings and newspeaks very specifically intended to divorce (skeptical, rational) thought from Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I know what it is I am speaking of with experiential knowledge. It would be beyond your own epistemological limits to say, "I don't know, I don't know how I could know, nobody can know."
It's really quite simple. Is the noumenon a human? Is the ultimate reality a human?
If not, then it can't have human characteristics.
You may have private gnosis, but that "truth" is specific and exclusive to YOU ALONE.
Your gnosis =/= evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It's not far removed from the problem of writing a computer program that hates losing at chess. It's trivial to et achess root to simulate eing angry, but no one (afaik) nows how to make a root feel 'real anger'. Nor do we know how to make a machine with a desire or preference.
Please Quantify the difference between "real anger" and "programmed anger".
Aren't emotions involuntary physiological responses to neurochemical levels that serve as (evolutionarily efficacious) social signals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is an unwarranted anthropomorphic fallacy to attribute human characteristics to "The Ultimate Reality".The Ultimate Reality is not the same thing as noumenon, a word that Kant used incorrectly.
"The Ultimate Reality" cannot be intelligent, or conscious, or compassionate, or just, or right, or good, or evil.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yet...suppose god arranged for a dice(*) to come up 6 every single time forever, no matter how it was thrown or even placed very carefully with the wrong side up.Coming up 6 every time forever is distinguishable from random noise!
Right, however, if this hypothetical god had a REASON to make this happen, if this hypothetical god had some PURPOSE or GOAL in mind, then even this would be part of the causal chain.
A hypothetical god's desire and ability to create magical dice must (EITHER) be part of the causal chain (OR) indistinguishable from random (involuntary and uncaused glitch).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your inability to discern things is not The Truth.
To make peace with the limitations of human knowledge in a great way is to approach noumenon, who is The Ultimate Reality, with the type of humility befitting a spawn of noumenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are implying that whatever free will is, it is impossible.
Not exactly. I'm saying that (IFF) freewill violates concrete causality (THEN) it must be indistinguishable from random noise.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain any definition of freewill you personally prefer.
You aren't even really open to free will being anything other than impossible.
I am strongly biased against incoherent definitions.
In fact, if I were to say that the only truly free will is God's, as God's will determines what is, you would still deny free will or dismiss it ss meaningless out of an aversion to the concept itself.
Even a hypothetical god cannot violate cause and effect without being indistinguishable from random noise.
And, if a god is the source of human freewill, then humans are de facto god puppets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The existence of anyrhing truly random is in itself just as absurd of a thing to debate, and I would argue that it is inconsistent to claim that free will can't exist because it defies causality while at the same time asserting the existence of the random as for something to be truly random it by definition must defy causality.To dismiss free will as impossible because it defies causality while entertaining the existence of random is inconsistent.
When we started this, we both agreed that "true randomness" is extremely unlikely.
However, because some people assert that, at a quantum level (quantum flux), "true randomness" MAY exist, that gives them enough doubt to claim freewill is "possible" (god in the gaps, appeal to ignorance).
The only practical reason to include "randomness" (mixed with determinism to spawn indeterminism) is to point out that EVEN IF randomness "exists" and can disrupt the otherwise concrete causal chain, IT DOES NOT = FREEWILL.
Freewill cannot be causal.
Freewill cannot be random.
There is no hypothetical third option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
One quantifiable difference is that brains are more complicated and sifts chemicals and electrical signals rather than sand.True,but that isn't the difference that gets people to say sieves don't (but brains do) have free will.
What specifically is the difference in your opinion?
It seems like a simple matter of scale and complexity. Machines can certainly be complex enough that we cannot predict their behavior in all possible conditions.
Are you hanging your hat on "unpredictability"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well stated.The way I understand free will, randomness would be inimical to free will. It may well be that 'noise' in the system means the precise evolution ofbrain states is inherenty ineterminate/chaotic (or insert prefered term here!), but such randomness is neither 'free' or 'will', for most common meanings of the words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm pretty sure you're talking about a compatibilist version of freewill which is, "not directly and consciously coerced by another human being or group of human beings".What are the odds we all mean the same thing by 'free will'?
However, even this "common sense" definition is highly problematic.
For example, are laws, which are implicit threats of violence, coercive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
By all means, let's skip directly to affirming the consequent.That being the case, the effects of the belief itself is what really should be examined. How is belief in free will or denial of free will used to justify certain actions?
Please present your list of pros and cons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you are going to even introduce randomness at all, you might as well concede that free will exists, because you are just arguing around your aversion to the term at this point.
You seem to be suggesting that (unknown undetectable uncaused causes) randomness = freewill.
Randomness =/= freedom.
Randomness =/= will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No it isn't. It is a fact that we can reprogram our minds, and turn around from being a punk to a better person.
Even if this is true, our ability and desire to "reprogram our minds" is an inevitable consequence of the causal chain (and some possible randomness).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But why on earth would I want the power to choose what I don't desire? A mail sorting machine is a glorified sieve that lets small grains through and blocks larger grains. Sieves have no desire to distinguish between large and small grains - they do not choose. If there are common features between how sieves work and how human choice works they seem less important and less interesting to how sieves and people are different.
Interestingly, the ancient Chinese character for "discern" is a pictogram of a winnowing basket (for separating wheat from chaff).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Violating causality as you understand it =/= violating causality.
Please explain.
Free will is not simply an emotion.
Please explain.
It is accepting the reality that you don't have to be a shitlord for the rest of your life. You can always do better!
This is an emotional appeal and opinion stated as fact.
That's pretty good news really.
Affirming the consequent. Motivated reasoning. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I understand what you mean. I am just more inclined to believe that the phenomenon [EMOTION] that I (and every human on earth) experience is closer to the truth than not.
You're actually mirroring probably the best argument in support of belief in god(s).
I feel god(s) love in my heart and so does every human on earth and that's how I know that god(s) are really really realz.
The emotion is "real" but the logic (non-random violation of causal chain) doesn't add-up.
This is known as compatibilism.
Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."[11]
In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism.[2] This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I don't deny the Qualitative emotion of freewill.I understand what you mean. I am just more inclined to believe that the phenomenon [EMOTION] that I (and every human on earth) experience is closer to the truth than not.
I'm simply pointing out that it is a mistake to imagine that we can "change" the future.
We are part of the causal chain and our "choices" are also part of the causal chain and the "future" is the result of the causal chain (with some possible random noise randomly injected into the process).
We are guided by our desires (programming) and our desires are dictated (inscribed upon us) by our biology and primary experiences (and some random noise).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think a sorting machine is very unlike a human. If i want to know if a mail sorting machine will send a letter left or right i only have to examine the post code on the envelope. I can ignore the details of the machine completely. But if i want to know whether Twoman will say he wants tea or coffee I would have to have an enormous amount of information about him - his history, his habits, his preferences and even then it would be a guess until he tells me! If an envelope is addressed to croydon, the sorting machine has no choice - it will route it to croydon. But twoman can can choose tea, coffee or vodka. So I dispute 'similar to a human choice.'.
What you're describing here is a simple matter of scale and complexity. None of this violates cause-and-effect + randomness.
You are confusing unpredictability with freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision."
What you're describing here is a simple matter of scale and complexity. None of this violates cause-and-effect + randomness.
You are confusing unpredictability with freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are part of the causal chain?Yes.Do you believe that subjectively human influences are indistinguishable from random?No.
I agree with you 100%.
Why can't you throw freewill onto the heap with all of the other superstitious nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some possibly random influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability.I agree but would word this sentence thus...(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some subjectively human influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability."
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are part of the causal chain?
Do you believe that subjectively human influences are indistinguishable from random?
If you can imagine a third alternative, please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
(IFF) you are part of a causal chain (THEN) every outcome is determined by previous causes with some possibly random influences that may maintain some fundamental unpredictability.I just don't believe that there is only one possible outcome to a series of events.
This is indeterminism.
Humans have developed a prefrontal cortex that allows for complex pattern identification which includes some limited ability to predict future events.
This ability is part of, and not separate from, the causal chain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Based on this rudimentary definition, do you believe that sorting robots have freewill?As I have already answered this question, I will again say no, it is not identical to but similar to a human choice.
Ok, right, were you suggesting that (human) emotions (Qualia) are the magic element that sparks freewill into existence?
Or were you simply suggesting that because human decision making is "so complicated" (an appeal to ignorance, like god in the gaps) that it must, for unspecified reasons, be "special"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Your mind (and body) is inevitably PART OF the causal chain. Your mind (and body) are affected by and motivated by the causal chain (with perhaps a pinch of non-causal randomness that is randomly produced by random stuff at random times and thus, NOT part of your will)."...the ability to change the outcome of a causal chain..."
To say you have "the ability to change the outcome of a causal chain" is to deny the origins of and existence of your instincts and desires and physical and mental capacities.
You are conflating your imagination with actual fact.
When you imagine a "different outcome", that is pure imagination.
What actually happens is actual fact. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
You can choose between 2 or more possible courses of action - WITHOUT - freewill.Choosing between 2 or more courses of action is the definition of free will.
Based on this rudimentary definition, do you believe that sorting robots have freewill?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
What necessary function does freewill perform in your worldview?Do I really need to explain the functionality of being able to choose between 2 or more possible courses of action?
You can choose between 2 or more possible courses of action - WITHOUT - freewill.
There is no utility in imagining that you, yourself can magically and inexplicably violate causality (in a non-random fashion).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You can have an experience of Qualia (meaningfulness) without freewill.but once Free will/consciousness etc came into existence it was a a game changer. In a universe without consciousness, nothing matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then you are comfortable being a slave to your inscrutable desires.i am certainly more comforable than as a slave to anyone else's desires! I could be an entity with no desires - a lowly amoeba or a leaf blowing in the wind. After 13.8 billion years the universe produced and entity with the set of wishes, desires dreams and aspirations that consistute me. my inscrutale desires are not things sepaerate from me - they are me and define me.
If this is the case, why would you insist on clinging to the magic fairy dust of "freewill"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
But why?Agreed. I don't have a litmus test for freewill. I am simply asserting that it exists.
What necessary function does freewill perform in your worldview?
And if it doesn't serve any (identifiable) critical function, why bother clinging to it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then you are comfortable being a slave to your inscrutable desires.I'm OK with not being able to choose what it is I desire because that is as good as it gets.
If this is the case, why would you insist on clinging to the magic fairy dust of "freewill"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Rocks show no sign of being conscious, have no mechanism to implement consciousness and have no reason to be conscious. I'd bet money they aren't conscious!
But do rocks have souls??????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
So would agree, according to your definitions, that sophisticated computerized neural networks with the ability to learn and optimize tasks, also have proper freewill (the ability to choose)?That is not my definition, it is from Wikipedia. I would say that those computers have what is similar to the ability to choose (freewill). To the casual observer it may be indistinguishable. However, computers do not utilize the same variables that humans do when making choices so it is not identical.
Not being identical should not necessarily be the litmus test for freewill.
No two human's decision making hardware (brain) or software (experience) are strictly identical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What does the word 'choice' mean? If a computer hits a branch instruction in its program it will go one way or the other but the computer does not have any choice. Spiders - I expect - are hard wired with rules that specify their behaviour in any given situation, so no real choice there either.Why not say a choice(in this context) is a selection made in response to a desire?
How would you distinguish between a desire and a program?
Aren't desires the consequence of our human instincts (biologically pre-programmed survival instinct for example) and learned behavior based on (programmed by) our primary experiences (limited by our biological senses and genetically determined brain capacity)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
(IFF) you can't quantify freewill (AND) you don't care about moral culpability (THEN) why would you bother distinguishing "freewill" from simple "choice"?I don't. That is the definition of freewill - the ability to make a choice unimpeded.It seems you likely have a different definition and Mopac may be correct that you define it in such a way as to make it impossible to exist.
So would agree, according to your definitions, that sophisticated computerized neural networks with the ability to learn and optimize tasks, also have proper freewill (the ability to choose)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It should be obvious that sorting machines do not have choice.
A robot can analyze inbound packages for specific details and then based on those details (logic) they move the package to the corresponding location.
How is this different than a "choice"?
A spider can build a web virtually anywhere, and yet they prefer certain locations over others and only build a finite number of webs. How is a spider's decision making hierarchy distinct from that of a human's?
Can a spider make a "choice"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The epistemological question is, can anyone tell the difference between a "fake" desire and a "real" desire if they effect the same observable behavior?Is it just a matter of sophistication? The problem I have with that is that I am a very experienced computer programmer but I have no idea how to program a sorting machine with the desire to join a circus! I know how to fake it and give an impression of having a desire, but not the real thing.
Let me know what you think of this - [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I think the better question is why doo you have such a strong desire to be a robot? Why are you so preoccupied with dehumanization? I see this as possibly a symptom of some issue you are having, this subject coming from that root.
I appreciate your dime-store psychoanalysis, but let's try and stick to the logical distinctions between a sophisticated robot's (or a spider's) "choice" and a human's "choice" and avoid ad hominem red-herrings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It's simply a matter of sophistication and independence. [LINK]Perhaps we could ask how it is that a person might well want to join a circus but no sorting machine has ever wanted to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A human who intentionally places a package in the incorrect place is a malfunctioning employee and should be fired.A human can certainly choose to place the package in the incorrect place. A robotic sorting mechanism does not have this choice.
Are you suggesting that you believe freewill is only manifested when a human intentionally violates their code of conduct?
If you have a human who never intentionally places a package in the incorrect place, DO THEY REQUIRE FREEWILL TO DO THEIR JOB?
In other words, in your opinion, do all human choices require freewill or do only some human choices require freewill?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A human can choose to quit being a postman and join a circus.
A sophisticated robot could make a similar choice. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
(IFF) freewill = choice (THEN) robotic sorting systems have freewill.What is an example of a robotic sorting system making a choice?
Imagine a human working in a mail room.
They look at a package and then decide where it should be moved to.
Do you believe freewill is required for a human to perform this choice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
The ONLY question is, "HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY FREEWILL?"You can't. I also can't quantify emotional intensity but it exists nonetheless.I'm not particularly interested in discussing moral culpability as it relates to the ability to make a choice, only the fact that phenomenon itself exists.
(IFF) you can't quantify freewill (AND) you don't care about moral culpability (THEN) why would you bother distinguishing "freewill" from simple "choice"?
Do you consider yourself a "freewill agnostic" or a "freewill apatheist"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that the word philosophy tends to get over-defined in an attempt to make it something more than it is.
I think that the word philosophy tends to get over-defined in an attempt to make it something less than it is.
For example, the title of this thread seems to strongly imply that "philosophy is pointless and impractical". [LINK]
Philosophy is an analysis of the foundations of Law and Religion and Politics. It has very practical and far-reaching implications.
We like to create exclusive specialisms out of things that are not necessarily exclusive or special.
Please explain.
Philosophy is basically processing data and coming up with conclusions.
I agree.
Anyone can be philosophical.
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Check this out - [LINK]Currently; computers can only make mistakes when humans make mistakes.
Created: