Or maybe I just wondered what bubblecar would have to say about this recent letter from New Scientist:

From John Clark

You ask what would happen if we discovered we had no free will (8 August, p 28). Free will is an idea so bad it’s not even wrong.

People, just like everything else, behave the way they do because of cause and effect and thus are deterministic, or they don’t behave because of cause and effect and thus are random.

Tell me what the term “free will” means and I’ll tell you what would result if we find out that humans don’t have it.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US

There is a rat on my head making me type this.

Free will is being able to leave the universe and not come back

except looks around

we are in it, and are spinning around just like everything else

I’d agree with that assessment, as long as we’re talking about the traditional notion of “free will” rather than just “will”. Humans obviously have will (i.e., a desire and ability to make decisions, which is obviously deterministic in nature). Adding the word “free” to it doesn’t add any sensible meaning.

dv said:

There is a rat on my head making me type this.

I on the other hand have no head.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

There is a rat on my head making me type this.

I on the other hand have no head.

I have no head on my other hand either

Bubblecar said:

I’d agree with that assessment, as long as we’re talking about the traditional notion of “free will” rather than just “will”. Humans obviously have will (i.e., a desire and ability to make decisions, which is obviously deterministic in nature). Adding the word “free” to it doesn’t add any sensible meaning.

I am willing to agree with that assessment.

Except for the suggestion that what we do is deterministic. I think it is near certain that there are significant random elements in our brain processes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

There is a rat on my head making me type this.

I on the other hand have no head.

So would it be ethical to eat you?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d agree with that assessment, as long as we’re talking about the traditional notion of “free will” rather than just “will”. Humans obviously have will (i.e., a desire and ability to make decisions, which is obviously deterministic in nature). Adding the word “free” to it doesn’t add any sensible meaning.

I am willing to agree with that assessment.

Except for the suggestion that what we do is deterministic. I think it is near certain that there are significant random elements in our brain processes.

For mine, this is an unresolved physics question: but either the whole universe is deterministic, or none of it is.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

I’d agree with that assessment, as long as we’re talking about the traditional notion of “free will” rather than just “will”. Humans obviously have will (i.e., a desire and ability to make decisions, which is obviously deterministic in nature). Adding the word “free” to it doesn’t add any sensible meaning.

I am willing to agree with that assessment.

Except for the suggestion that what we do is deterministic. I think it is near certain that there are significant random elements in our brain processes.

There may well be all sorts of factors that are effectively random in relation to our decision-making processes, yes. But “will’ is nonetheless deterministic in its effects. If you decide not to build a house, it doesn’t get built etc.

dv said:

For mine, this is an unresolved physics question: but either the whole universe is deterministic, or none of it is.

When I mentioned “random factors”, I meant “effectively random” in relation to specific effects, not absolutely random.

What though of a creature, like I (or make it a black box if you wish) that attributes significance to the exact details of what motivates to be not completely known, or weights for them only being partly or partially known.

If this I am mostly what I don’t know is or requires a constant effort and it’s a work in progress, that various inexactitudes are a core feature of consciousness (maybe monitoring or awareness of), then can’t consciousness, and free will reside in the work and weightings for that not known or not fully known.

Such questions may be or seem a problem because it or they are viewed wrong.

Take the most apparently simple task of walking a straight line, in which case the objective is to walk a straight line. Really the task is to minimize crookedness, no straightish/straightening can be maintained without deviations to correct from (feedback), so the question I ask: is walking a straight line mostly straightness, or is it nothing more than an act of straightening and the line is in fact never more than crooked. It can be less crooked, but needs be crooked to straighten.

My view on this is that it doesn’t really mean anything.

>If this I am mostly what I don’t know is or requires a constant effort and it’s a work in progress, that various inexactitudes are a core feature of consciousness (maybe monitoring or awareness of), then can’t consciousness, and free will reside in the work and weightings for that not known or not fully known.<

Yes but I’d call it “will”. How would you differentiate “free will” from “will”? The word “free” doesn’t add anything.

We can make decisions in line with various conscious criteria (often factors over which we have little control), and often there’ll be other factors of which we’re not consciously aware (or only partly aware) also contributing to the decision. But the process as a whole is deterministic in nature and deterministic in its effects.

>Yes but I’d call it “will”. How would you differentiate “free will” from “will”? The word “free” doesn’t add anything.

nobody ever said “free” had to peculiarly absolute, and out of this world

transition said:

>Yes but I’d call it “will”. How would you differentiate “free will” from “will”? The word “free” doesn’t add anything.

nobody ever said “free” had to peculiarly absolute, and out of this world

I’m just asking what you would take it to mean in this context, if you think it does actually add some meaning.

I mean I want some fruit now. I’ll go and get some. You could say the same for a bonobo or a bat.

ie that they sometimes want fruit and go and get some. I don’t mean I want a bonobo or a bat.

What are you doing in Florida, Rev?

His proud free will took him to Florida.

> But the process as a whole is deterministic in nature and deterministic in its effects.

…I’d just add that this is obviously the whole point of exercising one’s will – to determine selected consequences.

>I’m just asking what you would take it to mean in this context, if you think it does actually add some meaning.

perhaps not much, it probably has some history in the rhetoric of personal/individual responsibility (ideology inclusive, and morality/ethics). In philosophical discussion, as here in this thread, it’s to do with the bits of magic performed by the black box that can’t be explained by inputs/outputs, and of the internal workings that of the functions that can’t or haven’t yet been explained in terms of mechanisms to whoevers satisfaction.

80% of the magic is probably that most thinking isn’t done in words, and that the array of tools in the cranium resists having too much of it’s activity being forced into words.

I wonder if you asked psychologists/psychiatrists about free will, what would they say.
Psychological profiles seem to negate the idea of free will or perhaps make it a limited free will if such a thing exists

Cymek said:

I wonder if you asked psychologists/psychiatrists about free will, what would they say.
Psychological profiles seem to negate the idea of free will or perhaps make it a limited free will if such a thing exists

Don’t their theories change a lot?

and a lot of their theories are wrong anyway

observations that cannot be repeated or something

if I have will, I didn’t pay for it.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if you asked psychologists/psychiatrists about free will, what would they say.
Psychological profiles seem to negate the idea of free will or perhaps make it a limited free will if such a thing exists

Don’t their theories change a lot?

and a lot of their theories are wrong anyway

observations that cannot be repeated or something

Just put some symbols representing id, ego and super-ego on a circle with arrows showing the flow can be bidirectional along the circle and you’ve got psychiatry licked.

I sometimes think the universe is predetermined

locally we move in a direction towards something

someone is walking towards a future space time,

someone is driving/flying towards a future space time

that future can be only in minutes or hours, after that, days in begin to get unclear

..

later

all the stars will end their process

after that all the black holes will end their process

after that all the atomic particles will cease to move in space

everyone has a different opinion / view on it

More work to do here.

Peak Warming Man said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Cymek said:

I wonder if you asked psychologists/psychiatrists about free will, what would they say.
Psychological profiles seem to negate the idea of free will or perhaps make it a limited free will if such a thing exists

Don’t their theories change a lot?

and a lot of their theories are wrong anyway

observations that cannot be repeated or something

Just put some symbols representing id, ego and super-ego on a circle with arrows showing the flow can be bidirectional along the circle and you’ve got psychiatry licked.

after all that is sorted out then link all that / and all emotions to brain activity patterns/neurons/proteins/chemicals/elements/, the human chemistry that senses and interacts with the environment

Peak Warming Man said:

What are you doing in Florida, Rev?

You should ask John Clark what he is doing in Florida.

Thing about worded constructions to do with mental processses (anything of function, going to mechanisms) is that the tools in the head don’t start with words. It’s easy to be seduced, even unconsciously, into the view, or to act or think as if words (language) are somehow the foundations of whatever computation minds do. Wording things (language) might be accurately said to be powerful, and contribute to thought.

TV, movies, advertizing, the news (too the state apparatus proper) as do so many cultural influences, load messages (in the mode of delivery) with importance of that verbal’s (or written’s) contribution to reality, and are happy to take advantage of the unexplicated reality that not only is language not the origins of the capacity for thought, but too there are limits to its (language’s) healthy imposition.

Imagine someone shoves the term free will in your face, in some context that your busy little mind feels compelled to think in relative terms and examine how free. One could just start with it’s a tiny bit free, to some modest degree and it’s a work in progress. That ought be enough. Why free should mean completely free or mostly free doesn’t make any sense, and is probably an absolute notion, a crazy idealization generated by hyperactive relativism.

Truth be known the most free of will are probably happy accidents, but I’d think retrospect and unconclusion’s contribution to happy accidents’d rate a mention.

The greater part of the evolution of organic live (origins too) were accidental. Happened upon.

derailing the thread some, but maybe’s worth it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_accident

The serendipitous can play an important role in the search for truth, but is often ignored in the scientific literature because of traditional scientific behavior and scientific thinking based on logic and predictability.

Successful researchers can observe scientific results with careful attention to analyzing a phenomenon under the most diverse and different perspectives. They can question themselves on assumptions that do not fit with empirical observations. Realizing that serendipitous events can generate important research ideas, these researchers recognize and appreciate the unexpected, encouraging their assistants to observe and discuss unexpected events.

Serendipity can be achieved in groups where a “critical mass” of multidisciplinary scientists work together in an environment that fosters communication, establishing the idea that the work and the interest of a researcher can be shared with others who may find a new application for new knowledge.

Various thinkers discuss the role that luck can play in science. One aspect of Walpole’s original definition of serendipity, often missed in modern discussions of the word, is the need for an individual to be “sagacious” enough to link together apparently innocuous facts in order to come to a valuable conclusion. Indeed, the scientific method, and the scientists themselves, can be prepared in many other ways to harness luck and make discoveries.

Free will is somewhere between bombng Hiroshima and Germany saying that they will take 800,000n refugees.

Anyway may as well walk the walk.

We propose the following definition of free will: god.

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

this question:

When a chat-bot responds to a question, is it exercising “free will” in the choice of words it uses?

Its choice of words would be determined by the question it’s addressing and its programming instructions and data bank etc.

Human responses can involve many more complicated determining factors.

As I’ve often argued, unless you’re talking about a random selection process, putting the word “free” in front of the word “will” is not very meaningful, as doing something as an act of will usually means doing something for specific reasons, determined by various criteria.

Anyway may as well walk the walk.

We propose the following definition of free will: god.

In case it was not clear, this is an argument by metaphor. We contend that if the concept is isomorphic, then it may as well be the same concept.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

this question:

When a chat-bot responds to a question, is it exercising “free will” in the choice of words it uses?

Sure, whatever

Like applying this same question to humans, it could be answered with a yes or a no.

And then the argument would be interminable.

Yes.

Is that your answer to my question, or an interminable response to MV’s comment?

LOLOL

Yes.

Yes.

Thought so.

Well, we’ve long held that free will is an illusion so we hold to that still.

Here we place the latest context to this age old question.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Propose a test of whether something is an example of free will. If you can’t proprose such a test even in theory then the matter is either arbitrary or subjective.

I suppose we’d have to define “free will” first.

(Unless we chose not to).

Well you’re the one asking the question so the onus is on you.

I suppose if I had just come up with the term “free-will”, which no-one had ever used before, then it would be up to me to define it, but as it is so widely used I think it would be a bit presumptuous for me to impose my definition on everyone else.

Everyone should have the free will to use their own definition.

Well you’re the one asking the question so the onus is on you.

I suppose if I had just come up with the term “free-will”, which no-one had ever used before, then it would be up to me to define it, but as it is so widely used I think it would be a bit presumptuous for me to impose my definition on everyone else.

Everyone should have the free will to use their own definition.

So we agree that almost all conventions are arbitrary.

The discussion also branched to this acknowledgement of truth.

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Kingy said:

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

this question:

When a chat-bot responds to a question, is it exercising “free will” in the choice of words it uses?

No. I am guessing it has a list of instructions in how to use the language. Even if it is AI, it is still following a set of instructions.

I cannot conceive of any human-made machine ever truly having a free will.

There are instances of EEPROMS not doing what was expected, and re-programming themselves randomly.

I would look it up but I’m just about to head in to the outernet.

So what we’re saying is that Homo sapiens sapience is an accident and an error.

Sort of like how humans are born with a set of instructions through their DNA, which are then modified by their interactions with a huge data set.

No. I think that is looking for parallels in completely different things. Argument by metaphor. I don’t think there is any direct correlation between organic DNA-based life and an arrangement of transistors on a wafer of silicon. They are fundamentally different things.

So we’re saying that a mechanical Turing complete machine is fundamentally different to an electronic Turing complete machine is fundamentally different to a photonic Turing complete machine is fundamentally different to an organic Turing complete machine.

Does The Computer Of Theseus Have Free Will ¿

SCIENCE said:

Anyway may as well walk the walk.

We propose the following definition of free will: god.

As SCIENtific definitions go, I’d put that one at the lower end of the quality scale.

bit of an old thread pops up

maybe more freedom is in what is prevented from happening, what did I not do today, intentionally not do, intentionally prevent, what do I inhibit, the inhibitory

what am I doing in or of possibility space when I do that

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Anyway may as well walk the walk.

We propose the following definition of free will: god.

As SCIENtific definitions go, I’d put that one at the lower end of the quality scale.

Oh the qualitative aspect concerns us little; we assert that it is quantitatively accurate¡

	God	Free Will	delta
Truth Value	False	False	0
Created By	Imagination	Imagination	0
Modelled On	Humans	Humans	0
Applies To	Humans	Humans	0
How It Works	Mysterious	Mysterious	0
Physical Evidence Of Existence	0	0	0
Amount Explained By Physics	0	0	0
Claimed Power	+INF	+INF	0
Actual Explanatory Power	0	0	0
Explanatory Domain	All Gaps	All Gaps	0
Used To Excuse Bad Behaviour	True	True	0
Used Instead Of Good Ethics	True	True	0

The Rev Dodgson said:

OCDC said:

captain_spalding said:

Please take a look a this:

Can anyone please explain to me how:

1. we both got one letter of the word on our first try

2. after our second tries, we both had 4 letters ofthe word

3. we both solved it on our third try

but my effort involved ’66 luck’, but the ‘bot’s’ effort was only ’53 luck’?

Free will.

Perhaps because you were lucky to get a letter in the right place on the second try, but the bot wasn’t.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum