Free Will

[Kai]

So, at the essential level it's completely meaningless....

I guess thats the end of the thread then.

[Doktor Howl]

So, at the essential level it's completely meaningless....

I guess thats the end of the thread then.

NO.

STILL POOPING.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

So, at the essential level it's completely meaningless....

I guess thats the end of the thread then.

A lot of this stuff is essentially meaningless. That's one of its upsides. For anything that is essentially meaningless, you can get your flame on with someone else and it won't matter because neither of you can win. For things like this, being right or even making sense is not necessary. It's like daytime television.

[NotPublished]

lol free will.

[LMNO]

Let's assume a deterministic view of the world

I happen to disagree with your premise.  Sorry about that.


Also, what Kai said.  Even if there is determinism, it's at a level so detailed that we cannot see it, and cannot act on it, much in the same way that we know that smoke from a lit cigarette follows Newtonian laws of motion, yet cannot pre-determine it's dissolution.

So, in either situation, the only pragmatic answer is to act as if Free Will exists.

[Cain]

Only if we assume a unitary mind.

If we accept, say, a quasi-Nietzschean view that there are several potential or proto-personalities (at least in some people) you could have several conflicting free wills.

Also, there are some serious logic problems with positing free will, because it essentially suggests a mind that is free from the processes of the rest of the Universe.  If anyone could make that convincing, I'd be interested, but I doubt anyone could do it.

And, like Kai says, does it really matter?

[Elder Iptuous]

Let's assume a deterministic view of the world

I happen to disagree with your premise.  Sorry about that.


Also, what Kai said.  Even if there is determinism, it's at a level so detailed that we cannot see it, and cannot act on it, much in the same way that we know that smoke from a lit cigarette follows Newtonian laws of motion, yet cannot pre-determine it's dissolution.

So, in either situation, the only pragmatic answer is to act as if Free Will exists.

further, like Wolfram showed with his cellular automata, you can have a system with terribly simple rules operating and an entirely visible and deterministic level that yields infinite complexity, and yet is not able to be predicted (determine a future state) by any other means that actually running the system. 

[Cain]

Just because something is non-deterministic doesn't mean free will exists.  Lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could alternatively be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity.  It doesn't mean your actions weren't pre-determined through a causal chain of events.

[Doktor Howl]

I'M STILL POOMPING!

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Only if we assume a unitary mind.

If we accept, say, a quasi-Nietzschean view that there are several potential or proto-personalities (at least in some people) you could have several conflicting free wills.

If you model it in terms of agency, only those actions taken by the agent indicate its will. The only difference between free will and determinism in such a model is whether or not, given the precise circumstances in which some action was taken, the set of all potential actions is bigger than the set of all taken actions. In a fully deterministic universe, the answer would be 'no'. In a nondeterministic universe, the exact same circumstances (far beyond the best possible measurements), we could have entirely different outcomes, without even a hidden variable.

The stopping problem does not indicate free will per-se, but it indicates the type of entity for which in of itself it could not (if capable of sentience and sapience) determine whether or not it had free will, because it could not simulate its actions with fewer steps than actually doing them.

[Triple Zero]

Cain that's interesting. Cause my personal "solution" to Free Will has always been this complexity thing.

Like in the Illuminatus Trilogy, one explanation on the symbology of the Eye in the Pyramid is "the universe looking at itself", as a metaphor for self-consciousness.

Because of complexity, it can be shown that certain systems (like smoke, fluid dynamics and of course life itself) are beyond any imaginable or theoretical information processing system, save the system itself. So, perfect simulation and/or prediction is impossible.
There is a theoretical upper bound on information processing capability/speed, and it's to do with the energy required to twiddle just one bit of information. Turns out that these chaotic systems are so explosively exponential in required computing power that soon you'll need amounts of energy on the scale of supernovae or matter-energy conversion of solar systems and such.

In other words, yes there are some hard limits to predictability, and no this is not a case of "but maybe in 100 years we can build computers powerful enough".

However, Cain, you are right in the sense that the correlation or implication between lack of predictability and Free Will may not really be there. Usually my discussions on Free Will didnt get as far

But even if it's not a clear argument for free will, lack of predictability even in the light of determinism, is a somewhat comforting thought to me

[Elder Iptuous]

But even if it's not a clear argument for free will, lack of predictability even in the light of determinism, is a somewhat comforting thought to me

This! that's where i found peace and stopped thinking about it....

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the argument is a misnomer.

It really boils down to the most basic question "If I have a choice between X and Y, can I make any choice other than the one I make?" Obviously the answer is "That's stupid, quit smoking so much pot." Of course, if we call it Free Will then its a legitimate line of inquiry.

In my opinion, human make decisions based on a whole complex system of interacting processes.

First, you have their initial hardware state... does their brain function or malfunction in some way that will impact their decision making process.
Second, you have the programming/training/experiences that they have growing up, as perceived through their neurological system. Which of course, is modified by the hardware.
Third, you have whatever training/experiences etc that they have once they've grown up... again modified by the first and second bits.

And all of that is getting real time feedback from the rest of the observable/interactive bits of the Universe

Do humans have choices? Of course, and they will make the choice that mostly closely aligns with their ((education* training*experiences*perceptions*programming)* external influences)*hardware

When people make decisions that are not in line with their training/education/social programming etc... we generally send them to see a doctor because we think that something is wrong with their head.

The argument of Free Will is just a load of Theistic bullshit.

The argument of determinism is likewise bullshit... because we cannot determine how all that shit is gonna work together until it does... if quantum mechanics are anything other than a fairy tale, then repeating the exact moment of the decision might result in some different decision. Doesn't make it Free Will... doesn't make it determinism....

its just Life.

[LMNO]

I think a much more interesting question is:


DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think a much more interesting question is:


DO PEOPLE MAKE EASILY PREDICTABLE DECISIONS?

I agree...

and I think, given enough data points and historic information, they probably do make easily predictable decisions... most, but not all,  of the time.