Originally posted by wildgrassBut now you appear to contradict yourself so please clarify the below; ( Incidentally; thank you for answering the question. Much appreciated. I will try my very best to try and answer any questions you may have for me in return )
No.
You say;
1, 'free will' means "the ability to make decisions",
Have I got that correct?
and I say
2, An AI can (and sometimes does) have "the ability to make decisions",
Do you agree that is correct? (you didn't appear to disagree with that at all but that doesn't mean you must agree so, just checking)
So,
3; deduced from 1 and 2 above;
An AI can (and sometimes does) fit the definition of having 'free will' as "the ability to make decisions".
Do you agree that 3 is also correct i.e. a correct inference from 1 and 2?
Have I got that all the above correct so far?
If so, your answer of "No" contradicts 3 above, correct?
If you agree with 1 and 2 and 3 above and you still say such an AI has NO 'free will', that is contradicting yourself, correct?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes this is where we disagree. As an outsider looking in (at the brain), these free will arguments can't progress beyond philosophy and belief until we know the mechanisms. Once we understand the mechanisms of thinking, memory and consciousness, however, we can begin to dissect how the moving parts fit into a larger view of conscious decision making, and which models make sense to explain it. Philosophers say stuff like "aha that sandy beach is just matter observing physical laws. So are we. Therefore our brains must be following deterministic rules, and their behaviors must be predictable. Alas sand can't think, or learn, or think about thinking. We make decisions but sand doesn't. What is the difference? Free will. Does sand have free will too?" This argument goes in circles absent a mechanism.
My disagreement was specifically on the topic of whether or not studying the exact mechanics of the brain had any bearing on the discussion of free will.
[b]To me, since "determinism" cannot be proven, it is a mostly pointless philosophy concept from a scientific standpoint. You seem to agree.
It cannot be disproven either, so I think it is worth ...[text shortened]... [/b]
Well you obviously haven't studied the topic. Don't declare something unknown till you do.[/b]
From the inside looking out though, it's more obvious. We do make decisions. If we believed that determinism (or anything else) could replace the concept of free will, wouldn't we all just stay in place (or in our parents' basements) while the universe decided whether we should walk left or right? The free will part is where the decision is made by the individual.
p.s. The comment about "potential future outcomes" was made to highlight the fact that our imaginative brains think about future scenarios (things that will not happen) and use these scenarios to aid in decision making. Back to Bob Frost's famous decision, he rationalized it based on a conversation at a fictional future cocktail party where he lies about the decisive cause. These figments can't be deterministic causes since they are unlikely to happen, and if they do happen they will occur after the effect.
Originally posted by humyIt is not a contradiction if you infer that the AI is an extension of your own free will.
But now you appear to contradict yourself so please clarify the below; ( Incidentally; thank you for answering the question. Much appreciated. I will try my very best to try and answer any questions you may have for me in return )
You say;
1, 'free will' means "the ability to make decisions",
Have I got that correct?
and I say
2, An AI can (and ...[text shortened]... above and you still say such an AI has NO 'free will', that is contradicting yourself, correct?
Originally posted by wildgrassI don't infer that and don't even know what that is supposed to mean nor where you got that from.
It is not a contradiction if you infer that the AI is an extension of your own free will.
And what you have said is clearly a contradiction.
When will you explain to us how it is NOT a contradiction?
Is proposition 1 wrong? or is proposition 2 wrong?, or is proposition 3 wrong? if none wrong, how can your answer of "no" to AI having 'free will' NOT contradict 3? Explain...
You did actually bother to READ those propositions, right?
The logical propositions are;
1, 'free will' means "the ability to make decisions", (this is YOUR assertion, not mine)
2, An AI can (and sometimes does) have "the ability to make decisions", (this is a trivial scientific fact)
3; Therefore, an AI can (and sometimes does) fit the definition of having 'free will' as "the ability to make decisions".
-and you contradict that by saying AI has NO 'free will' thus contradicting 3.
Originally posted by wildgrassWell given that 'free will' is very much a either a philosophical concept or a religious belief, that seems entirely appropriate. The exact workings of the brain may rule out certain things, but the reality is that we already know enough to rule out most religious claims on the topic, and we will never know enough to rule out some philosophical issues with the topic. I completely fail to see how understanding more about the brain will change either of those aspects in any way whatsoever.
Yes this is where we disagree. As an outsider looking in (at the brain), these free will arguments can't progress beyond philosophy and belief until we know the mechanisms.
Philosophers say stuff like "aha that sandy beach is just matter observing physical laws. So are we. Therefore our brains must be following deterministic rules, and their behaviors must be predictable.
I don't know where you found those philosophers, but they clearly aren't much good. There is no good reason to think that sand on the beach follows fully deterministic rules or is in any way predictable. In fact, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would seem to have ruled that out back in 1927.
Alas sand can't think, or learn, or think about thinking.
Are you sure? Google 'memory sand'.
We make decisions but sand doesn't. What is the difference? Free will.
Er, no. There is a lot more to it than that.
Does sand have free will too?" This argument goes in circles absent a mechanism.
No, it goes in circles absent clear definitions.
From the inside looking out though, it's more obvious. We do make decisions.
But what do you really mean by that? At first I thought our definitions were similar, but it is becoming increasingly clear that they are not. You seem to rule out the brain using deterministic processes to make decisions. Is that so?
If we believed that determinism (or anything else) could replace the concept of free will, wouldn't we all just stay in place (or in our parents' basements) while the universe decided whether we should walk left or right?
I strongly recommend you never study philosophy as it will drive you mad. But to answer your question, no, we would not just stay in place in our parent's basements. That makes no actual sense as a response to the discovery that we are deterministic.
The free will part is where the decision is made by the individual.
And it can be made in one of three possible ways:
1. Entirely deterministic.
2. Partly deterministic and partly random.
3. Entirely random.
Knowing more about how the brain works will not change those options nor solve any of the questions you imply it will solve. In fact I get the impression you wish to believe something and don't want science getting in the way of that belief so you wish to claim that science simply doesn't know enough on the topic yet to harm your belief.
p.s. The comment about "potential future outcomes" was made to highlight the fact that our imaginative brains think about future scenarios (things that will not happen) and use these scenarios to aid in decision making.
You said
How about decisions that involve potential future outcomes? How can it be predetermined by the immutable laws of physics if the event didn't happen?
Now I know that our brains can imagine future scenarios that won't happen. But a computer can do that to. That doesn't make those imaginary future scenarios predetermined, so I still fail to see what you were getting at but let me take a stab at it.
I think you are saying that if a brain looks at a decision it is trying to make and says 'A will result in B and C will result in D and I prefer B over D so I will chose A', then this rules out determinism somehow. I say that no, that doesn't follow. A provably deterministic computer program is capable of exactly the same reasoning.
Back to Bob Frost's famous decision, he rationalized it based on a conversation at a fictional future cocktail party where he lies about the decisive cause. These figments can't be deterministic causes since they are unlikely to happen, and if they do happen they will occur after the effect.
I am afraid I am not familiar with the reference to Bob Frost. Do you have a link?
What is the difference between a CD with Mozart's Eine Kleine Nacht Musik on it, and a CD with Led Zeppelin III on it? Analyze the chemical components of those two CDs down to the last molecule, and you will find no difference. Plastic and some ink on top, that's it. In terms of chemical components, they are identical. The difference is in the information encoded on the two CDs, not in their chemical composition.
So how is the informaton encoded? In the form of holes burned into the surface. So now, tell me, what is the chemical composition of a hole??
As Norbert Wiener famously said, information is negative entropy. Or, to put it another way, information is non-causal. And therein lies the crux of the biscuit about the mind/body problem and freewill. A thing can be a different kind of thing without being a different thing. The difference between Mozart's music and Led Zeppelin's (i.e., information) is a different kind thing than a plastic disk, without necessarily being a different thing than a plastic disk. Similarly, the mind is a different kind of thing than the brain without being a different thing than the brain.
Or, to give the metaphor a local significance: what is the difference between a piece of wood and a pawn? In one sense, the material sense, there is none. But consider this: a pawn need not be a piece of wood; it can also be a piece of plastic, or a pattern of rgb pixels on a monitor, because what is essential to being a pawn is not its chemical composition, not its material. Pieces of wood and plastic are subject to material laws (thermodynamics, entropy, gravitation, electro-magnetism, etc. etc.), whereas a pawn is subject to an entirely different kind of laws (it can move forwards one or two squares on the first move, thereafter only one move, it takes on the diagonal, etc. etc.). The one sort of law does not eliminate or 'trump' the other sort. They apply in two different categories.
Checkmate is a non-causal event. The pieces of wood which happen to be pawns and rooks and kings could be taken apart down to the last quarks and muons, but you would never find "checkmate" there. Checkmate is subject to laws of chess, not laws of thermodynamics, gravitation, electro-magnetism, etc.
To argue that because the brain is a deterministic bundle of physical causes (e.g. chemical reactions), therefore there is no freewill, is analogous to arguing that because a piece of wood or plastic is subject to physical laws (causality, gravitation, electromagnetism, etc, etc.), therefore a chess player is not free to play a pawn to e4 rather than d4, is a category mistake. An elementary logical blunder. It is equivalent to claiming that there is no difference between Mozart and Led Zeppelin because there is no difference between the chemicals of a Mozart CD and the chemicals of a Led Zeppelin CD (or the chemicals of sheet music, if the music happens to be encoded this way rather than on a CD).
Keep the logical categories distinct and the mind/body problem disappears.
Originally posted by humyThe inference to me seems obvious. The cause-effect relationship from your creation of the ability of the AI to make decision is clear and well-defined. It obeys your commands only because you bestowed it upon the AI. Our ability to make decisions does not seem to operate that way (unless you believe our free will was created). Our ability to make decisions requires consciousness. A conscious computer might change my opinion here.
I don't infer that and don't even know what that is supposed to mean nor where you got that from.
And what you have said is clearly a contradiction.
When will you explain to us how it is NOT a contradiction?
Is proposition 1 wrong? or is proposition 2 wrong?, or is proposition 3 wrong? if none wrong, how can your answer of "no" to AI having 'free will' NOT c ...[text shortened]... ke decisions".
-and you contradict that by saying AI has NO 'free will' thus contradicting 3.
Of my own free will, I admit that the definition of free will as "the ability to make decisions" can be problematic. I admit to the contradiction by your strict logical formula. But the distinction between human- and computer-based decision making seems glaringly apparent, as decision making is an aspect of our consciousness. Do you think machines and humans, each having the ability to make decision, operate in the same way? Do you think free can be created?