Problem about free will

[Greatest I am]

Regardless of who or what the entity is, if it shows will and motion or decision, and it will or it will likely die, we are forced to say that it is his free will causing the motion, unless we can point to some other entity that is manipulating it.

This explanation applies to SO MANY THINGS that we don't attribute "free will" to. Chatbots exhibit behavior that could be explained exactly by this... and they're not even alive. They show will, [e]motion, and decision [making ability] (I'm assuming this is what you meant). They will "die" someday. So, apparently, you're forced to say that chatbots have free will?

For instance. If I say that it was not your free will that caused you to post, then I would have to name the will that manipulated you.

This is nonsense. There is no manipulation by another will, because there is no "other will." (I'm over-simplifying the position for brevity).

But, you're claiming there is a supernatural soul beyond your physical body ("biological computer plus sentience"). This is what you're being challenged to demonstrate (that sentience isn't a part of the biological computer). And of course your response is that this isn't measurable or falsifiable, so it can't be demonstrated.

So now we're talking past each other.

I have no supernatural belief and if you saw a claim of such then you do not read well.

Get the quote where I make such a claim and I will help your vision.

That or just take my little test and prove your own free will.

Regards
DL

[speising]

A chatbot could start its next post with an "I". A sufficiently advanced one could do so even in response to your post. (instead of by chance)
Yet I refuse to believe it has free will.

[Zohar]

Right, well, if you're not going to actually talk about the issues we're discussing and only dictate your rules on how the conversation should flow, frankly that's not a conversation I'm interested in having.

[Trebla]

I have no supernatural belief and if you saw a claim of such then you do not read well.

Get the quote where I make such a claim and I will help your vision.

I gave you the quote where you claimed supernatural belief... I'll give it to you again.

we can see our brains as a biological computer plus sentience

If sentience is not part of your brain (or body more accurately... if you think it comes from the stomach, though, then we're not even speaking the same language), then it comes from a supernatural source. Whether you call this a "soul" or a "mind" is irrelevant.

[Greatest I am]

A chatbot could start its next post with an "I". A sufficiently advanced one could do so even in response to your post. (instead of by chance)
Yet I refuse to believe it has free will.

I do not know if a bot could do so or not but if it did, it would still be ignoring it's programming or not depending on the complexity.

I do not think you or I can say what a bot is capable of until we find a good one.

We can know, if a human takes my little test, that he or she is allowing me to manipulate their will which of course would show that they do have a free will.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Right, well, if you're not going to actually talk about the issues we're discussing and only dictate your rules on how the conversation should flow, frankly that's not a conversation I'm interested in having.

That has been apparent. You do not like that I lead, and will not play unless you lead.

The fact that you refuse says that you have a free will to not play.

Regards
DL

[Trebla]

I do not know if a bot could do so or not but if it did, it would still be ignoring it's programming or not depending on the complexity.

I do not think you or I can say what a bot is capable of until we find a good one.

Emphasis added by me... can you give me any explanation of how a computer can ignore its programming?

You can certainly find chat bots capable of chatting with you. There are many, many, many available to converse with freely online.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote="Greatest I am"]
I have no supernatural belief and if you saw a claim of such then you do not read well.

Get the quote where I make such a claim and I will help your vision.

I gave you the quote where you claimed supernatural belief... I'll give it to you again.

we can see our brains as a biological computer plus sentience

I do not know how you get a supernatural belief out of that.

We can indeed see our brains as biological computers as many in scientific circles do and we are certainly sentient.

If sentience is not part of your brain (or body more accurately... if you think it comes from the stomach, though, then we're not even speaking the same language), then it comes from a supernatural source. Whether you call this a "soul" or a "mind" is irrelevant.

[/quote]

Without our brains and the minds they produce, our bodies may as well be vegetables.

I see that you are the one suggesting something supernatural. Not I.

Regards
DL

[ucim]

an "I"

And I do get the irony.

Your turn. Prove you are serious about having a discussion by actually making sense.

Regardless of who or what the entity is, if it shows will and motion or decision, and it will or it will likely die, we are forced to say that it is his free will causing the motion, unless we can point to some other entity that is manipulating it.

If, despite no other entity manipulating it, it is merely "following its programming" (organic or digital, doesn't matter), does it have free will?

And what does dying have to do with it?

Jose

[Greatest I am]

I do not know if a bot could do so or not but if it did, it would still be ignoring it's programming or not depending on the complexity.

I do not think you or I can say what a bot is capable of until we find a good one.

Emphasis added by me... can you give me any explanation of how a computer can ignore its programming?

.

A computer replying by my request is likely going against it's programming as that programming would likely have an answer of it's own to give. If complex enough, it might be able to incorporate my request into it's answer.

Note here that my request and test has yet to be taken and that would indicate, more than anything, that some here are bots who cannot get past their programming.

Not that I think any here are bots but you people can't seem to get past your biological programming and just fill my request and thus prove you have free wills.

This happens with almost everyone I test, --- showing just how strange human minds are.

It is like humans want to deny their free will.

Oh well. Perhaps those who wrote the Eden myth were correct to show Adam as blaming everyone he could for his actions instead of just taking the heat. Seems most here would rather blame a lack of free will.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

an "I"

And I do get the irony.

Your turn. Prove you are serious about having a discussion by actually making sense.

??

Are you saying you jut did a senseless thing?

Or did you just prove to yourself that you actually have a free will.

I did note that you played around a bit and did not start your post with "I" but with an "an".

I will let it pass though as I think you had the right thing in mind.

Regardless of who or what the entity is, if it shows will and motion or decision, and it will or it will likely die, we are forced to say that it is his free will causing the motion, unless we can point to some other entity that is manipulating it.

If, despite no other entity manipulating it, it is merely "following its programming" (organic or digital, doesn't matter), does it have free will?

And what does dying have to do with it?

Jose

I was thinking at both the micro and macro levels to prove my point to myself.

Take an ameba at the one extreme and a human at the other.

If an ameba, with it's simple system as compared to ours, had to wait for some other free willed entity to move it towards food, and that entity forgot about it, it would just lay there and die as it would not have the free will to move about searching out food.

That logic seems to hold up and it is easily transposed to a more complex mind like ours.

Regards
DL

[Sizik]

We can know, if a human takes my little test, that he or she is allowing me to manipulate their will which of course would show that they do have a free will.

The fact that you refuse says that you have a free will to not play.

If an experiment can't fail, it's not a very good experiment.

[Greatest I am]

We can know, if a human takes my little test, that he or she is allowing me to manipulate their will which of course would show that they do have a free will.

The fact that you refuse says that you have a free will to not play.

If an experiment can't fail, it's not a very good experiment.

That or it proves the concept.

Repeatability is the scientific method so I do not know why you would reject it.

Regards
DL

[SecondTalon]

That has been apparent. You do not like that I lead, and will not play unless you lead.

The fact that you refuse says that you have a free will to not play.

Regards
DL

True story - if you refuse to play by the rules, re:double posting, I'm going to ban you.

Am I excercising free will in doing so? Or are you merely forcing a behavior on me, removing my choice in the matter?

It's a shame you won't be around to debate it, should you continue.

.... or does that mean you too have lost your free will and are now playing a part in a game that I have created, the "Will Greatest I am ban themselves" game?

I've already removed your free will in the choice of playing that game. We are. Your options are to stop double posting, double-post and get banned, or stop posting altogether in a "taking your ball and going home" move?

Regardless of your stance, either use your free will to make a choice, or hurry up with your predestined path so I can do something more entertaining with my time.

[Greatest I am]

That has been apparent. You do not like that I lead, and will not play unless you lead.

The fact that you refuse says that you have a free will to not play.

Regards
DL

True story - if you refuse to play by the rules, re:double posting, I'm going to ban you.

Am I excercising free will in doing so? Or are you merely forcing a behavior on me, removing my choice in the matter?

It's a shame you won't be around to debate it, should you continue.

.... or does that mean you too have lost your free will and are now playing a part in a game that I have created, the "Will Greatest I am ban themselves" game?

I've already removed your free will in the choice of playing that game. We are. Your options are to stop double posting, double-post and get banned, or stop posting altogether in a "taking your ball and going home" move?

Regardless of your stance, either use your free will to make a choice, or hurry up with your predestined path so I can do something more entertaining with my time.

I only answer once to a poster, per post, so I am not sure what you mean by double posting.

There is no multi-post function so you cannot be referring to that so please indicate what you mean.

Regards
DL

[timrem]

I only answer once to a poster, per post, so I am not sure what you mean by double posting.

There is no multi-post function so you cannot be referring to that so please indicate what you mean.

Regards
DL

If you are the last person to have posted in a topic, do not create a new post in that topic; doing so is double-posting. Instead, if you have other responses to make or anything else to say, edit your latest post to add those comments, or include them before submitting it.

See The Rules, #7.

[Trebla]

Your little test is meaningless. You make a prediction that is inevitable (and if you were paying attention, you would notice posts that already started with the letter 'I') and then say when it's fulfilled, it proves something unrelated.

How about this... you're now playing a game with me. The fact that I'm posting this means you MUST be playing because of the way the game is defined. Even if you don't read this, you're still playing:
Premise: You will post again on this forum (Notice this is not even inevitable... I could just as easily say the sun will rise tomorrow and you must stop it to prove you have fee will)
Result: You posted because I forced you to by introducing the game.
Conclusion: You've proven you don't have free will because you were incapable of exercising free will by not posting

I do not know how you get a supernatural belief out of that.

We can indeed see our brains as biological computers as many in scientific circles do and we are certainly sentient.
...snip...
Without our brains and the minds they produce, our bodies may as well be vegetables.
I see that you are the one suggesting something supernatural. Not I.

So you're saying that you have a brain which controls your actions. And you also claim to have a magical disembodied consciousness which can control your name using _______________ (magic?) that is completely separate from your brain and body. And I'm the one suggesting something supernatural?

The problem here is that you're Not Even Wrong. You don't even seem to understand what you mean when you say "free will" and "sentience" (of which we've been very forgiving since you actually mean "sapience").

A computer replying by my request is likely going against it's programming as that programming would likely have an answer of it's own to give. If complex enough, it might be able to incorporate my request into it's answer.

This is illogical nonsense. Explain HOW a computer can possibly go against its programming. Be technical, we will understand. The fact that you're using this phrase in the first place makes it obvious you don't understand how computers work, though.

Oh wait... you can't answer any of this because it would prove that you participated in the test and don't have free will. Of course, if you don't answer, it proves that I was able to make you not answer and ALSO proves that you lack free will. I hope you're beginning to understand the absurdity.

[ucim]

Are you saying you jut did a senseless thing?

No, I'm saying you did. But it's probably not your fault; it's just your programming.

I did note that you played around a bit and did not start your post with "I" but with an "an".

I followed directions. I started the post, as you requested, with an "I". A sufficiently clever bot could have done this too.

Spoiler:

I get robocalls from bots that control speech synthesizers or recordings. They are not nearly as clever as chatbots; I ask them "how much is three plus seven" and get an answer like "Ok, I'll call back when he's available". Obviously the bot couldn't understand the question, and didn't have an appropriate response. But they will get better.

Later I asked what dying had to do with it. Your response did have the word "die" in it, but it didn't answer the question at all.

Besides, amoebas do seek food by moving around. But moving around is hardly evidence of free will. If you were disabled (quadraplegic), and had to be moved around by other people, would you no longer have free will? I'm sure you'd still want stuff; you'd just be incapable of getting it. Come to think of it, there's stuff I want too, that I can't get, and I can move about freely.

Again, what happens when you look closer? Does an answering machine have free will? It does make choices, does it not? How about a more sophisticated answering machine, one that looks up caller ID and figures out who's calling, compares it with their database of callers (and problem callers), checks the databases of purchases, health issues, financial records, and zip codes, to figure out what priority to give the call, and whether or not to shunt it to this message, that message, this department, or elsewhere?

Jose

[Greatest I am]

I only answer once to a poster, per post, so I am not sure what you mean by double posting.

There is no multi-post function so you cannot be referring to that so please indicate what you mean.

Regards
DL

If you are the last person to have posted in a topic, do not create a new post in that topic; doing so is double-posting. Instead, if you have other responses to make or anything else to say, edit your latest post to add those comments, or include them before submitting it.

See The Rules, #7.

IOW, I have to create a multi-quote function that is not supplied by the program here. Ok.

---------------------------

Trebla

"Your little test is meaningless."

No. It shows that one can give up his free will to answer as they normally would to answer as I ask. Take it and see that this is a truth.

"And you also claim to have a magical disembodied consciousness which can control your name using _______________ (magic?)"

I never made such a claim. Get the quote where you think I did.

-----------------------

ucim

" If you were disabled (quadraplegic), and had to be moved around by other people, would you no longer have free will?

The free will is still present. Just not the capability.

All of our free wills are all restricted by the laws of nature, physics and the possible.

"Besides, amoebas do seek food by moving around. But moving around is hardly evidence of free will."

So what, if not their will, is making them move?

Regards
DL

[speising]

Actually, it is.
Pro-tip:
On the post-composition page, there are the previous posts of the thread visible below. You can click on the quote button on any of them to insert a quote in the post you are currently writing.

[Greatest I am]

Actually, it is.
Pro-tip:
On the post-composition page, there are the previous posts of the thread visible below. You can click on the quote button on any of them to insert a quote in the post you are currently writing.

Ah. Thanks for the hint.

I will try that next time instead of the poor rendition above.

Regards
DL

[speising]

"Besides, amoebas do seek food by moving around. But moving around is hardly evidence of free will."

So what, if not their will, is making them move?

Regards
DL

Instinct. Or chemistry.

I think the core problem here is, as so often in philosophical discussions, one of definitions.
Please, define "will" and "free".
The answer to the question of the existence of "free will" may well fall out directly from these definitions.

[Trebla]

Trebla

"Your little test is meaningless."
No. It shows that one can give up his free will to answer as they normally would to answer as I ask. Take it and see that this is a truth.

You have now taken the test to prove you do not possess free will, I guess we're done here?

"And you also claim to have a magical disembodied consciousness which can control your name using _______________ (magic?)"
I never made such a claim. Get the quote where you think I did.

I've quoted it twice for you now. Every time you've ignored it. You've also failed to explain how a computer could "ignore its programming" or any indication that you understand what that abomination of a phrase actually means.

Third time's a charm?

we can see our brains as a biological computer plus sentience

If "sentience" is not output from/part of the computer, what is it?

As speising has again pointed out, you (GIA) don't seem to understand what you mean when you use the phrase "free will." You've given several examples of things you call free will, but some of them are blatantly mechanical/chemical reactions that no reasonable understanding of "free will" would apply to.

[Greatest I am]

"Besides, amoebas do seek food by moving around. But moving around is hardly evidence of free will."

So what, if not their will, is making them move?

Regards
DL

Instinct. Or chemistry.

I think the core problem here is, as so often in philosophical discussions, one of definitions.
Please, define "will" and "free".
The answer to the question of the existence of "free will" may well fall out directly from these definitions.

I can live with Webster's definitions I am not creating new terms and those are fairly well described.

"Instinct. Or chemistry."

That is exactly what guides us as well so my analogy is sound.

I do think that with our larger brains, we can put words to our instincts better than amoebas though.

This link shows how our instincts help push us and our wills to a best survival method of thought. The young may have to follow those instincts but I do not think adults do. By the time we grow up, we have developed many biases that likely come into play to disrupt our pure instinctual actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY

we can see our brains as a biological computer plus sentience

If "sentience" is not output from/part of the computer, what is it?

sen·tience
n.
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.

2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

Do you see a computer as a conscious entity and able to have thoughts and feelings?

Regards
DL

[Trebla]

If "sentience" is not output from/part of the computer, what is it?

...snip irrelevant dictionary definition that dodged the question...

Do you see a computer as a conscious entity and able to have thoughts and feelings?

Yes. Absolutely. And if you don't see it as output from/an integral part of the biological computer which we call the brain, what is it?

[ucim]

The free will [in a quadraplegic] is still present. Just not the capability.

Ok.

So what, if not their will, is making them move?

I have an answer for that, but I'd prefer the Socratic approach here. What, if not its free will, makes an answering machine answer a phone? Same question for a more complicated answering machine that only answers phone calls that meet certain criteria.

I think the core problem here is, as so often in philosophical discussions, one of definitions.
Please, define "will" and "free".

Actually, I think the relevant definition is that of the entity being purported to have free will. The "George" in the question "Does George have free will?", because "George" is not a point source.

The young may have to follow those instincts but I do not think adults do.

Instinct is just a mechanism. Mechanisms become more complex as we grow up, but they do not cease to become just mechanisms.

BTW, there are two pre-existing threads about this; one more philosophically focused, the other focused on AI. Many of these points have come up, and it would be worth reviewing them.

And another compositional hint - in the "compose message" window, you can scroll down to a prior post, select text in it, and then hit its quote button. The selected text will be pasted in at your cursor location as a quote. But note that formatting and quote reference is not properly codified, so some post editing may be required.

You can also (as I am doing) compose by hand, manually inserting the proper BBcode tags for quoting and formatting. You can see what they are by clicking the EDIT button on one of your existing posts, and examining the resulting text in the edit window.

Jose

[Greatest I am]

If "sentience" is not output from/part of the computer, what is it?

...snip irrelevant dictionary definition that dodged the question...

Do you see a computer as a conscious entity and able to have thoughts and feelings?

Yes. Absolutely. And if you don't see it as output from/an integral part of the biological computer which we call the brain, what is it?

I was talking a non-biological computer. Not a biological one, obviously.

-----------

ucim

"What, if not its free will, makes an answering machine answer a phone?"

It's program.

If it was not slaved to it's program and had a free will, it would be able to decide, if not in the mood, to ignore the call.

Regards
DL

[elasto]

I was talking a non-biological computer. Not a biological one, obviously.

What difference does it make? Unless you think there's something magical about neurons there's no reason an answerphone couldn't be created from neurons, and no reason your particular arrangement of neurons couldn't be emulated on a computer.

If you think you have free will - and with appropriate definitions you do - so can a computer.

[Greatest I am]

I was talking a non-biological computer. Not a biological one, obviously.

What difference does it make? Unless you think there's something magical about neurons there's no reason an answerphone couldn't be created from neurons, and no reason your particular arrangement of neurons couldn't be emulated on a computer.

If you think you have free will - and with appropriate definitions you do - so can a computer.

That is not a demonstrable claim.

Have you ever seen a computer refuse to do as directed?

Compare that to a child in his or her terrible two's.

A child exhibits freedom of choice and free will while a computer does not.

Regards
DL

[ucim]

Have you ever seen a computer refuse to do as directed?

All the time. You must not work with computers much.

What, if not its free will, makes an answering machine answer a phone?"

It's Its program. (FTFY)

Ok then. What makes a person decide not to answer the phone? I say, as you do above, "its program". People have programs too; they are just much more complex. (They are asynchronous finite state machines, to be precise, whereas most PCs are synchronous machines. Both types count as computers.) What makes an amoeba decide to move towards something or away from it? Also its program.

If [the answering machine] was not slaved to it's program and had a free will, it would be able to decide, if not in the mood, to ignore the call.

And how, pray tell, would it "decide"? What mechanism would it use?

Jose

[Greatest I am]

[

quote="Greatest I am"]Have you ever seen a computer refuse to do as directed?

All the time. You must not work with computers much.

Inability or a glitch is not the same as refusing to do what it was programmed to do.

What, if not its free will, makes an answering machine answer a phone?"

It's Its program. (FTFY)

Ok then. What makes a person decide not to answer the phone?

I cannot speak for others but mood or just doing something I think more important are two scenarios.

I say, as you do above, "its program". People have programs too; they are just much more complex. (They are asynchronous finite state machines, to be precise, whereas most PCs are synchronous machines. Both types count as computers.) What makes an amoeba decide to move towards something or away from it? Also its program.

Point to you. One caveat. We can choose to ignore our program and do something else. Think of a hero who knows he will die if he goes against his instincts and program that wants him to survive, and gives up his life for another.

If [the answering machine] was not slaved to it's program and had a free will, it would be able to decide, if not in the mood, to ignore the call.

And how, pray tell, would it "decide"? What mechanism would it use?

Jose

As indicated, it cannot because it is slaved to it's program.

Regards
DL

[ucim]

Inability or a glitch is not the same as refusing to do what it was programmed to do.

A glitch is exactly the same as refusing to do what it was programmed to do. I suppose you could argue that it was improperly programmed, and it is obeying its improper programming, but then the same happens with people too.

I cannot speak for others but mood or just doing something I think more important are two scenarios.

A computer-controlled answering machine could also have something it thinks is more important; task prioritization happens all the time. As to mood, that's just a state in a finite state machine. It's part of your program. You are following your programming, no matter what mood you are in.

We can choose to ignore our program and do something else. Think of a hero who knows he will die if he goes against his instincts and program that wants him to survive, and gives up his life for another.

That hero is following his programming. He was brought up in such a way, his life experiences programmed him to act in such a way (yes, we are heuristically programmed), but in the end, it's all on rails.

Spoiler:

That's not to say that it's predetermined; that's a whole 'nother question. The point is that there is a mechanism, and he's following it.

A person's "programming" is much more than base instinct. In a little more detail, there are many independent "agents" (small asynchronous parallel programs) running around in everyone's mind, and they compete for dominance. The situation determines in part which agents gain power over muscles and such. Growing up is a process of having these agents created, and nurturing them. But they are the programming.

As indicated, it cannot because it is slaved to it's program.

As indicated, it is not. Your premise, beginning with the word "If": "If [the answering machine] was not slaved to it's program and had a free will, it would be able to decide, if not in the mood, to ignore the call." I asked In that case, how would it decide? Responding "that case doesn't exist" negates all the logic of your prior response.

Jose

[Greatest I am]

Proof is in the doing.

When I find a bot that will let it's will be subordinate to mine the way humans can, then we might have something to show that you are correct.

Life and nature program us with free will and the freedom to choose. The computers we build have no life and the choices they make our ones we tell them to make.

Although, I have heard that they have switches that have more function than on and off.
I am not well versed enough to speak to them.

If an A I could do what we do in terms of thought, they would not be trying to integrate human brain cells into them. They would not be necessary.

Regards
DL

[ucim]

When I find a bot that will let it's its will be subordinate to mine the way humans can, then we might have something to show that you are correct.

FTFYA

Are you using your free will to mangle that word, or are you simply following a glitch in your programming? If this post reprograms you to recognize the difference between the contraction for "it is" and the third person neuter singular possessive pronoun, will you be using your free will to type it correctly? Yes, of course you can make a concerted effort to deliberately type the wrong thing, but if instead you choose words out of habit, is this evidence that you do not possess free will?

What is it that is actually making the word and spelling choices? What is the mechanism and where is it located? When you look deeply enough, you'll see the rails, and once you see the rails, free will vanishes. If you back away so that you don't see the rails, it returns, because now it's a different "it" that's being referred to in each case.

Free will is a chimera; it appears to appear when you don't look closely; it vanishes if you look right at it.

Life and nature program us with free will and the freedom to choose.

"Life and nature" do no such thing.

I have heard that [computers] have switches that have more function than on and off.

The details of the switches don't matter; that's not where the programming is. It's the interrelationships between the switches that make it all work. Ditto neurons - it's the connection net that do it.

Have you read the other threads I indicated? It's worth a perusal. It's worth reading it all.

Jose

[Sizik]

Does MarI/O have free will?

[Greatest I am]

[.

Life and nature program us with free will and the freedom to choose.

"Life and nature" do no such thing.

Really? It's does so.

If you think otherwise as you propose without any further information, rather lazy of you, then what or who does?

Regards
DL

[SecondTalon]

You proposed without evidence.

Rather lazy of you

[ucim]

Really? It's does so.

Does not! Nyah nyah nyah~

This is a classic case of begging the question (assuming the consequent). If you aim to show that people have free will, you cannot begin with the premise "Life and nature program us with free will and the freedom to choose." and reasonably expect a thinking person to conclude your reasoning is sound. You need to begin from principles that are agreed upon by all parties.

Jose

[Horselover Frost]

The problem about arguments about free will is nobody really has a good definition for what "free will" means in the first place. Or, at least, I've never heard one.

[speising]

I can live with Webster's definitions I am not creating new terms and those are fairly well described.

Since you were apparently too lazy:

Full Definition of free will
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

1: is basically a tautology.
2: so going by this: NO, we do not have free will. *Nothing* we do isn't determined by prior causes.

See? that was easy. once you have a definition, everything falls into place.