AI, Souls, Free Will, Logic, Self-awareness

[5cats]

Part of the argument is that nature follows a cause-reaction relationship, except for quantum mechanics, which you ignore because if you look at it through the law of large numbers, it becomes deterministic again.

But isn't the same true for human behaviour. Although the behaviour of a single human is hard to predict, the behaviour of a large enough group of people is pretty easy to predict.

So my question to you would be: if the individuals have something as a 'free will', shouldn't the combination of all those free wills, i.e. the society, also clearly show it? (and no, I'm not a expert in this matter, just being curious).

The middle part of your theory is incorrect. Quantum results, like a half-life, are extremely predictable. We're not talking 9/10, more like 1 in a billion it'll be somethiing else (with large enough numbers). Humans however, are more on the 9/10 scale of predictable (I'd say 7/10, but that's just me ). How do I explain this? Look at elections as a large group behaviour. The pundits and pollsters try to predict the outcome, but are more often wrong than right. The fact that we're not all that predictable, even in large numbers, is evidence not of determinism, but of free will.

They show that we have decision making capacity. The two are different

How so? If one is "free" to make a decision, there must be a true choice in the first place. A lump of plutonium doesn't have any choice on it's half life, that 'random robot' someone mentioned cannot choose to act in a non-random way.
As you say Brighteye, a computer just follows a program, it doesn't actually "make a choice". It can be programmed to be random, or rate items using various values, but it doesn't "choose" because there's no alternative to it following its program! If human intelligence is merely the reaction of chemicals and accumulation of data, we don't have "any choice" either.

I think we shouldn't get hung up on the words "natural" vs "supernatural". (extra-natural would be more accurate IMO) We're really talking about Determinism (the Laws of Nature) and Free Will (having a true choice).

To illustrate: If you put your hand in a fire, your skin will burn (Law of Nature) and it'll hurt (LoN) that part is easily seen as deterministic (there are tricks that one can use, I know, but that's just changing the issue.) Now putting your hand in the fire in the first place, keeping it in there, do you have a choice or not?

My main arguement against determinism remains: if it's all pre-determined, if we have no choice then nothing matters. (this includes the notion of 'illusion of choice' which is just another way of saying determinism)

 

[Brighteye]

The middle part of your theory is incorrect. Quantum results, like a half-life, are extremely predictable. We're not talking 9/10, more like 1 in a billion it'll be somethiing else (with large enough numbers). Humans however, are more on the 9/10 scale of predictable (I'd say 7/10, but that's just me ). How do I explain this? Look at elections as a large group behaviour. The pundits and pollsters try to predict the outcome, but are more often wrong than right. The fact that we're not all that predictable, even in large numbers, is evidence not of determinism, but of free will.

I thought about pointing out this difference, but then when we predict quantum behaviour we're dealing with many thousands of millions. We don't have a large enough sample of humans to compare the two situations.

How so? If one is "free" to make a decision, there must be a true choice in the first place. A lump of plutonium doesn't have any choice on it's half life, that 'random robot' someone mentioned cannot choose to act in a non-random way.
As you say Brighteye, a computer just follows a program, it doesn't actually "make a choice". It can be programmed to be random, or rate items using various values, but it doesn't "choose" because there's no alternative to it following its program! If human intelligence is merely the reaction of chemicals and accumulation of data, we don't have "any choice" either.

Exactly. It's infinite regression. The computer doesn't have free choice because it's just following its programme. But what if it could choose not to follow that programme? This would be accomplished by means of another programme (as far as we can imagine). So to have free choice it would need not to have to follow that one either... ad infinitum. I can imagine myself sitting in a room reprogramming myself (as it were) infinitely (or until I died). Does the fact that we can never achieve infinity actually stop it being free will? Is it enough that there's the theoretical possibility (if we were immortal)? Do I really have the 'free choice' to say 'that's enough reprogramming; I could carry on but I choose not to'?

We know that systems can exhibit surprising emergent behaviour. Could free will be an entirely physical property of the complex system of chemicals in our heads?

 

[5cats]

Exactly. It's infinite regression. The computer doesn't have free choice because it's just following its programme. But what if it could choose not to follow that programme? This would be accomplished by means of another programme (as far as we can imagine). So to have free choice it would need not to have to follow that one either... ad infinitum.
We know that systems can exhibit surprising emergent behaviour. Could free will be an entirely physical property of the complex system of chemicals in our heads?

I bolded your mistake. (embolded?)
You assume there is no other method? Why? I can imagine another method... several in fact! Your conclusion is based on a single explaination, other explainations have just as much "evidence" as yours.

It could indeed be just chemicals & stuff. But like I said, without free will we're just mindless automitons. (ie: we could be only chemicals and have free will, it's possible)

 

[Brighteye]

I bolded your mistake. (embolded?)
You assume there is no other method? Why? I can imagine another method... several in fact! Your conclusion is based on a single explaination, other explainations have just as much "evidence" as yours.

It's not a mistake! It's deliberate. Hence 'as far as we know' (where we clearly should be 'I', since you can imagine other methods). Perhaps I should have written 'This could be achieved by another programme...', changing one letter (would to could).
What other methods can you imagine? How would they change the free will (or lack of it) of the computer? Would they simply provide another rule that the computer has to obey, unless it has a further rule to follow allowing it not to?

The example of a computer seemed relevant, since both topics (Deep Blue thread and this one) mention AI. However, the best way of putting it would be an abstract way; simply referring to decision-making modules, inputs that change the value judgements of the decision-making modules, inputs that change the judgements of those inputs etc.

 

[GIO888]

Lovely philosophical discussion, guys. How about a reference to CIV4?

Would be interesting!

 

[schekker]

The middle part of your theory is incorrect. Quantum results, like a half-life, are extremely predictable. We're not talking 9/10, more like 1 in a billion it'll be somethiing else (with large enough numbers). Humans however, are more on the 9/10 scale of predictable (I'd say 7/10, but that's just me ). How do I explain this? Look at elections as a large group behaviour. The pundits and pollsters try to predict the outcome, but are more often wrong than right. The fact that we're not all that predictable, even in large numbers, is evidence not of determinism, but of free will.

I'm not convinced the middle part of my theory is incorrect. The anology I was thinking of was the weather forcast. If I understand this discussion correctly the weather should be completely deterministic. And although we can predict it to some extent, there are quite some limitations. The same with predictions about the human behaviour. In my experience the weather forecast in my country (the Netherlands) is about as accurate as our polls. As the weather has no free will (I hope ), the poll predictions are no prove of free will either.

My main arguement against determinism remains: if it's all pre-determined, if we have no choice then nothing matters. (this includes the notion of 'illusion of choice' which is just another way of saying determinism)

Amen to that!

 

[Rik Meleet]

Moderator Action: Moved to Off topic

 

[Samson]

You say quite a lot that "if we turn the tool of science upon the effects of free will, we find evidence in abundance. The observations I pointed out at the top suggest that human free will is a real thing."

I see no evidence. Let me briefly point out how scientific evidence is gathered;

You set the 2 opposing views as hypothesis;

H0 - Humans are determanistic, no free will
H1 - Humans are not determanistic, have free will

You then set up an experiment or observation that will result in the different results based on which of the above hypothesis are true. That is where you run into trouble. I cannnot think of a possible situation which would distinguish between these 2 statements, in the same way as you cannot disprove Last Thursdayism.

Can you state were in your "evidence" these 2 statements would predict different outcomes?

 

[JerichoHill]

Enjoy the linkage.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Free-Will-Determinism.htm
Notes:

1) My personal belief is that free will exists.
2) I acknowledge that a probabilistic "natural rule" could mimic my definition of free will.
3) It is a belief in a higher power that sustains my belief in free will.
4) That belief is neither provable nor unprovable via the scientific method. "God" is not directly observable.

Finally, does it really matter? If we have free will, or we are bound by a set of rules that approximates free will so closely that we can't tell the difference, how useful is it to know which it is that we are bound or not bound by?

I find its more worthwhile to pursue other philosophical endeavors. Whether that's my own free will, or a rule, who cares?

 

[Birdjaguar]

As long as people believe that they have free will, whether or not they really do is irrelevant to them. When/if science can show that free will doesn't exist, then we will have to rethink our lives. Until then, it's business as usual. Think "The Matrix". What appears to be true is just an illusion so well crafted that only a few ever break from it to experience Reality.

 

[JerichoHill]

Edit:

I wanted to post this.

Here's why we must treat free will as it exists.

If free will does not exist, then we cannot change our actions. They will happen.

If we cannot change our actions, then if we commit a crime, we cannot help but commit that crime.

If we commit a crime, we are punished. This is our justice system.

If we cannot help but commit a crime, then our justice system isn't very just is it? How can you justly punish someone for something that they can't help but do?

This same argument applies to God. If the archetype of the monotheistic God is just, then we must have free will. Because otherwise, its not very just to send 1 soul to heaven and the other to hell when both souls couldn't help do anything except which they did.

The concept of a free will is necessary for a judicial system to function, both properly and logically.

JH- US Department of Justice.

--PS: If I'm wrong and free will doesn't exist, I guess I need to get a new job. Cause then there'd be no reason to keep us around.

 

[dbergan]

I see no evidence. Let me briefly point out how scientific evidence is gathered;

You set the 2 opposing views as hypothesis;

H0 - Humans are determanistic, no free will
H1 - Humans are not determanistic, have free will

You then set up an experiment or observation that will result in the different results based on which of the above hypothesis are true.

Not all of science is experimental. Take, for instance, astrophysics. We gather information about the Big Bang based on observations of the Big Bang that happened 13.8 billion years ago. We haven't made another Big Bang to test the validity of the observations we gathered.

Or with life science, we make scientific statements like "geese mate for life" or "blackbirds flock together" or "monarch butterflies migrate south every fourth generation." Similarly, it is just as scientific to say that every human society has justice systems which operate on the principle of free will.

 

[dbergan]

Your premise means:

you can prove that you know all natural entities (you can't do that) *
you can prove that you know all the natural laws and their effects (you definitely can't do that) *

* if there is even one natural entity or natural law that you don't know, then you can never be sure

you can prove that the natural entities are COMPLETELY (with no exception at all) bound to those laws IN A DECISION LEVEL (it's pure madness to try to prove that).

You say that this premise is the base for science - you are wrong. Science is based just on the assumption that the results we see are bound to natural laws - it says nothing about the decision of living beings BEFORE each action.

Well, my wording perhaps could use a bit of tweaking (feel free to help me with that) but the idea is to describe the materialist/determinist's argument for why we don't have free will. And from what I understand, that is their premise. They think that all material things follow natural laws, and that since humans are merely material things, we are equally subject to natural laws... which leaves no room for a free will.

To address your concerns a bit more directly, can you name one natural thing (apart from quantum indeterminacy and higher animals) that isn't bound to natural laws? The purpose of having laws of nature is to describe how nature behaves. Thus even though the laws aren't perfect or complete now, it isn't difficult to imagine that all aspects of matter will be perfectly understood at some point. And once we are at that point, if there is an entity that doesn't follow the natural laws (it rebels against them, so to speak), then we can properly say that it is not natural... aka supernatural.

All I'm saying is that free will, to be free will cannot be reducible to natural laws. If human behavior is 100% explained by natural cause-and-effect... then there is no freedom. What you do, is a result of existing preconditions and nature's unyielding laws. And if there is no freedom, there is no morality. And if there is no morality, there is no meaning. These things that countless plain observations show that humans take for granted are all based on the concept that humans must be in part supernatural. If we're all natural, it's all a deception.

(Don't pounce on this yet, Brighteye, with your questions about programming/decision/natural free will/etc. I'll respond to you soon.)

 

[dbergan]

Part of the argument is that nature follows a cause-reaction relationship, except for quantum mechanics, which you ignore because if you look at it through the law of large numbers, it becomes deterministic again.

But isn't the same true for human behaviour. Although the behaviour of a single human is hard to predict, the behaviour of a large enough group of people is pretty easy to predict.

So my question to you would be: if the individuals have something as a 'free will', shouldn't the combination of all those free wills, i.e. the society, also clearly show it? (and no, I'm not a expert in this matter, just being curious).

Except that no human group is hard-wired to a specific behavior. Right now voters in the South might like Bush, and cultural influences create group tendancies... but through a massive propaganda campaign you can get them to hate him instead. By comparison, you can't slow down or speed up the half-life of Uranium-235.

 

[kingjoshi]

What is your definition of free will?

Why assume it to exist? Like God, I'll continue believing the lack thereof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

First you say this:

If we have free will, or we are bound by a set of rules that approximates free will so closely that we can't tell the difference, how useful is it to know which it is that we are bound or not bound by?

Then because you want/need to believe in free will, rationalize this:

If we cannot help but commit a crime, then our justice system isn't very just is it? How can you justly punish someone for something that they can't help but do?

The concept of a free will is necessary for a judicial system to function, both properly and logically.

So if free will didn't exist, protecting people from criminals should stop? You think we shouldn't have a deterrence or shouldn't try to rehabilitate people? Would you not value your life and happiness anymore (or those of those you loved)?

 

[dbergan]

If this is true then all elementary particles (ie. electrons, neutrons, protons, ec.) are supernatural.

...

Ignoring the strongest argument against your hypothesis is a cop-out.

They may very well be supernatural... I have a friend who believes that God doesn't do miracles, but He does do providence by acting (undetectably) on the quantum level. ie If He moves the electrons in a bolt of lightning the right way, He can strike down whoever He wants.

I don't see that quantum indeterminacy is the "strongest argument against my hypothesis." Very precise probabilities can tell us how the particles will act in any amount of mass that has practical significance. That is (in one way) just as good as a natural law. On the other hand, taking it into account in a full magnified way, what does that do to my argument?

Humans still have free will, and as such fall outside the cause-and-effect of natural law.

Radioactive particles individually are not deterministic. As a group we can find very specific half-life calculations. Does this mean these particles have free will? Does this mean the particles are supernatural? Since you're the one who is concerned, I'll leave it to you to flesh out an argument along these lines.

 

[El_Machinae]

The concept of a free will is necessary for a judicial system to function, both properly and logically.

What if I have no other choice but to enforce a justice system that looks like it's based on free will? If the criminal has no free will, neither do I.

 

[sanabas]

Well, my wording perhaps could use a bit of tweaking (feel free to help me with that) but the idea is to describe the materialist/determinist's argument for why we don't have free will. And from what I understand, that is their premise. They think that all material things follow natural laws, and that since humans are merely material things, we are equally subject to natural laws... which leaves no room for a free will.

So they say the natural world is completely deterministic, humans are part of that, therefore humans are completely deterministic too. You say the natural world is completely deterministic, humans are not, therefore humans (and other animals, and quantum particles, and chaotic systems, etc) are not natural, but supernatural.

How about either you or they offer some sort of argument for why the natural world is completely deterministic? You will have to explain how a chaotic system is completely deterministic as well.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

The concept of a free will is necessary for a judicial system to function, both properly and logically.

The judicial system can act as a deterrent to some of the people who would commit crimes when there is not a judicial system.

 

[schekker]

Except that no human group is hard-wired to a specific behavior. Right now voters in the South might like Bush, and cultural influences create group tendancies... but through a massive propaganda campaign you can get them to hate him instead. By comparison, you can't slow down or speed up the half-life of Uranium-235.

Ehm, you're dodging my question. If you can change the human group behaviour through a massive propaganda campaign, that is prove of a cause-effect relation, i.e. deterministic, i.e. consistent with no free will.

Similar the 'fact' that each society has a some justice system could as well prove that there is no free will, otherwise there should at least be a society without one.

So I'm still waiting for prove that a society shows it has free will.