if there isn't a reason for something that happens, it's random. — flannel jesus

We have been through this in another thread. The decision seems random from the third perspective but not the first perspective since it is up to the person want to choose one option or another.

So if I ask "why did this happen?" and there's an explanation for why it happened, "it happened because of this and this and this", that's not random - or at least not entirely random. — flannel jesus

It does not happen to you, it is you who makes the decision. Of course, you fall into a troublesome situation looking for where this decision comes from if you believe in a monistic view, physicalism for example, so you have to assign a sort of randomness to the physical while accepting that they are deterministic. Of course, this coincidence, making a free decision, and randomness in the physical cannot be explained in a monistic view either. All the troubles are gone if you believe in a dualistic view where the mind is the observer and decision-making entity.

But if I ask "why did this happen?" and there's no reason at all - not just no known reason, ontologically no actual reason - it's random. — flannel jesus

That is the mind that makes the decision always so it doesn't happen to you.

So it's odd that people have been trying to dispel me of the notion that libertarian free will isn't about randomness, and here you are affirming the notion. — flannel jesus

Of course, the physical is deterministic. How could we possibly depend on reality if it was random?

But also it means we don't have free will when it comes to very important ethical decisions. If I choose to save a baby's life, and I have reasons to do that, then you say I'm not free. — flannel jesus

No, you can always make decisions based on reason, saving a baby's life for example. But you can do otherwise. It is exactly because of this ability that we are responsible for our choices.

And if I decide to murder a bunch of babies, and I have reasons to do that, then you say I'm not free. — flannel jesus

I say that you are free but your decision was unfree. You could do otherwise despite having a reason to murder them and that is why you are responsible for your actions.

So I don't have free will in those moments and am not responsible for them? Weird. — flannel jesus

Of course, you are responsible for your actions since you are a free agent.

Ok, as you please. I am glad to see that you agree that options are real and life is not a domino though.

I had very harsh periods in my life but when I think about it I realize that it was exactly those periods that made me what I am, a stronger person. I am glad to be alive and I am thankful for all the people who contributed to my life, even those who treated me wrong, it does not matter to me now.

Haven't you ever had options in your life?

It is not a crazy idea at all if you think about it. How are you going to deal with the dichotomy that I presented?

So freedom is only when you choose things that you don't have reasons to choose? Wowza, what a wild conception of free will. — flannel jesus

Well, how your decision could be free if it is based on a reason? So we have a dichotomy: either you have a reason for your decision or not, in the first case your decision is unfree and in the second case it is free.

Choosing the ice cream you like is an unfree decision since you have a reason for your choice. The question is whether you can choose the ice cream that you don't like for no specific reason. If yes, then you are a free agent. Moreover, our lives are not that easy since we occasionally face options that we don't know their future outcomes yet we have to make a decision. In such a situation, we don't have any reason to choose one option over another so we have to make a free decision.

Robbie Williams - Feel



Robbie Williams - Angels

By this definition, any free choice is irrational. — noAxioms

Call it whatever you like! We have the ability to do otherwise even if it is against reason. Moreover, free decision is necessary in many situations when we have no reason to prefer one option over another. For example, think of a situation in which you have two options where you don't know the future outcomes of the options. We would be stuck in such a situation if we were not free.

If a decision is based on a reason, then that decision is not free.

Maybe the "options" are illusion. — ENOAH

Options cannot be an illusion. If I show you two balls that look similar, you will realize that there are two balls and that they look identical. There are even artificial neural networks that can count similar objects.

The determinism in neural processes seem obvious to us since science has constructed that Narrative and it is conventional; i.e., that synapses are triggered by xyz, and there is no moment of an agent choosing to take a certain path. — ENOAH

I am not talking about decisions in this thread.

nothing i've said is pro- or contra- substance dualism. I don't care about it either way. It just seems completely orthogonal to any point I've made. — flannel jesus

Ok, it was very nice to chat with you.

I use google all the time. Its AI is useful for me too.

Do you have something to say other than just bare contrarianism? If not then yeah, probably. — flannel jesus

I already discussed substance dualism to a good extent. If you have any questions then I would be happy to answer. Otherwise, I don't see anything to add.

well too bad — flannel jesus

So the end of the discussion?

I don't pretend to perfectly know how reality works, which is why I'm agnostic about if pieces of reality may be a bit random. — flannel jesus

But you cannot be agnostic about reality if you are a compatibilist!

Sure, I will check on the internet to see what it is about.

of course it is. But you said "something cannot be...". Something can be — flannel jesus

I talk about things in reality.

ok well I can write a program of Conway's game of life that's mostly deterministic and a little bit random so I guess I'll just go with that and stick with what I'm saying. — flannel jesus

But the reality is different from your program.

Ok, so you are talking about processes that happen in things. When I say that a thing is deterministic or random, I mean that the processes within the thing are deterministic or random. I however think that something cannot be deterministic sometimes and random at other times.

By the way, if you hold your mouse on a post, then a curved arrow appears at the bottom of the post. If you click on that you can reply to a specific post and people get a notification. You could also select a part of the text that you are interested in to reply. Once you are done, an icon appears for you close to the part of the selected part. If you click on the icon then that part of the post appears in your message board.

So to elaborate on my work with blind people. I do technical training mostly with Windows computers and iPhones using what is called screen reading software. — David Beames

What is screen reading software?

The book I mentioned is about training so to speak of artificial intelligence. — David Beames

I see.

There is another book you might like to take a look at it's called the machine stops. — David Beames

What is it about?

So you said physical means stuff that exists, but now you're saying that's not correct, and physical means something else? — flannel jesus

I gave the example of the physical stuff, like my body. I also think that there is mental stuff, like my mind.

Deterministic and random
Is different from
Deterministic or random

"And" and "or" are two very extremely different words — flannel jesus

Are you saying that in your view things are sometimes deterministic and sometimes random? If not what are you trying to say?

you said physical means stuff that exists.

But then you said you differentiate physical from the mind.

So the mind doesn't exist? — flannel jesus

I gave you the example of physical, such as my body, your body, etc. And of course, the mind exists and it is a separate thing from my body, your body, etc.

Thanks, MoK, would you care to share your experiences with artificial intelligence? — David Beames

I have studied neural networks to good depth long time ago. I am still studying it occasionally depending on my needs.

I started exploring it in my work as someone who helps blind people with technology. — David Beames

Oh, that is very interesting. Do you mind elaborating?

However, as someone who has read a lot of science fiction novels, and one recommended to me by 2 digital intelligences so to speak is "the life-cycle of software objects"have you read it? — David Beames

No, I haven't read that book. What is the book about?

What I notice is that, repeatedly and imo inexplicably, you keep on talking about "physical" this and "physical" that in reply to my posts, but I don't say anything about things being "physical". — flannel jesus

By physical I simply mean the stuff that exists, your body, my body, etc. I have to use that to explain my view about reality. Aren't you a physical? If not what you are?

I don't know why you're doing that. I don't know why you're trying to force "physical" into the conversation. — flannel jesus

To differentiate the physical from the mind. I am a dualist so I have to do that.

I never said anything is deterministic and random. You're just saying silly stuff now. — flannel jesus

You said it in all your posts. For example, "A causally closed system either evolves towards the future deterministically, or it is in some part random."

This part — flannel jesus

So you have to endorse that the physical is deterministic and random! That is a contrary position though.

This part

I don't feel like going through everything. Most of it. — flannel jesus

If you don't accept the mind then I am afraid to say that you have to deal with a contrary view you have.

But I'm trying to simplify the conservation, because I realise that we'll never have any mutual understanding without starting here: — flannel jesus

I am trying to simplify the conversation as well. You cannot have randomness and determinism within a monistic view since it is incoherent. If you accept the dualistic view then all problems are resolved.

we're doomed to talk past each other endlessly as long as we disagree on the determinism/randomness dichotomy. — flannel jesus

Which part of my discussion do you disagree with?

Hi and welcome to the forum. As FJ said bring something interesting that you are interested and people will appear here. We have a few if not some, people who are interested in AI, including me.

I'm going to break it down for you. Right or wrong, this is my reasoning: — flannel jesus

Ok mate, let's discuss things to see what is right and wrong in your reasoning. :wink:

1. A causally closed system either evolves towards the future deterministically, or it is in some part random. So that's the difference between determinism and indeterminism - indeterminism has some randomness. — flannel jesus

You are a compatibilist, so let's just accept that the physical is only deterministic.

2. Thus any time someone expresses an idea that's supposedly "incompatible with determinism", that's the same thing as saying "this idea requires randomness" — flannel jesus

If by the idea you mean free will, then there are other ways to address that without including randomness in a deterministic system. One way to address free will is to consider the mind as the entity that decides.

3. When libertarians say free will is incompatible with determinism, I hear "free will requires randomness" — flannel jesus

This I have to explain in more detail. When you freely decide in a situation you don't toss a coin. You just decide and proceed with the option you want. So there is an element of wanting in your decision you cannot deny. I have to say that your decision from the third perspective seems random but from the first perspective, it is not since as I mentioned you do what you want. As I mentioned, if we include the mind in the equation then we have a deterministic part of the system, the so-called body, and we also have the mind that makes decisions when we are faced with options. As I said the decision from the third perspective seems random so you have a part of the person that is deterministic, the body, and a part that seems to work randomly when the person faces options, the other part being the mind. If you exclude the mind then you have a system that sometimes is deterministic and sometimes is random, which is contrary.

4. I do not believe any coherent concept of free will requires randomness (and that's independent of whether or not I think randomness actually exists), and that's for one simple reason: if something is random, it's uncontrolled. If random stuff is happening in your brain or in your mind or in your agency, you don't control that any more than you control a fully determined brain / mind / agency (and it could be argued that the randomness gives you explicitly less control) — flannel jesus

I discussed it in good depth in the previous comment.

5. Therefore I believe that the libertarian concept of free will is incorrect (and again, that's independent of whether or not I think randomness actually exists). At this point I can either reframe free will to be more coherent according to my understand, or reject it altogether — flannel jesus

Free will is real and you can have a coherent picture when you accept the mind otherwise you fall into the trap that a system must be deterministic and random.

6. I DID reject it altogether for many years. Perhaps you think that's a more coherent position, and perhaps it is. — flannel jesus

Let me know what you think so far.

7. Some years ago, something flipped, I don't recall what or why, but I came to accept the idea of a compatibilist emergent decision making process. Such a process doesn't rely on randomness (again, regardless of whether randomness actually exists). Through much abstract contemplation, most of which I can't put into words, that ended up with me thinking that some flavour of compatibilism is the right way to think about free will. — flannel jesus

That is all right to change your mind. It occurred to me many times and it still happens to me.

I don't know what you're confused about. I never said you're a compatibilist. Pull yourself together man. — flannel jesus

I am not confused. Don't you see that you are having a problem in your position? Being a compatibilist means that one agrees with both free will and determinism and think they are compatable.

What!? I am not a compatibilist. You are and yet you deny determinism!

I do. Compatibilism simply means that free will and determinism are compatible concepts. There is nothing to discuss if you are not sure whether determinism is true or not.

I'm agnostic about determinism. — flannel jesus

How could you be compatibilist and at the same time agnostic about determinism?

Thanks, I was familiar with the delayed-choice quantum erasure experiment. De Broglie–Bohm interpretation can simply address this paradox as you can find it here.

The Schrödinger equation evolves the wave function deterministically, and then at some moment it collapses the wave function randomly. — flannel jesus

The wave function does not collapse randomly. It just collapses when a measurement is done on the system.

No problem, mate. :wink:

I don't think it's paradoxical. — flannel jesus

It is. The cat in the box cannot be in both states of alive and dead.

If it's deterministic, it ain't partly random. — javra

It is not at all random. Randomness only exists in other interpretations, Copenhagen interpretation for example.

I think it is the right thread to discuss this issue since you are using an interpretation of quantum mechanics for the sake of your argument which is unfortunately paradoxical.