Does a robot that determines what it will do based on random nuclear decay have free will? — khaled
But why couldn't the universe just have infinite possibilities in any given moment, but only some actually occur? — ZhouBoTong
The ‘infinite possibilities in any given moment’, for me refers to the fifth dimension. — Possibility
We can only verify the existence of one ‘actual’ moment because to do so it must be measured/observed in relation to the rest of the 4D structure of our experience. — Possibility
For most of the universe, the infinite possibilities in each moment are not only beyond awareness, but they’re also beyond any deliberate interaction. — Possibility
And yet they exist, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking the question, would you? — Possibility
How are you vaguely aware of them? — Possibility
Was there a possible moment that you would have preferred to have occurred, instead of what actually occurred? Can you experience this preferred moment occurring in your mind? Does that impact on physical events in your bodily systems, even though it didn’t actually happen in time and space? Perhaps the un-actual moment wasn’t so much ‘preferred’ or more valued as calculated to be more probable. Different value/significance system, same dimensional relation - interacting ‘outside’ spacetime, in the fifth dimension. — Possibility
Well, what if instead of the regret of experiencing a preferred unactual moment, you had been aware of and been capable of interacting with what you could do differently prior to the moment you did it? — Possibility
The action is free, but it wouldn't have anything to do with will unless we have some reason to believe that the robot is conscious and has the mental phenomenon of a will. — Terrapin Station
because probabilities is a human-only oriented knowledge prediction. A mind could potentially foreknow or precognize all events in the future, but a human mind can't as its lack of ability to encompass all that is to know to know the future manifests in less and less accurate predictions with each iteration of the causation process; the further into the future, the less accurate the prediction, the less probable that a foretelling is precise. But it is only from the point of view or from the limited capacity of the human mind. In effect, the future is knowable, and precisely knowable, since there is no cause without an effect, and no effect without a cause. — god must be atheist
Your opinion extrapolates from what is knowable by humans, to what is theoretically knowable. That is a mistake. — god must be atheist
"Free" in this case means "not causally determined." If you can choose between two options you have a free--that is, not a causally determined--choice. — Terrapin Station
This is a good post and I agree with you. though I am still skeptical that this is an issue amenable to philosophical resolution. — Arne
The fifth dimension? Wouldn't we just call it abstract thought? — ZhouBoTong
Once science has completed the chain of determinism then I will be able to get behind these sorts of ideas. Until then I will struggle to accept 'proof' of an absence of choice. — ZhouBoTong
Well the possibilities certainly exist in the abstract. I can admit that we can not know (yet?) whether they could have existed tangibly. — ZhouBoTong
I am acutely aware of the possibilities that "I" can imagine. I am vaguely aware that there may be infinite possibilities that I have never imagined. — ZhouBoTong
This to me this portion has gone beyond knowing if there are possibilities. You seem to be suggesting that for me to "know" possibilities exist that I would have to "know" the exact outcome of every possible possibility. That is omniscience. Seems different. — ZhouBoTong
I guess I am saying that science and philosophy need to be far more careful with their words if they expect a significant percent of the population to understand them. Heck I just learned from Terrapin Stationthat in this discussion "free" means 'not causally determined' but I doubt I could find a dictionary that includes that meaning (the plato.stanford philosophy site suggests Terrapin is right, but they keep it vague and refuse to even say anything as clear as "not causally determined"). — ZhouBoTong
I find myself agreeing quite often (with both sides), but still being thoroughly unconvinced.
Years ago I read someone on another site who said something along the lines of, "it seems likely there is no free will, but life operates better if we act as if there is" - they were more eloquent but you get the idea. I am still basically stuck in that view. — ZhouBoTong
What reason do you have to believe anyone other than you is conscious — khaled
Also, defining will as a mental phenomena seems weird to me. — khaled
Do you mean to say that the “will” somehow results in a different physical causal chain or that the feeling/mental phenomena of will results from a physical causal chain? — khaled
Your antinatalism sure wouldn't make sense if you don't believe that others are conscious, by the way. — Terrapin Station
It seems weird to me that that would seem weird to you. If you don't consider will a mental phenomenon, what the heck would you think it is? — Terrapin Station
I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're suggesting (strong) determinism, I don't buy that idea in general. — Terrapin Station
Similarity of structure and behavior. — Terrapin Station
So because I can't know all the possibilities, they can't exist? I don't get it. — ZhouBoTong
I think it's more like: only one possibility exists, but you don't know what it is, therefore you imagine all kinds of different possibilities exist. (You meaning the general you; human.) — god must be atheist
Yes that is what I’m suggesting. I’m asking whether the mental phenomena “will” is the cause or result of physical phenomena in your view and in either case how. How does your “will” physically move your arm. Or if you’re a determinist how (which I know you’re not) how would physically moving your arm cause the subjective experience of “will”. — khaled
I never said I don’t believe others are conscious I said you can’t know they are. — khaled
I meant weird as in it could be said by a hairline determinist or someone who believes in free will. — khaled
That’s awfully vague. What if said robot I was talking about looked human and acted like a human but essentially just had silicon replace carbon. — khaled
I think it's more like: only one possibility exists, but you don't know what it is, therefore you imagine all kinds of different possibilities exist. (You meaning the general you; human.) — god must be atheist
"there is only one reality" is a type of reasoning but a long way from actual evidence — ZhouBoTong
Kind of like picking out which porn video to watch. There seems like endless variety and options, but for some reason it was determined at the Big Bang that I would pick the redhead today. :grin: — Noah Te Stroete
Would there be any way to prove or test this idea? (saying "there is only one reality" is a type of reasoning but a long way from actual evidence) Is it any different in actual practice from "there are many possibilities but only one is actualized"? I mean, wouldn't I act the same either way? — ZhouBoTong
Can we admit that whether or not there are actual possibilities and therefor an actual choice would be made, our minds go through a decision making process? Wouldn't hard determinism include that decision making process? — ZhouBoTong
I’m trying to work out what you’re arguing with me about. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve written here. — Possibility
Sure, but does that help us to understand how it happens and how it interacts with everything else? I’m using ‘fifth dimension’ because it relates to other discussions and other areas of philosophy, where ‘abstract thought’ is too vague a concept. For instance, I’m of the belief that a sixth dimension (also involving abstract thought) structures our interactions, too - but that’s off topic here. — Possibility
That they exist ‘in the abstract’ is enough. Whether they could/would/should have existed tangibly is something we think/believe subjectively based on value/significance/logic/moral structures, and we internally interact with these abstract possibilities and integrate related information accordingly - even though they may have never had a tangible existence. — Possibility
I’m not talking about ‘knowing’, though - I’m talking about subjective experience: awareness, connection and collaboration. Recognising that there are always infinite possibilities that we may never have imagined precludes any claim to ‘knowledge’. As Rovelli says in relation to QM and Information Theory: ‘There is always more information to be obtained about a system’. So i’m not suggesting that we have to know the exact outcome of every possible possibility - only that it’s out there as information to be sought. — Possibility
The dictionary definition of WILL says: ‘the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action’, with these obvious assumptions built in that I’ve been trying to eliminate. — Possibility
The dictionary definition of FREE is ‘unconstrained’, and this is the one I have been working with throughout this discussion, despite the tendency for contributors to bring their own meanings with them - include conceptual definitions of ‘free will’ that allow them to delve into apologist style arguments to support its apparent existence. — Possibility
I can relate to this, too. My aim here is not to argue one way or the other, but to tease out Hegel’s idea of dialectic process and reach some level of synthesis that is more convincing than compatibilism. I’ve found there are may people who’ve reached an externally manageable/arguable viewpoint that is nevertheless internally unconvincing. — Possibility
That there is only one reality is not a reasoning, but an observation. — god must be atheist
Show me more than 1 reality. Show me that reality is a multiplicity by and in itself. Evidence suggests there is only one reality. — god must be atheist
Time to consider sober, reasonable thinking. I don't mean to be mean or demeaning or insulting, but it is an insult to intelligence to claim that reality exists in more than one expression of itself. — god must be atheist
The way I see it, it boils down to one assertion: I have and can make a choice. — Terrapin Station
We can, though, say that what did happen, non randomly, trumps as actuality the claims such as "should have", making those to be of a fantasy world stance. — PoeticUniverse
Yes — Noah Te Stroete
I'm a physicalist. In my view, mental phenomena are not caused by or the result of physical phenomena. They're rather identical to mental phenomena. Will is a subset of brain states. It's the properties of the brain states in question from the reference frame of being the brain in question. — Terrapin Station
Knowing they are is just a belief that they are where (a) you feel you have a justification for the belief, and (b) you assign "true" to the proposition "Other people are conscious." — Terrapin Station
Then it's not very similar structurally. It doesn't have a brain made out of the same materials that human brains are made out of. — Terrapin Station
Well grammatically that seems easy. If yesterday's reality was different from today's, haven't we described multiple realities? — ZhouBoTong
But you haven’t answered whether or not they CAUSE physical phenomena. — khaled
What about other animals? — khaled
I think Terrapin has solidified his stance on this issue enough that he could have the discussion in his sleep, — ZhouBoTong
Sure, will causes physical phenomena — Terrapin Station
So will causes physical phenomena but is not caused by it? You seem to be describing something akin to magic here. Is not caused or explained by the laws of physics yet can directly apply a force here or there. — khaled
(2) I'm not a strong determinist in general, in other words, not just when we're talking about free will, but when we're talking about physical phenomena in general. — Terrapin Station
So will would be an example of a phenomenon that's not strongly deterministic. But phenomena that are not strongly deterministic can cause other phenomena without freedom/randomness being a factor. — Terrapin Station
I think there was a huge amount of handwaving in the dash in freedom/randomness. What you’ve said so far is that you believe that there are random and determined events. But we can both agree that a random event doesn’t amount to a choice right? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.