Aside from the trivial non-coercion meaning and the randomness that harms any kind of will, the "definition" eludes us since it never works out, so far, but the Holy Grail of the crux of it is to find a way above and beyond the automated brain will being true to itself that lets there be some higher agency that is somehow 'free' and 'independent' of the brain will or able to will the brain will, but, again, we not being able to well define this 'free' idea, much less to go on to show it. — PoeticUniverse
The two AIs DO have a causal role, just not a conscious one - since they aren't conscious. The critical issue is that there's no basis for holding them accountable. (more on this later).
You don't need agency to HAVE compassion. You need agency to act on this compassion.
You're analyzing an instance of an optical illusion - which are notable only because they are exceptional. I'm talking about sensory input IN GENERAL. You don't skeptically analyze all the objects you encounter in the course of your everyday life simply because of the possibility you are misperceiving them.
My position is that "free will" is a concept associated with responsibility and accountability.
It makes perfect sense to hold someone accountable for their actions: the action one takes are a consequence of one's beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice. If the consequences of that choice cause harm to someone else, how SHOULD others respond? Should they just excuse it because he had not choice (this seems to be the implication of your position)? No. We know he could have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. By doing so, that person becomes less likely to repeat the mistake - because he will have learned something. In effect, his programming will be changed because consequences provide a feedback loop that changes him.
Suppose the AIs in your example could experience pain, pleasure, regret, empathy, love, hate, and if it had desires that it worked to fulfill for the positive feelings it would experience, and aversions that it avoided because the negative feelings it would experience. Also suppose it could relate its choices to the consequences including the emotions it invoked, and that it could reprogram itself so that future choices would produce more positive and less negative outcomes.That would be closer akin to the "free willed" choices of humans. Whether or not we call it "free will" is irrelevant - my point is that accountability and responsibility comprise a feedback loop that we should acknowledge exists, and be glad of it. You weaken or break the loop when you deny accountability.
— rlclauer
It makes perfect sense to hold someone accountable for their actions: the action one takes are a consequence of one's beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice. If the consequences of that choice cause harm to someone else, how SHOULD others respond? Should they just excuse it because he had not choice (this seems to be the implication of your position)? No. We know he could have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. By doing so, that person becomes less likely to repeat the mistake - because he will have learned something. In effect, his programming will be changed because consequences provide a feedback loop that changes him. — Relativist
I disagree. Instincts are something everyone would agree is an automatic action, which require no agency to be instantiated. I am simply saying all action looks like instincts when you have enough information. — rlclauer
The reason your point is irrelevant, is because my argument is not based on the commonality of illusion, but rather, whether a particular thing actually is an illusion, which it seems obvious, that the phenomena of self, will, and consciousness, are all just mental constructs, not some spooky thing which floats to the left of your prefrontal cortex. — rlclauer
Sure, that's what all compatibilists argue. I just think it is an unnecessary maneuver. A rapid dog has no "agency, or free will," but you would shoot it if it was attacking your baby. Invoking free will in order to have accountability is an artifact that is no longer needed. — rlclauer
You know...I always thought that, too. But then I came across this “degrees of freedom” for showing coordinate dimensions in a phase space, and I got to wondering how freedom was meant to apply there. I don’t consider freedom to be physical either, but apparently, somebody figured degrees of it, are. — Mww
M1 M2 M3... ^ ^ ^ P1 -> P2 -> P3...
hould they just excuse it because he had not choice (this seems to be the implication of your position)? No. We know he could have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things.
Let's assume an action is, in fact, free. How would you tell from the outside?
But if everything is constructed, it makes no sense to call one construct "illusion".
Perhaps the point of accountability is to establish what you are not accountable for? After all, if we were to just eliminate possible causes of danger, we'd never stop.
Wouldn't you need a conception of physical freedom before you can map degrees of it? — Echarmion
We have strong reasons to believe he would have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. — Relativist
Determinism does not entail incorrigibility. You become a different "you" when you learn something. A person can learn from his mistakes; he can learn that there are consequences. He can even learn to think more rationally, or coping skills for anger management.We have strong reasons to believe he would have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. — Relativist
It is that if his will was different than it actually was, he no longer being him, so to speak, the choices may have been different. — PoeticUniverse
Determinism does not entail incorrigibility. You become a different "you" when you learn something. A person can learn from his mistakes; he can learn that there are consequences. He can even learn to think more rationally, or coping skills for anger management. — Relativist
There are no "free actions." if you want to define free as uncoerced, which is a loaded word, fine. There is not a guy with a gun to my head. But this does not capture the idea of the causal chain of material factors which generate what we perceive as "conscious deliberation." Consider the Libet experiment and the "pantyhose experiment." — rlclauer
It makes sense to call something an illusion because of the disconnect between how it actually is and how it is perceived. The only "constructed" element here is the perception, not the real. — rlclauer
If we both hold that freedom isn’t physical, is that the same as saying freedom doesn’t belong to physical systems? — Mww
And if that holds, why would there be such a thing as degrees of freedom in a physical system? — Mww
Automatic" actions taken in habit and familiarity could be considered to be choices, but only in the sense that a person has accepted living in them. — Pathogen
Peoples choices (...) influenced by hormone signaling that is never perceived at a conscious level. — Pathogen
Allow me to try to express how I think our views differ within a narrative,
Two boats are traveling down a river side by side. On the first boat the captain thinks to himself, my first mate is an experienced sailor and knows how I run my ship, I'll let him direct it while I enjoy the breeze. The other boat's captain knows his first mate is well experienced, he could talk with him about his future plans and rest assured they would be carried out, but as a matter of preference the captain takes the wheel and as an action in that moment steers the ship while enjoying the breeze on his face.
Of course, both captains enjoy the breeze :wink: — Pathogen
Right. I am asking you to do a thought experiment though. Assume that, metaphysically, true freedom is real. How would it manifest physically?
But how do you know what's real? If both the internal perspective (freedom) and the external perspective (causality) are constructs, neither is real.
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.