Experience is qualia, in that experience consists of one or more different and simultaneous qualities.
— Zelebg

I disagree.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quale

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

A program that can redefine its set of defined functions and goals. — Zelebg

bad example. just b/c the programmed changed its 'goals' it is still a deterministic program which is constrained to a (narrow) set of pre-determined behaviors and functions. So, it seems your example fails my request.

Questions are not answers — Zelebg

Those are obviously leading questions, which do hint at/point to my answers. My leading questions there are effectively begging you for your definition of 'free will'. That gets to the point of where you are coming from. So, why are you avoiding taking your stab at that?

My current working hypothesis is that 'I' cannot be a program

Why not?

There is no clear definition of free will. — Zelebg

again, just asking you for your definition of 'free will' for which your statements and examples are based upon. If you continue to resist then I will just assume you have no definition and you are 'testing the waters' (like a sophist) on some ridiculous idea the all computer programs have human style 'free will', but you really don't believe that, which is why you will not provide your definition that supports that degenerate (case) view. I guess I'm trying to "squeeze water from a rock" with you on this 'free will' topic, and I'm not interest in rhetorical banter on things you really do not believe to be well reasoned and true.

Why not? — Zelebg

at least b/c it is an objectified and unified state which happens apart from time and apart from its hardware or embodiment (incl. any programming) and considers/'feels' all constraints at a single moment. state-machine programs or processes cannot achieve that 3rd party state of entwined being. Can you evidence they can?

Those are obviously leading questions, which do hint at/point to my answers. My leading questions there are effectively begging you for your definition of 'free will'. That gets to the point of where you are coming from. So, why are you avoiding taking your stab at that?

It was incoherent and unrelated to my question. If you can not articulate an answer to WHY question with BECAUSE answer you're wasting everyone's time.

Experience is qualia

So, you believe the emotive experience of, say, fear is a phenomenal qualia (like color) that the we cannot even begin to explain?

It was incoherent and unrelated to my question. If you can not articulate an answer to WHY — Zelebg

OK. Let's drop the discussion of your definition/views on 'free will'. Seems like a dead end there for me too.

again, just asking you for your definition of 'free will' for which your statements and examples are based upon. If you continue to resist then I will just assume you have no definition and you are 'testing the waters' (like a sophist) on some ridiculous idea the all computer programs have human style 'free will', but you really don't believe that, which is why you will not provide your definition that supports that degenerate (case) view. I guess I'm trying to "squeeze water from a rock" with you on this 'free will' topic, and I'm not interest in rhetorical banter on things you really do not believe to be well reasoned and true.

I already told you. Freedom of volition is proportional to how much it is determined by "self", and inversely proportional to how much is determined by anything else. And I already told you not all my statements relate to this same definition, so you need to quote me if you wish to have meaningful discussion.

Freedom of volition is proportional to how much it is determined by "self", and inversely proportional to how much is determined by anything else. — Zelebg

OK, that is a start, but conflicting definitions generally will not converge. For this definition then clearly your computer programming example has no 'free will' (i.e., Freedom of volition) b/c it has no 'self' (i.e., no "I" as an agent).

at least b/c it is an objectified and unified state which happens apart from time and apart from its hardware or embodiment (incl. any programming) and considers/'feels' all constraints at a single moment. state-machine programs or processes cannot achieve that 3rd party state of entwined being.

I'm not sure what you just said, but it looks like an assumption coupled with an assertion.

Can you evidence they can?

Haven’t you already agreed with me previously that all the evidence points to “self” or “I” being a virtual entity? Anyway, plenty of evidence, but for some reason it’s not convincing for everyone, so I’ll give you something that is maybe even better than evidence, I’ll give you a reason.

There is only one thing that is not exhausted by reductionism and thus singly holds the hope for some more meaningful understanding for the phenomena of subjective experience. This thing is a ‘virtual reality’, a world of algebraic abstractions and recursive algorithmic interactions, a realm where almost anything is possible.

The only explanation we actually already know of, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence.
.

A program that can redefine its set of defined functions and goals.
— Zelebg

bad example. just b/c the programmed changed its 'goals' it is still a deterministic program which is constrained to a (narrow) set of pre-determined behaviors and functions. So, it seems your example fails my request.

Semantics. Such a program is indeed deterministic at every instant in time, but that does not mean its future functionality is determined at any time, just like humans.

Such a program is indeed deterministic at every instant in time, but that does not mean its future functionality is determined at any time, just like humans. — Zelebg

Not true. Your computer program will still have pre-determined behaviors even its functionality and/or goals can be expost facto updated, which is completely unlike humans who's behavior is not deterministic in any way or at any moment in time b/c, unlike the computer program, humans (and rats et. al.) have an "I" which is self-determined sufficiently apart from their genetic code/programming to have true 'free will'. Thus, I reiterate, for your definition and example(s), clearly your computer programming example has no 'free will' (i.e., Freedom of volition) at least b/c it has no 'self' (i.e., no "I" as an independent agent from its programming).

Haven’t you already agreed with me previously that all the evidence points to “self” or “I” being a virtual entity? Anyway — Zelebg

I don't believe so. Check our thread but I recall agreeing to *imagination* being (at least in some important way) a virtual experience, but that is a far cry from a model of 'self' or 'I'. "Virtual experience" does not equal "Virtual entity". Imagination seems to me to be more like a projection environment for the "I" to play in.

This thing is a ‘virtual reality’, a world of algebraic abstractions and recursive algorithmic interactions, a realm where almost anything is possible.

The only explanation we actually already know of, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence.
. — Zelebg

sounds like hypothetical mumbo-jumbo, not evidence. How do algebraic abstractions help anything re a physical model of 'Self" or "I"?

recursive algorithmic interactions do not seem to be able to contain or objectify "I" as a unitary whole b/c recursion does the opposite, successively approximates a global solution as an series of (not necessarily converging) sub calculations trying to approximate some final state, but the whole history is lost so the final has no sense of the path or parameters which got it there. So, on at least 2 counts my intuition says there is no way the 'Self" or "I" can be implemented as recursive algorithmic interactions.

Not true. Your computer program will still have pre-determined behaviors even its functionality and/or goals can be expost facto updated, which is completely unlike humans who's behavior is not deterministic in any way or at any moment in time b/c, unlike the computer program, humans (and rats et. al.) have an "I" which is self-determined sufficiently apart from their genetic code/programming to have true 'free will'.

Oh yes, it is very true. I already told you "I" is a program in private virtual reality created by the brain. And according to what physics you conclude that human behaviour is not deterministic in any way?

sounds like hypothetical mumbo-jumbo, not evidence.

I explicitly said it is a reason and not evidence. Sounds like we reached limits of your attention and perhaps comprehension too, but let’s try again just in case you are drunk right now or having a stroke.

Try to claim this statement is false: the only explanation we actually already know of, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence. Once you realize it is actually true, then my point should be self-evident.

I already told you "I" is a program in private virtual reality created by the brain — Zelebg

Just because you say so doesn't make that a viable model. private virtual reality doesn't solve the problem of coding a coherent, unified ego-state of "I" that is part of the VR not observing it. If it was just a matter of just writing code in a 'private virtual reality ' don't you think that MIT, Google, IBM (et. al.) would have already done that years ago? You said "I" could be programmed an a recursion I and explained why I think not. You have to propose a plausible coding model for "I" to support your otherwise ungrounded, wild statements.

Try to claim this statement is false: the only explanation we actually already know of, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence. Once you realize it is actually true, then my point should be self-evident. — Zelebg

Maybe I'm too drunk or brain damaged to understand the purported obvious genius of your statement(s), but seems obvious to me that the mind is a virtual existence b/c it exists in a conjured (illusion) of 'reality'. How is that obvious point an explanation of anything helpful? The hard problem is not to create a VR of things that do not actually exist, but to create an existence that brings vivid living objectified experiential meaning to things (like color) that are otherwise just data values to be processed and pattern matched as factual object properties.

nd according to what physics you conclude that human behaviour is not deterministic in any way? — Zelebg

I retract that broad statement made in haste. Of course that is not true, but what I was getting at is that as soon as a human knows it is expected to behave in a certain stupid way then it becomes more unpredictable that it will continue to behave that predicted stupid way. Computer programs are completely predictable in this way, when they act stupid they will continue to act stupid. If you know the program, its inputs and outputs and decision algos, you can completely manipulate the state-machine to change its behavior to which ever stupid result you want. AI is very easy to trick b/c of this. The programmer always knows how to make the executing program completely determined by the programmer's will and not the programs. Thus, it has neither free will or an "I" as you want to think about it. This is not generally possible to do with humans (we know the KGB, NSA, CIA, et. have tried (and failed) all the ways to force humans to do something it does not want to do!).

Ironically, the above withstanding Human mobility:
https://cos.northeastern.edu/news/human-behavior-is-93-predictable-research-shows/
HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS 93% PREDICTABLE, RESEARCH SHOWS