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.

Then why don't accept the De Broglie–Bohm interprertation which is paredox free and determinsitic?

i feel like what I said about quantum crap is a good example, no? — flannel jesus

If you with quantum crap mean the Copenhagen interpretation then it suffers from many paradoxes such as Schrodinger's cat paradox and particle-wave duality. So this interpretation cannot be the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Because if I think incompatibilists understood free will incorrectly, — flannel jesus

I think they got it right.

because they understand it in such a way that it's incompatible with determinism, then it doesn't matter if I'm a determinist or not, it doesn't matter if the world is determinist or not. — flannel jesus

Why bothering to discuss compatibilism if it does not matter that the world is deterministic or not?

If they have the wrong concept of free will, then it's wrong, regardless of what I think about determinism or randomness separately. — flannel jesus

Where do you think that they got the concept of free will wrong?

I don't agree — flannel jesus

Why?

Compatibilism is about conceiving of free will in such a way that it's compatible with determinism — flannel jesus

Yes.

which is distinct from an explicit claim that determinism is in fact the case. — flannel jesus

Well, if you deny determinism then there is nothing to discuss when it comes to compatibilism.

that's correct — flannel jesus

But compatibilism is about the existence of free will in a deterministic world rather than a random world.

Adding a little randomness to the world means that it is not deterministic anymore.

I know what compatibilism means. Compatibilism is however nonsensical.

Compatibilism isn't a hard commitment to determinism. — flannel jesus

It is. If you have some other view in your mind please be more specific and use other terminology.

In trying to stave off potential headaches, he's a compatibilist in the sense of free will being defined as "anything one wills to do that is not obstructed is thereby one's free will" — javra

Cool.

which would then be a free will notion that is perfectly compatible with realty being "causally inevitable". — javra

I think we first have to agree on how options could be real in a determinist world. Once that is established then we could understand that decision is not possible in a deterministic system.

flannel jesus is of course free to correct or else modify this if wrong. But I've had my headaches in the past in trying to discuss with him the difference between c compatibilism and deterministic compatibilism - which he seems to conflate into the same thing. He sticks to everything necessarily being either "causally inevitable" or else random. And hence to compatibilism only making sense within this framework. — javra

Are you saying that in his opinion the decision is the result of randomness or else is determined? I think we can simply exclude the latter because both options are real. The former also can be excluded as well because of the correlation between the time of decision and action.

So to you, the world should be deterministic. Why do you bother with randomness?

Aren't you a compatibilist?

asked you if you know why many of us think systems can either be deterministic, or must be in some part random — flannel jesus

You didn't say that. You said that two options are determined or random. I then mentioned that options cannot be random or determined.

you don't understand why people think that — flannel jesus

What is the thing that you think I didn't understand?

ok I guess that's a no. — flannel jesus

What do you mean?

Do you know why a lot of us think the two options are determined or random? — flannel jesus

Options cannot be random or determined. Whether the decision is random or determined is another topic. I however argue that decisions cannot be generally determined since the future as I mentioned is uncertain so you may face a situation with options that you have never experienced in the past. That is where the mind comes into play and gives you the ability to choose between options.

nobody is saying anything like that though. Nobody is saying people decide things before being presented with options. I don't know why that's your question. — flannel jesus

I am asking this question to argue that the mind is not a determined entity. If you have one option, then you just follow it. The future however is uncertain. It might contain options or not. You have to wait for it and see whether you are presented with options.

I don't know why that's a question. The question doesn't connect with anything to me. — flannel jesus

Could you decide before you are presented with options?

Let me put it this way: How could the mind be determined before realizing options?

Well, if the mind was determined then you could not possibly decide in a situation with two options. We also don't toss a coin when we decide. We just pick the option that we please and want.

No, I am talking about what I wrote in this thread.

I don't think so. Whether it's physical or some other substance is just an implementation detail. That other substance faces the same determined/random dichotomy as physics — flannel jesus

Did you read my explanation? The mind is not determined or random.

I think we can eliminate all troubles if we accept a form of substance dualism, in which matter is deterministic, whereas the mind can experience options and decide freely. The problem that is left is how can we have options in a deterministic world. I have discussed this in another thread of mine entitled "On the existence of options in a deterministic world".

Anastacia - I'm Outta Love

@javra @Pierre-Normand Unfortunately, after some thought, I realized that the suggested network does not work as I thought it should. Please disregard my previous post.

Elisa - Dancing

@javra @Pierre-Normand By the way, I found a simple neural network that can perform a simple sum.



The weights are all 1 and the inputs are 0 or 1. I thought that you might be interested so I shared it with you.