It usually is interpreted as having the ability to deliberately choose a non-optimal path vs an optimal path. Not necessarily just the ability to choose among optimal paths. In any case, if one wanted to create an experiment to demonstrate "free will" the most basic experiment would be to choose a path that is free of anyone's will, including your own. You can't get any more free than that. And it would be accomplished by using a mechanism of choice that is non-predictable to all, including in time.I am wondering if this means something at all. To see if you really mean something I think you should make a proposal for an experiment (SciFi elements are allowed). But such abstractions as 'an optimal path free from anyone's will' is hardly something to be realised in a laboratory. This is a problem statement of "free will" that you might find in any of the current Artificial Intelligence laboratories around the world. The experiments have been and are being done as we post. This is not science fiction.
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.That is not the only way to prove determinism true. You're all washed up thedoc. Predicting outcomes has nothing to do with proof. The proof is in the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction and that once a choice is made in that direction, it could not have been otherwise. Some version of "greater satisfaction" experiments are conducted in economics all the time. They usually find that such a determinism as you describe doesn't exist. peacegirl has been over this and has in the past recognized that in the current world people do not always operate towards "greater satisfaction". She did claim that after most of the world accepted the "undeniablity" of the discoveries of the great man that all would change practically overnight.
So by all means why don't you leave? There are many other threads and forums throughout the entire internet. You don't have to be at this one.I should add that your threads do have some entertainment value, and that you have attracted several others who seem to agree with you only adds to the entertainment. Unlike you I do participate on several other threads and several forums, this is only one stop of many. As far as time, I'm retired and there are times when I have extra time.
You think that changing the subject would be a good way to make the thread more productive? OK. Here is my empirical question: does money exist? Does it have 'an element of physical reality that can be verified'? Is it a meaningful question? (If not, my account no is ....)Yes, according to my sensory input money does exist, in fact I have some in my possession, even though most of my transactions lately are electronic via. plastic cards. I know you didn't include this in your question but I will add that money has only a small intrinsic value and most of the value is by convention or agreement by those using it.
You think that changing the subject would be a good way to make the thread more productive? OK. Here is my empirical question: does money exist? Does it have 'an element of physical reality that can be verified'? Is it a meaningful question? (If not, my account no is ....)Yes, according to my sensory input money does exist, in fact I have some in my possession, even though most of my transactions lately are electronic via. plastic cards. I know you didn't include this in your question but I will add that money has only a small intrinsic value and most of the value is by convention or agreement by those using it. Rather an odd question to ask by someone who uses the internet to communicate in words. That Rubicon has already been crossed.
This is a problem statement of "free will" that you might find in any of the current Artificial Intelligence laboratories around the world. The experiments have been and are being done as we post. This is not science fiction.Don't force me to read a book. Don't behave like peacegirl. Give me a concrete example of the experiment you have in mind.
Yes, according to my sensory input money does exist, in fact I have some in my possession, even though most of my transactions lately are electronic via. plastic cards. I know you didn't include this in your question but I will add that money has only a small intrinsic value and most of the value is by convention or agreement by those using it.So the essence of money lies in those pieces of paper called notes and metal chips called coins? No, you said that, most of your transactions are electronic. So you can do a physical experiment, i.e. physically determine what the value of a few magnetic areas on some harddisks is, and then recognise that here is your money? Oh, no, you said that too: it is mainly by convention. Now you can answer again, because you did not answer it really yet. You say 'yes', because you can see and touch coins and notes, but that doesn't seem to be the essence: the value is determined by convention. So: does money exist. Or if a yes/no question is too limiting for you: in what way does money exist?
Rather an odd question to ask by someone who uses the internet to communicate in words. That Rubicon has already been crossed.Yeah. Nearly as odd as asking for an experiment to prove (or disprove) the existence of free will.
I guess it would be odd if you didn’t know or care about how the internet and computers worked. In any case there is this thing called google where you can enter a question or a series of search terms and it will provide you with any number of links on the internet. Some with more veracity than others. And since no matter what I post you will find fault with it, I thought I would save us all a lot of time and let you go off and find fault on your own.
But just to help you with this google thing here is a link for you: artificial intelligence free will]
But just to help you with this google thing here is a link for you: artificial intelligence free will]And of course all the links express the same standpoint in the matter, are of the same academic level? Do you seriously think I spit through rubbish, empty speculations, and what else to find an article that is worth reading, to discover that it does not reflect you standpoint? Sorry, I spent tons of my time on this forum explaining my standpoint about free will, so give yours, or let it be. Are you retired too, with time enough to spend amusing yourself to annoy others?
Of course those links are not all at the same level. But it is also not reasonable for me to educate you about artificial intelligence and computers nor would it be reasonable to take whatever I say on more than face value since you know nothing of me. And frankly I do not think that internet forums such as this are appropriate for establishing anyone’s bonafides, even your own.
I am sorry if I offend you and I see that this forum offers some remedies in the form of [ignore] functionality. Maybe you can figure out how to use it.
From your posts I can see that you are a man of intense bluster and self importance. Certainly a big wig on this forum. So to answer your question I am not retired. I was trained as a physicist, work in the computer industry and have worked with artificial intelligence.
So you are not here for exchanging ideas? Funny, because normally that’s what fora are there fore.
And the for the rest I think you are spoiling your energy: I wouldn’t be astonished that we think according the same lines. But without you telling where you stand it will be difficult to find out.
So you are not here for exchanging ideas? Funny, because normally that's what fora are there fore. And the for the rest I think you are spoiling your energy: I wouldn't be astonished that we think according the same lines. But without you telling where you stand it will be difficult to find out.I have exchanged some ideas. Not my own, but based on those of giants such as Johnny von Neumann, Alan Turing, Kurt Goedel, Stan Ulam. I any case from that point of view we are all machines, in the same class of things we call machines. All machines can be represented as a series of numbers and operations on those numbers defined by those numbers. As one would find in a Turing Machine. Conceptual mathematical machines are flawless, actual machines are made of unreliable parts. But even putting reliability aside, both Turing and Goedel showed that not all problems are completely computable, but Ulam's Monte Carlo Algorithm showed that they are tractable given a computer. That one can usually find workable solutions if not complete solutions. If you are not familiar with the Monte Carlo Algorithm, as its name implies, it uses chance to solve a problem. So certainly the introduction of randomness into the thought processes of a machine can be a powerful tool for finding solutions to problems that otherwise would not be tractable. Many think that this is how the brain works. That groups of neurons process random impulses to solve problems that would otherwise be intractable. It is a good solution for a machine that must always work with less than complete and perfect knowledge made of unreliable components.
At another board, I posted what I believed to be the gist of the author’s argument, or peacegirl’s argument. It’s not quite clear how much of this argument is Lessans’ and how much is hers. Her reaction there was hostile and defensive, so I broke off discussion. In any event, I believe this IS the correct argument, the explanation of the so-called “two-sided equation.” (I have read the first two chapter of the book, and other chapters besides.) And note that many times, peacegirl has demanded that others explain what “the two-sided equation” is, but never once, in my experience, has she herself explained it in her own words. Here is hers/Lessans’ argument formalized:
- Everyone always moves in the direction of greater satisfaction.
- Because of this, no one can do, other that what they do (that which brings the greatest perceived satisfaction).
- If no one can do, other than what they do, it is illogical to blame people (or praise them, for that matter) for what they do, since they could not have done otherwise.
- If everyone on earth accepted 1., 2., and 3., then they would never blame or punish people for what they do. Even stronger, they could not blame or punish people for what they do, because blaming or punishing people who are not blameworthy would bring less satisfaction than not blaming or punishing them.
- Therefore, all people will (upon accepting 4.) know that they will not be blamed or punished for what they do, because no one can blame or punish anyone else under these changed conditions.
- People strike a first blow (i.e., find greater satisfaction in striking a first blow, then in refraining from doing so) precisely because they know in advance that they will be blamed or punished for striking a first blow: This prospective blame or punishment constitutes their justification for striking a first blow.
- Once everyone knows that they will not be blamed or punished for striking a first blow, they will no longer be able to strike a first blow, because their justification (blame or punishment) for acting in this way has vanished. Thus, the direction of “greater satisfaction” will always be to refrain from striking a first blow.
Conclusion: Once 1. through 7. are universally understood and accepted, no one will be able to strike a first blow.
If peacegirl feels there are any flaws in the above formalization of the argument, I invite her to point out what the flaws are. Then a constructive conversation can ensue. This would require her, for the first time, to explain the two-sided equation in her own words, something which I have attempted to do for her, here.
Now notice that even if she accepts the above summation, at least two further steps are required to establish the argument. The first is to determine if the argument is valid: Does the conclusion follow from the premises? (Not all are strictly premises; at least one is a preliminary conclusion and a couple of others are in the nature of assumptions; but that’s not a problem).
If the conclusion follows from the premises, then the argument is valid; but the argument can only be sound if all the premises are actually true.
Even that’s not quite the end of it. An argument determined to be both valid and sound may be determined, later on, to be unsound if it turns out it had one or more hidden premises which, when brought to light, turn out to be untrue.
Now there are two further things to note.
The fact is, peacegirl has been peddling this book online for more than ten years, and any number of people have, indeed, actually read it, in whole or in part – notwithstanding her denial of this.
As others have pointed out, she seems to feel that any disagreement with the book indicates either that the person disagreeing has failed to read the book, or has read it but failed to understand it. This is a very poor foundation for discussion.
She seems to feel that anything Lessans wrote is actually infallible – and yet, when Lessans wrote, later in the book, that light consists of molecules, she later went back in and changed the word “molecules” to “photons” after being educated on this matter by others. So implicitly, by doing this, she already accepts that her father’s words are not infallible. It must be noted that there are multiple versions of the book; peacegirl has indeed rewritten parts of it, and in so doing, again, implicitly acknowledges that her father’s words are not holy writ.
Were she to take this a step further, and accept that her father’s words are not holy writ, she might recognize, usefully for her, that her father’s arguments on free will and determinism might be flawed, but the point is, flawed arguments are often repairable. Repairing arguments happens all the time in philosophy; someone may be on to something, but has not quite got it right, and then the repairs come along and make the argument more solid.
In this case, two repairs are immediately needed: First, Lessans simply defines whatever we choose, as the choice that gives us the greatest satisfaction. This is circular. It tells us noting about whether we can freely choose x or y, for if we choose x that’s defined as the best choice, and if we choose y, then that’s defined as the best choice. But this cannot tell us whether we can choose either x or y, so it is not relevant to any discussion about free will.
The second problem, which I think someone here has already pointed out, is that the argument (I think this is actually peacegirl’s argument and not in the original text) that if I did x yesterday, I could not have failed to choose x, is a plain modal fallacy.
Both these flaws are potentially repairable, if peacegirl would only accept the fact that the author’s argument needs repair. I don’t know why she wouldn’t. She herself repaired his discussion on light and sight by changing “molecules of light” to the correct “photons of light.”
Some of the premises, of course, if correctly reflecting the argument (as I believe they do) are extremely questionable, in particular P6. But again, questionable premises are open to repair, if needed.
As to the general subject of free will, I am in the minority who believe that we have libertarian free will. However, I am always willing and even eager to entertain arguments that contravene my position; I just ask that they be good arguments, and that those presenting the arguments also be open to considering positions contrary to theirs.
The Monkey has landed.
I have exchanged some ideas. Not my own, but based on those of giants such as Johnny von Neumann, Alan Turing, Kurt Goedel, Stan Ulam. I any case from that point of view we are all machines, in the same class of things we call machines. All machines can be represented as a series of numbers and operations on those numbers defined by those numbers. As one would find in a Turing Machine. Conceptual mathematical machines are flawless, actual machines are made of unreliable parts. But even putting reliability aside, both Turing and Goedel showed that not all problems are completely computable, but Ulam's Monte Carlo Algorithm showed that they are tractable given a computer. That one can usually find workable solutions if not complete solutions. If you are not familiar with the Monte Carlo Algorithm, as its name implies, it uses chance to solve a problem. So certainly the introduction of randomness into the thought processes of a machine can be a powerful tool for finding solutions to problems that otherwise would not be tractable. Many think that this is how the brain works. That groups of neurons process random impulses to solve problems that would otherwise be intractable. It is a good solution for a machine that must always work with less than complete and perfect knowledge made of unreliable components.Thanks. That is more productive than making fun of each other. It sounds quite familiar from what I know of the subject, which is not very much, but at least I am severely infected by Dennett (many books and articles) and Hofstadter (GEB). Now I have two questions: 1. Must the randomness be pure, i.e. quantum randomness, or does some 'good enough' pseudo randomiser suffice? (In the latter case the system is of course still completely determined.) 2. Do you think that this randomness is the basis of what you call free will?
The Monkey has landed.Not yet. We'll know the monkey has landed when he starts asking about these photons. ;-)
GdB. the randomness must be random in the mathematical sense which predates QM. Certainly all those mentioned knew of and some had even contributed to QM since they were all together at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, along with Einstein and and many of the German scientists and mathematicians that fled Europe during the war.
I think randomness operates at several levels even in completely deterministic systems. There are problems that are not solvable or completely computable but can be solved using randomness. So a smart machine designer is gonna include that capability. Machines are finite, and given any particular set of information a machine would use to solve a problem will be truncated. In the case of chaotic problems the machine will generate solutions that appear to behave randomly. And even if one considered a world with no QM, the second law of thermodynamics still holds, so it’s all wearing down and failing at some point or another so machines are not reliable, and thus will fail in ways that result in errors in a statistical way. And then if you like, you can throw in QM for processes that are influenced by that scale of physics.
As I’ve stated earlier I think “free will” is an oxymoron. It was invented by religions to keep the flock in line.
The proof of no free will or the proof of determinism would consist of the 100% ability to predict the outcome of every choice presented. So first you need to find some way to predict the future, and then test it by presenting situations where a choice is involved. Any failure to predict accurately would open the possibility that there is some degree of free will and determinism is not 100%, as has been claimed.That is not the only way to prove determinism true. You're all washed up thedoc. Predicting outcomes has nothing to do with proof. The proof is in the fact that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction and that once a choice is made in that direction, it could not have been otherwise. Some version of "greater satisfaction" experiments are conducted in economics all the time. They usually find that such a determinism as you describe doesn't exist. peacegirl has been over this and has in the past recognized that in the current world people do not always operate towards "greater satisfaction". She did claim that after most of the world accepted the "undeniablity" of the discoveries of the great man that all would change practically overnight. You never understood what he meant by this, and you never had any questions. Why now?
peacegirl, I wouldn’t dare ask you about what is in the book. That’s a mugs game. But questions about the number of people you think have read the book is more in line with my concern for your mental health.
GdB. the randomness must be random in the mathematical sense which predates QM.But a system that physically exists, like a robot or a computer running a program, must have a 'physical implementation of randomness'. As I understand you, but correct me if I am wrong, you say that a pseudo-randomiser suffices. If e.g. a system must be kept from sticking in some small local minimum, some noise may help: but it really does not matter what the source is. In many cases 'bad noise' (from randomness point of view) is good enough, as long as the regularities of the 'noise' are not related with the the state of the system itself. You did not answer my second question...
For the Monte Carlo algorithm, pseudo random numbers have been shown to work well if they behave correctly statistically.
I’ve stated before that I think that “free will” is an oxymoron invented by the church. In philosophical circles it appears to be the past time of people who like to argue. In Computer Science circles it is yet another human attribute to be mechanized.