According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[Jarhyn]

That’s exactly it. The big bang replaces god.

I don't why you keep running a Strawman.

The irony is so palpable I can fucking taste it.

It's not a straw man, DBT, how can you not understand the implications of a lack of free will, and the eminence of predestination and thus superdeterminism that it never could be otherwise that the big bang would be what the Christians call "God", endowed with all original intent.

 

[DBT]

you... offered no explanation on how 'arbitratry algoriths' relate to determinism or the compatibalist definition of free will....

If you think that it is because you have understood exactly zero of my posts on the subject for the last half a decade.

I can say the same about you, only I'd be right.

It's not that I don't understand what you say, just that it ranges from irrelevant through to downright wacky.... I mean who besides you makes a claim for mind, consciousness and free will in computers.

Algorithms are wills. A "will: document" is an explicit algorithm for dispensing with your stuff. A "will: personal intention of action" is an algorithm to accomplish some goal. In fact it's trivially obvious just from "intention of action".

Computer algorithms have functions. Functions that have nothing to do with mind, consciousness or will in the form we experience it. The neural mechanisms of conscious experience is just not present in computers.

Nobody except maybe some wacked out fringe crowd makes that claim.

A "will to eat steak" is the result of "a will to generate a will to eat stake given the goal 'to eat steak", and "eating steak" is the result of successfully execution of "a will to eat steak". The successful execution is itself the measure of the freedom of that will towards successful execution.

Any of these are "arbitrary algorithms held by systems capable of supporting some set of arbitrary algorithms".

If you wanted to make a system that "eats steak" by the definition of sliding meat across some sensor, you cannot do that without implementing some algorithm to do so, and that algorithm IS "the will to do so".

Some such systems have a "will to source wills from (inside arbitrary boundary) and work to maintain or guarantee their freedom, and to reject wills from (outside arbitrary boundary) which align against the internally sourced wills/goal states." We call this specific will "free will", and when it is in the failed state, we call this "lacking free will" with respect to the outside goal's execution.

In all situations where the common language statement "I lacked free will" is rendered, the person is saying, effectively, "the will didn't come from inside me, it came from outside me, and I executed it anyway".

How can I make this any more clear to you that this IS the compatibilist definition of free will?

You begin with a set of flawed assumption such as conflating conscious will, as we experience it, with unconscious machine functions that are designed for a purpose, selection based on a given set of criteria, etc, etc.

This is not free will. It doesn't relate to compatibilism, which is defined as acting consciously according to one's will without force or coercion.

I don't know of any compatibilists that would agree with your claim of conscious computers with free will.

Frankly, it's bizarre.

You seem to be the one here incapable of accounting for the compatibilistic acceptance of "inner necessity" being the entire point. (Inside the boundary) IS me, and in fact the part that defines this arbitrary boundary is the thing that in any moment creates "me-ness".

You seem incapable of understanding that it's not just me.

Once again;

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. ''

Are you able to understand why? As it has been explained countless time, somehow that is very doubtful.

 

[Jarhyn]

Computer algorithms have functions

No, algorithms CAN be "functions", but all functions are all algorithms.

You have made more confident and wrong declarations than this, assuming you are right about all sorts of things that you don't even understand well enough to begin discussing.

You just hide your religion in terms you find palletable, and pretend you know better about modality than educated linguists, pretend you know more about behavioral systems and consciousness than information theorists.

Your arguments are like a flerf, talking about "water finds its own level" and demanding that if gravity pulls things "down" all the water would run off. You are seriously on that level of not-even-wrong right now.

 

[DBT]

Computer algorithms have functions

No, algorithms CAN be "functions", but all functions are all algorithms.

Regardless, an algorithm does not equate to mind, consciousness or will.....things that are not - contrary to your unfounded claim - to found in computer hardware, software or algorithms.

You have made more confident and wrong declarations than this, assuming you are right about all sorts of things that you don't even understand well enough to begin discussing.

Nah, you make outlandish claims - computer consciousness and free will, etc - that cannot be supported, only asserted.

When you are asked to give an account of your claims, you avoid the issue, you focus on your opponent.

You just hide your religion in terms you find palletable, and pretend you know better about modality than educated linguists, pretend you know more about behavioral systems and consciousness than information theorists.

Your arguments are like a flerf, talking about "water finds its own level" and demanding that if gravity pulls things "down" all the water would run off. You are seriously on that level of not-even-wrong right now.

Pitiful.

Why won't you answer the questions?

Why won't you explain on how your 'arbitratry algoriths' defense relates to determinism and compatibilist free will, which is to 'act without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced?

Are you able to do that? Or are you just going to keep whining?

 

[Jarhyn]

an algorithm does not equate to mind, consciousness

I never said it did. You have some major understanding problems here.

"Logic Circuit" equates to mind.

"Consciousness" is relating to the phenomena of signals embedding information about external phenomena -- As in "the signal originating from the blue dye and the blue ball before it carried into the mind the first seed of consciousness of the blue ball".

The brain is an information processing system DBT. It's absolutely fucking facile to them look away from the science of information processing systems when looking for definitions of things information processing systems are known to do.

an algorithm does not equate to... [a] will.

Why? Because you stamp your foot on the ground and assert boldly that it doesn't?

I fairly well pointed out how it does, clearly, equate to an algorithm.

I supported this by exploring deeply the common usages of both words.

"Last will (and testament)"

It's an executable script, an algorithm.

 

[pood]

That’s exactly it. The big bang replaces god.

I don't why you keep running a Strawman.

“They understand that the brain as a decision maker is bound by antecedents, which does not permit alternate or 'arbitrary' actions.”

That’s what you just said. So the inescapable implication of this “argument” is the reductio that the big bang writes jazz scores. And in so doing, it just takes the place of the Calvinistic predestinationist God.

No straw there. That’s your position laid bare.

What you always miss is that the brain’s choice making is part of the deterministic process. No jazz score writer, no jazz score.

 

[pood]

It’s really simple. If you push a rock down a hill, it will follow the path of least resistance, consistent with Newton’s laws of motion, because it has no brain or bodily organs to evaluate and choose among different options.

The human brain, and other brains, are able to evaluate among menus of options that are deterministically generated and then deterministically generate a response.

 

[bilby]

It’s really simple. If you push a rock down a hill, it will follow the path of least resistance, consistent with Newton’s laws of motion, because it has no brain or bodily organs to evaluate and choose among different options.

The human brain, and other brains, are able to evaluate among menus of options that are deterministically generated and then deterministically generate a response.

Further, reality is chaotic, and biological systems, such as brains, particularly so.

Determinism is completely useless when you cannot know the initial conditions well enough to predict even the broad outline of the future state.

We can be as convinced as we like that the universe (or even just a human brain) is fundamentally deterministic; That doesn't allow us to know its state now, and certainly not to calculate its future state(s). Only a god could do that, and there aren't any.

 

[pood]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

 

[The AntiChris]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

Quite possibly true but totally irrelevant to the compatibilist free will debate.

 

[DBT]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

Which does not relate to compatibilism.

Plus QM may well be seen as deterministic.

''Wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation (or its more precise relativistic counterparts, such as the Klein-Gordan equation). This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients at some moment in time allows a ''vast enough'' [Laplace] intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or futures time.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' From page 341 of '''The Elegant Universe''

 

[DBT]

That’s exactly it. The big bang replaces god.

I don't why you keep running a Strawman.

“They understand that the brain as a decision maker is bound by antecedents, which does not permit alternate or 'arbitrary' actions.”

That’s what you just said. So the inescapable implication of this “argument” is the reductio that the big bang writes jazz scores. And in so doing, it just takes the place of the Calvinistic predestinationist God.

Wrong. It's not a reducto fallacy because the brain is in fact the sole agent of mind, consciousness, thought, decision making and action initiation.

The brain is you. You are the brain. The state of the brain is the state of you. The brain does not choice its own state or condition (examples have been given)

Like it or not, that is the fundamental fact of the matter.

No straw there. That’s your position laid bare.

What you always miss is that the brain’s choice making is part of the deterministic process. No jazz score writer, no jazz score.

You don't actually address my position. You habitually skirt around it. And what you do say suggests that you miss the point.

Firstly, you are mistaken that it's something I cooked up. It is not. The issue, as pointed out, is related to the inherent flaw in compatibilism.

Which is that an action’s production by a deterministic process is not a freely willed process. That deterministic production is as much a challenge to compatibilism as external force, coercion, etc.

That is what you and other compatibilists fail to address by carefully skirting around it.

 

[DBT]

an algorithm does not equate to mind, consciousness

I never said it did. You have some major understanding problems here.

You have claimed that computers have consciousness and will, even free will. As that is a claim you have made, it follows that it is both computer hardware and software - algorithms, etc - that enable your claimed presence of mind consciousness and will in computers.

I'd say the problem lies with the fantastic claims you have made.

Or are you now retracting them?

"Logic Circuit" equates to mind.

"Consciousness" is relating to the phenomena of signals embedding information about external phenomena -- As in "the signal originating from the blue dye and the blue ball before it carried into the mind the first seed of consciousness of the blue ball".

The brain is an information processing system DBT. It's absolutely fucking facile to them look away from the science of information processing systems when looking for definitions of things information processing systems are known to do.

an algorithm does not equate to... [a] will.

Why? Because you stamp your foot on the ground and assert boldly that it doesn't?

There you go again. If you disagree, you should just explain why you believe it does. I have asked you enough times.

I fairly well pointed out how it does, clearly, equate to an algorithm.

No you didn't. You failed to connect algorithms, software or hardware to will as we experience it. You assert your beliefs and insist that function is equivalent to will.

Insisting and asserting and whining about me is not an argument.

I supported this by exploring deeply the common usages of both words.

"Last will (and testament)"

It's an executable script, an algorithm.

That words are used in various ways is not nearly enough. Maybe you also believe that the existence of God is proven because the word God is commonly used in reference to events in daily life? ''Thank God for this small mercy,'' therefore God exists?

 

[Jarhyn]

You have claimed that computers have consciousness and will, even free will

I claimed that "computers are conscious of things", that "sometimes the things computers are conscious of are themselves", that computers generally carry instantiations of wills, and that some objects existing on computers can instantiate a will that defines a boundary of self within the environment of the computer itself.

You can't relate my positions on these things without using all those extra words, or as many words that mean the same things.

If you cannot bring yourself to use all the words to reproduce my viewpoints respectfully and faithfully, you are merely throwing up a straw man.

Said in different words "computers have inputs" (this is clearly true); "sometines computers' inputs are recursive" (this is also clearly true); "sometimes computers are arranged to detect tampering along internal/external delineations such that they prefer internal actions to drive their behaviors" (this is also true, see also Valve Anti-Cheat).

The problem is that as much as you want to think of the brain as an information processing system, you don't understand much about information processing systems.

If you actually want to see how I think about the topic of God, gods, "gods", Spinoza's God, etc, there's already a thread for that, though.

I already see how you think on the subject: you're a Calvinist who DOES believe in the thing theists call God and you just give it a different name thinking that makes you more clever than them.

 

[pood]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

Quite possibly true but totally irrelevant to the compatibilist free will debate.

Right, but worth pointing out anyway. If determinism is a myth, how much more so hard determinism?

 

[pood]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

Which does not relate to compatibilism.

Plus QM may well be seen as deterministic.

''Wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation (or its more precise relativistic counterparts, such as the Klein-Gordan equation). This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients at some moment in time allows a ''vast enough'' [Laplace] intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or futures time.

Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave function at any prior time.

The probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics significantly softens Laplacian determinism by shifting inevitability from outcome-likelihoods, but the latter are fully determined within the conventional framework of quantum theory.'' From page 341 of '''The Elegant Universe''

I already said all of this. The evolution of the wave function is fully deterministic. State vector reduction is probabilistic as calculated by the Born rule.

 

[pood]

That’s exactly it. The big bang replaces god.

I don't why you keep running a Strawman.

“They understand that the brain as a decision maker is bound by antecedents, which does not permit alternate or 'arbitrary' actions.”

That’s what you just said. So the inescapable implication of this “argument” is the reductio that the big bang writes jazz scores. And in so doing, it just takes the place of the Calvinistic predestinationist God.

Wrong. It's not a reducto fallacy because the brain is in fact the sole agent of mind, consciousness, thought, decision making and action initiation.

Huh? Did I say otherwise? This is what I’ve been saying all along. How could you possibly have missed that?

The brain is you. You are the brain. The state of the brain is the state of you.

Right. Um, that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

The brain does not choice its own state or condition (examples have been given)

It does not choose inputs. It chooses outputs.

Like it or not, that is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Yeah. So?

No straw there. That’s your position laid bare.

What you always miss is that the brain’s choice making is part of the deterministic process. No jazz score writer, no jazz score.

You don't actually address my position. You habitually skirt around it. And what you do say suggests that you miss the point.

No. You are skirting around the point, again. Does the big bang write jazz scores? Yes? No?

 

[pood]

I should amend slightly. The brain can and does often choose inputs as well as outputs. It can avoid inputs it dislikes.

 

[The AntiChris]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

Quite possibly true but totally irrelevant to the compatibilist free will debate.

Right, but worth pointing out anyway.

I'm not convinced.

Quantum indeterminacy has no bearing on compatibilist free will and neither will it change the minds of hard determinists (I don't know of any who would concede free will even if it could be 'proved/demonstrated' that the universe wasn't really deterministic).

I think there's a danger that it just confuses the issue.

 

[Jarhyn]

And, of course, it’s really not fundamentally deterministic. It’s fundamentally quantum indeterministic.

Quite possibly true but totally irrelevant to the compatibilist free will debate.

Right, but worth pointing out anyway.

I'm not convinced.

Quantum indeterminacy has no bearing on compatibilist free will and neither will it change the minds of hard determinists (I don't know of any who would concede free will even if it could be 'proved/demonstrated' that the universe wasn't really deterministic).

I think there's a danger that it just confuses the issue.

Yeah, the hard determinist always has "pRNG state vector determinism" to fall back on because as I have said before "all probabilistic systems can be modeled with a deterministic one wherein the probabilistic collapse is 'just so'".

See also "prerolled dice" determinism and "superdeterminism", assuming these are actually different concepts at all.