Does free will exist and stuff

[1338 h4x0r]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/is-free-will-free/

So yeah there's a lot of neuroscientific evidence coming out against it

It makes sense I think: sensory input => stuff happens with 100 billion neurons => behavior. Not entirely predictable (no more so than any other complex system), but I see about as much free will in animal behavior as in plant behavior, or large body of turbulent water behavior. All of these may be hard to pin down for various reasons, but all of them are governed by deterministic laws.

[Mr. Ron]

if we do have any semblance of free will it is extremely limited.

[The Human Language]

I am willing to believe this. I feel it is fundamentally trivial, however.

Whether or not it is a matter of free will or of determinism does not mean I haven't the choice to move out of the way of an approaching tram. We must still look after our best interests, after all. That is not to say, this is not an interesting progression in the age old epistemological debate.

[1338 h4x0r]

Yes but whether we get out of the way of the tram has nothing to do with free will anymore than inhibitory mechanisms in (artificial) machines have anything to do with a sense of self-preservation

[The Human Language]

I am not claiming it does.

The choice is what matters to me, and will reflect my decision rather then an empty "well this is how it shall be" if I wish to let the tram come into contact.

[Wanker]

Yes but whether we get out of the way of the tram has nothing to do with free will anymore than inhibitory mechanisms in (artificial) machines have anything to do with a sense of self-preservation

Unless we're in an M. Night Shamalamalon film.

[1338 h4x0r]

@ The Human Language

that's semantic quibbling

also were you frozen in ice in the late 17th century then resuscitated in the modern era

[Iskandar]

He's a gimmick.

Also free will obviously exists I make tons of choices every day. I don't have to pick certain choices just because they're more convenient.

[14CAPITALLETTERS]

bf skinner make a great case for the non-existence of free will

[Jude]

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0142003840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245614656&sr=1-1

I read this book and I guess I buy it. He's arguing that free will in the truly free, uncaused, metaphysical sense can't exist, but that we have evolved mental capabilities that approximate "free will" in all the ways that matter.

[1338 h4x0r]

He's a gimmick.

Also free will obviously exists I make tons of choices every day. I don't have to pick certain choices just because they're more convenient.

That's stupid, and has nothing to do with whether free will is illusory

How is the brain any less deterministic than, say, the Sun

[gregulus]

He's a gimmick.

Also free will obviously exists I make tons of choices every day. I don't have to pick certain choices just because they're more convenient.

Apparent free will != free will.

[1338 h4x0r]

It's a cute illusion but apparently Alex doesn't get that

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html

[gregulus]

A lot of people seem terrified or at least somewhat hostile towards the idea of not having free will. It's a reaction I don't fully understand.

[1338 h4x0r]

"Brain signals associated with [random actions] occurred half a second before the subject was conscious of deciding to make them

The order of brain activities seemed to be perception of motion, and then decision, rather than the other way around.

In short, the conscious brain was only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain was already doing."

LOL FREE WILL DOESN'T EXIST

[Mr. Ron]

didn't they discover that the brain decides things 10 seconds before you do them, or something?

[Jude]

You guys should read "Freedom Evolves

[1338 h4x0r]

Like half a second

[gregulus]

The moral implications of the lack of true free will are interesting ones. However, I'm not sure that lacking free will is the same thing as a purely deterministic existence. Given all of the factors that will influence one's decision making process (past experiences, personality, society, beliefs, genetics, etc.), it may be that those same factors can deter someone from doing something like committing a murder as much as they may encourage someone to commit a murder. The non-existence of free will does not seem to remove the responsibility of committing crime. A criminal still operates under apparent free will and knowingly defies the laws governing whatever society they are a part of.

[spitfirejunky]

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0142003840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245614656&sr=1-1

I read this book and I guess I buy it. He's arguing that free will in the truly free, uncaused, metaphysical sense can't exist, but that we have evolved mental capabilities that approximate "free will" in all the ways that matter.

The moral implications of the lack of true free will are interesting ones. However, I'm not sure that lacking free will is the same thing as a purely deterministic existence. Given all of the factors that will influence one's decision making process (past experiences, personality, society, beliefs, genetics, etc.), it may be that those same factors can deter someone from doing something like committing a murder as much as they may encourage someone to commit a murder. The non-existence of free will does not seem to remove the responsibility of committing crime. A criminal still operates under apparent free will and knowingly defies the laws governing whatever society they are a part of.

I like these.

[gregulus]

I like Jude's idea of "approximate" free will. The things in our lives that do influence our decision making process enable us to recognize potential consequences of our decisions, thus we are capable of deciding which of those consequences we are willing to face. This isn't true free will, though, as our decisions are ultimately influenced and in many regards probably determined by factors other than our own consciousness.

[1338 h4x0r]

Lack of free will eliminates responsibility for anything, "good", "bad", or anything else.

The sooner the judicial system recognizes this, and society at large, the better

[gregulus]

Lack of free will eliminates responsibility for anything, "good", "bad", or anything else.

The sooner the judicial system recognizes this, and society at large, the better

Are you saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions?

[1338 h4x0r]

They might need to be segregated from the wider population, attempts at reforming them could be tried, but I think the whole idea of punishment is ridiculous

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

do we even have the ability to discern whether free will exists objectively?

or is it just a semantic concept we are slowly ripping apart through time

[mph4ever]

Lack of free will eliminates responsibility for anything, "good", "bad", or anything else.

The sooner the judicial system recognizes this, and society at large, the better

you don't need free will to understand the difference between right or wrong. given a set of parameters then we all have free will to make decisions. the consequences don't govern whether it is free will or not, its the opportunity to choose

[1338 h4x0r]

you don't need free will to understand the difference between right or wrong. given a set of parameters then we all have free will to make decisions. the consequences don't govern whether it is free will or not, its the opportunity to choose

eh?

[mph4ever]

eh?

eh, what?

[1338 h4x0r]

"you don't need free will to understand the difference between right or wrong."

Start here: what does this have to do with the course of actions one takes?

It's been long known that human rationality is generally "bounded" (uses quick heuristics rather than slow, complete solutions), i.e., even if you have all the facts you're prone not to use some of them.

Some of us have less bounded rationality than others. I look at the average person as having much more bounded rationality than people like me do, and this can often have disastrous consequences even if their actions aren't strictly criminal. In turn, those who commit crimes often have even more bounded rationality than average persons.

I don't see the clear distinction between any of these groups.

[mph4ever]

"you don't need free will to understand the difference between right or wrong."

Start here: what does this have to do with the course of actions one takes?

well you could consider free will to be the ability to make a decision given some options. not all options are available but you can decide what you think is best based on whats available. in todays world that is more and more the case. most questions are closed but you can still freely pick one of the prescribed answers

It's been long known that human rationality is generally "bounded" (uses quick heuristics rather than slow, complete solutions), i.e., even if you have all the facts you're prone not to use some of them.

every sitution is influenced by different circumstances. we sometimes take a chance on something because we are not in possession of all of the facts. buts thats human nature

Some of us have less bounded rationality than others. I look at the average person as having much more bounded rationality than people like me do, and this can often have disastrous consequences even if their actions aren't strictly criminal. In turn, those who commit crimes often have even more bounded rationality than average persons.
people like you? please explain

I don't see the clear distinction between any of these groups.
they are all human afterall. trading places?

[1338 h4x0r]

well you could consider free will to be the ability to make a decision given some options. not all options are available but you can decide what you think is best based on whats available. in todays world that is more and more the case. most questions are closed but you can still freely pick one of the prescribed answers

Yeah, ok, but punishing people for being criminal is essentially similar to punishing people for being retarded


every sitution is influenced by different circumstances. we sometimes take a chance on something because we are not in possession of all of the facts. buts thats human nature


Even in light of perfect information, often not all of it will be used. I'm not talking about decisions under uncertainty


people like you?

As Bertrand Russell put it: "Most people would rather die than think. Many do." I don't belong to that "most people" category.

they are all human afterall. trading places?

It sometimes feels that way

[McP3000]

didn't they discover that the brain decides things 10 seconds before you do them, or something?
if youre stoned maybe

[mph4ever]

Yeah, ok, but punishing people for being criminal is essentially similar to punishing people for being retarded

how so? retards are victims of genetic circumstance or environment.

Even in light of perfect information, often not all of it will be used. I'm not talking about decisions under uncertainty

not am i. its a leap sometimes. nothing like a punt even if the odds are against you. let the heart govern the mind. there is no logic. thats human nature

As Bertrand Russell put it: "Most people would rather die than think. Many do." I don't belong to that "most people" category.

1338 sort of gives the game away. you won't even accept belonging to the 1337s

It sometimes feels that way
its only human nature, afterall

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

if youre stoned maybe
it was milliseconds

[1338 h4x0r]

how so? retards are victims of genetic circumstance or environment.

So are criminals, as I pointed out in my discussion of bounded rationality

The only real difference is that career criminals typically exhibit even more dumb short-term heuristics than an average person, whose own short-term heuristics are costly and dangerous in themselves (e.g., buy a gas guzzler to impress people, let the planet go to ruin) ...... it's stupid to punish them


not am i. its a leap sometimes. nothing like a punt even if the odds are against you. let the heart govern the mind. there is no logic. thats human nature

"It's in yeh neytche to destroy yehselfs"

1338 sort of gives the game away. you won't even accept belonging to the 1337s

Indeed, being 1338 is hard work though

[gregulus]

I think it is important to recognize that determinism is not synonymous with causation and that determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Free acts are not necessarily uncaused, but are instead determined by one's beliefs, personality, genetics, situation, etc. The distinction between causation and determination is an important one for all intents and purposes here. To give an example (stolen from Dennett), when you flip a coin there are a number of factors that go into determining whether the coin lands heads up or tails up. However, given the multitude of variables, it is quite literally impossible to state which of the factors caused the result. Determination, as I am using the term here, signifies a sort of general influence from a variety of different sources--none of which ultimately cause one's decision. Instead, the individual has a sort of approximate free will that is undoubtedly influenced by aforementioned factors but still seems to suggest that one should still ultimately be held accountable for one's actions.

[1338 h4x0r]

Why

Sensory input goes in

Stuff happens in the neurons and their friends ...... all of which is determined by environment and genetics

Behavior comes out

Not much room for accountability

The "choice" part is totally illusory

[mph4ever]

I think it is important to recognize that determinism is not synonymous with causation and that determinism is not incompatible with free will.

Free acts are not necessarily uncaused, but are instead determined by one's beliefs, personality, genetics, situation, etc. The distinction between causation and determination is an important one for all intents and purposes here. To give an example (stolen from Dennett), when you flip a coin there are a number of factors that go into determining whether the coin lands heads up or tails up. However, given the multitude of variables, it is quite literally impossible to state which of the factors caused the result. Determination, as I am using the term here, signifies a sort of general influence from a variety of different sources--none of which ultimately cause one's decision. Instead, the individual has a sort of approximate free will that is undoubtedly influenced by aforementioned factors but still seems to suggest that one should still ultimately be held accountable for one's actions.


so killing someone is murder

[gregulus]

Why

Sensory input goes in

Stuff happens in the neurons and their friends ...... all of which is determined by environment and genetics

Behavior comes out

Not much room for accountability
This is an over-simplified model of decision making, I think. You act as if things like other beliefs cannot influence an action. The studies cited previously in the thread, which I have no reason to believe are wrong, only accounted for random movements. Most decisions are not that random. Human's are certainly capable of analyzing the potential consequences of their actions. This is why the determinism/causation distinction is important.

[mph4ever]

So are criminals, as I pointed out in my discussion of bounded rationality

The only real difference is that career criminals typically exhibit even more dumb short-term heuristics than an average person, whose own short-term heuristics are costly and dangerous in themselves (e.g., buy a gas guzzler to impress people, let the planet go to ruin) ...... it's stupid to punish them

they are punished every day for their dumb decisions. taxes, stress, terrorism

"It's in yeh neytche to destroy yehselfs"

no. its in your nature to go with your gut feeling from time to time. thats free will

Indeed, being 1338 is hard work though
you could always choose to be 1338 minus one

[Iskandar]

Lol Chris thinks people aren't criminally responsible for anything.

Instead of the insanity defense, they should use the determinism defense.

People can't be reformed either and learn to change their behaviour. I mean, that's not the whole point of behaviourism.

[1338 h4x0r]

This is an over-simplified model of decision making, I think. You act as if things like other beliefs cannot influence an action. The studies cited previously in the thread, which I have no reason to believe are wrong, only accounted for random movements. Most decisions are not that random. Human's are certainly capable of analyzing the potential consequences of their actions. This is why the determinism/causation distinction is important.

There is potential for reflection, but it is severely limited in even the most rational of humans

Some people just don't reflect well. It's a kind of mental impairment, analogous to full blown retardation

[gregulus]

its in your nature to go with your gut feeling from time to time. thats free will
No it's not. Where did you get that definition of free will from?

[mph4ever]

No it's not. Where did you get that definition of free will from?

its an example of free will, not a definition

[gregulus]

There is potential for reflection, but it is severely limited in even the most rational of humans

Some people just don't reflect well. It's a kind of mental impairment, analogous to full blown retardation

As I have said before in this thread, human actions are determined (not to be confused with caused) by a host of different factors. Discounting this influence is like shooting yourself in the foot when discussing issues like free will.

While it may seem like most people's decision making process is poor and entirely random, it is unlikely that this is indeed the case.

[gregulus]

its an example of free will, not a definition

That's not an example of free will.

[1338 h4x0r]

So you are saying essentially, that reflection is a necessary part of "moral agency", but not the sufficient cause

I agree, but feel that reflection itself is deterministic. i.e., whether you reflect or not, and to what degree, cannot be explicitly controlled

[mph4ever]

That's not an example of free will.

sure it is. you make the decision between some options and go with your gut feeling. its up to you. you can go with the dead certs or you can take a chance, gamble. nothing but gut feeling to sway you. is that not free will?

[1338 h4x0r]

No it's just programmed silliness

[gregulus]

So you are saying essentially, that reflection is a necessary part of "moral agency", but not the sufficient cause

I agree, but feel that reflection itself is deterministic. i.e., whether you reflect or not, and to what degree, cannot be explicitly controlled

It doesn't matter if it's deterministic. One still operates under approximate free will. That is, a decision is made given a set of choices and a person is still very well aware of the decision that he/she makes. Determinism simply implies that there are factors influencing the decision that are inescapable. Nothing explicitly causes the decision to be made. The individual still makes a decision without duress and thus should be held accountable for it. The ability to consider consequences of a particular course of action does not necessarily require serious philosophical consideration. For example, if I am trying to decided whether to eat or not, it does not take long to weigh the consequences of eating vs. not eating.

[gregulus]

sure it is. you make the decision between some options and go with your gut feeling. its up to you. you can go with the dead certs or you can take a chance, gamble. nothing but gut feeling to sway you. is that not free will?

No. Even though the terminology is "going with your gut feeling," it still involves the same type of reasoning that any other decision-making does and is influenced by the same factors.

[1338 h4x0r]

It doesn't matter if it's deterministic. One still operates under approximate free will. That is, a decision is made given a set of choices and a person is still very well aware of the decision that he/she makes.

And he/she watches the decision unfold and makes up a story about choosing it freely after the fact

[gregulus]

And he/she watches the decision unfold and makes up a story about choosing it freely after the fact

Maybe, but I'm not saying he/she chooses it freely.

This is actually the important part of that post:
Determinism simply implies that there are factors influencing the decision that are inescapable. Nothing explicitly causes the decision to be made. The individual still makes a decision without duress and thus should be held accountable for it. The ability to consider consequences of a particular course of action does not necessarily require serious philosophical consideration. For example, if I am trying to decided whether to eat or not, it does not take long to weigh the consequences of eating vs. not eating.

[StreetlightRock]

I don't understand your logic 1338, just because neurons do stuff doesn't mean free will doesn't exist - saying that doesn't explain why they may do one thing but not the other, or why two similar choices may be different in a different circumstance, or even why people make different choices at all. It makes perfect sense to me that the realization of a choice may come only after a choice has been made by neural activity, but that doesn't mean that that choice wasn't a result of agency, only that our biological set up makes us a little slow to realize the results of our free processing of information.

[1338 h4x0r]

Maybe, but I'm not saying he/she chooses it freely.

This is actually the important part of that post:

I didn't get it.

I don't understand your logic 1338, just because neurons do stuff doesn't mean free will doesn't exist - saying that doesn't explain why they may do one thing but not the other, or why two similar choices may be different in a different circumstance, or even why people make different choices at all. It makes perfect sense to me that the realization of a choice may come only after a choice has been made by neural activity, but that doesn't mean that that choice wasn't a result of agency, only that our biological set up makes us a little slow to realize the results of our free processing of information.

According to experimental data, the choice is apparently already made before it comes into the conscious mind

I don't get what you're saying

So yeah the whole neural assembly "feeds back" in some sense, in that you can "reflect" on actions, but ability to do so varies widely, first of all, and if I may use an argument by analogy, this no more means that we have free will than a sequential (as opposed to combinational) digital circuit has "free will". Think about what you are saying

[StreetlightRock]

ugh im going out now ill reply later.

[gregulus]

The study cited in the article simply looked at random movements and, while the study did find that neural triggers did fire before the conscious decision to make the movement was made, it made no implications as to what actually determined what that neural trigger would be. That is, it didn't account for why person A chooses to move a finger while person B chooses to jump. It also doesn't provide a good assessment for mechanisms involved in rational thought. Not all decisions, especially not decisions with ethical implications, are as spontaneous as moving a certain muscle and it's not entirely clear that a person would react the same way to such decisions as they did in the study. I think it's dangerous to take a hardline, "we have no control" position on the issue of free will because the evidence doesn't clearly show that. That is not to say, however, that we have free will in the classical sense. As I said previously, determinism is not synonymous with causality. That is to say that the factors that influence one's decision don't necessarily force that person to make that decision, which is what you seem to be implying.

[gregulus]

ugh im going out now ill reply later.

Damn you for having a social life.

[1338 h4x0r]

What's the real difference between making random movements and, well, anything else

I can't think of any

[gregulus]

What's the real difference between making random movements and, well, anything else

I can't think of any

You're making the assumption that an individual would react the same way to making random movements as they would an important, potentially life-changing decision. One decision is entirely spontaneous and the other is not. One doesn't need to really be thought out and the other one does.

[1338 h4x0r]

Yes but at the neural level how are these different

And how does one "choose" which pathways get activated

The brain is a lot of DSP phenomena. It makes as much sense to say that central nerves exhibit free will as it does to say the peripheral nerves have free will

[gregulus]

Yes but at the neural level how are these different

And how does one "choose" which pathways get activated

The brain is a lot of DSP phenomena. It makes as much sense to say that central nerves exhibit free will as it does to say the peripheral nerves have free will

One doesn't "choose" which pathways get activated, however, you're not taking into consideration how the brain might approach different decisions depending on a host of other factors that influence how the brain makes decisions. Even asking questions that do get manifested consciously surely has an influence that is entirely absent in the "move random muscles" type of decision.

[Moon Flavor]

We definitely don't have free will.

If given 2 different choices in any given scenario any number of times we will "choose" the same choice every single time given that every single factor is the same. Keep in mind that if there is memory of the scenario occuring previously then not every factor is the same.

Obviously I have no way to prove this because there's no way to erase memory while keeping all other brain functions exactly the same. But it just seems elementary.

Of course the illusion of free will is strong enough that the answer to whether we truly have free will does not really matter. Although it would raise some questions as to why a hypothetical christian god would put us on earth to test us for strength of character before entering heaven or hell.

Interesting question though.

[gregulus]

If given 2 different choices in any given scenario any number of times we will "choose" the same choice every single time given that every single factor is the same.
I agree with this.

[Moon Flavor]

I agree with this.

so how can you believe in free will if our fate is predetermined in every aspect by our particular thought processes

[gregulus]

so how can you believe in free will if our fate is predetermined in every aspect by our particular thought processes

I was never arguing for free will. My debate with Chris was in regards to whether or not someone should be held accountable for his/her actions.

Refer to:
Determinism simply implies that there are factors influencing the decision that are inescapable. Nothing explicitly causes the decision to be made. The individual still makes a decision without duress and thus should be held accountable for it.
Basically, I'm arguing that an individual still knows what consequences any given decision has and their actions should be treated as such.

[die of starvation]

trying to divorce choice from the chemical reactions in the brain doesn't make any sense your brain is who you are

[Smokey D]

Lack of free will eliminates responsibility forhttp://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17316322 anything, "good", "bad", or anything else.

The sooner the judicial system recognizes this, and society at large, the better

Yeah, ok, but punishing people for being criminal is essentially similar to punishing people for being retarded

Hrm. I'm not sure I agree. Whether the will is existentially free or determined by formalistic rules of the universe doesn't in any meaningful way seem to disturb the relationship between a person's intent and their actions.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

trying to divorce choice from the chemical reactions in the brain doesn't make any sense your brain is who you are
that's why i wonder what free will actually means before i can decide if it exist

i mean it's like there's a line that has to be drawn where electrical synapse pulses become consciousness and > free will

so anyways then people start using cultural things like morality and fate to talk about free will, but i think it's basically chaos (controlled by environment and personal reactions but still somewhat random (part of the complexity)) as opposed to ordered future paths versus conscious decision making

[1338 h4x0r]

One doesn't "choose" which pathways get activated, however, you're not taking into consideration how the brain might approach different decisions depending on a host of other factors that influence how the brain makes decisions. Even asking questions that do get manifested consciously surely has an influence that is entirely absent in the "move random muscles" type of decision.

This is like the difference between a sequential and combinational logic circuit: what it is doing can't be helped either way.

http://www.eelab.usyd.edu.au/digital_tutorial/part3/blockd.gif

The fact that more "secondary inputs" are involved in some action has nothing to do with whether they can help doing it

Hrm. I'm not sure I agree. Whether the will is existentially free or determined by formalistic rules of the universe doesn't in any meaningful way seem to disturb the relationship between a person's intent and their actions.

Why

[Iskandar]

I think he means that even if someone's intentions are pre-determined they're still their intentions.

I'm not sure I buy that but I'm not him either.

[1338 h4x0r]

So are their actions

This is dumb, neither of you are making sense

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

that's because you think this question has an answer

[Iskandar]

So are their actions

This is dumb, neither of you are making senseWe don't have to follow through on our intentions or I would be screwing a leggy redhead right now.

[Mr. Ron]

We don't have to follow through on our intentions or I would be screwing a leggy redhead right now.
wait hold on why aren't you doing this right now?

[Iskandar]

K, a person does because I said so.

[Iskandar]

wait hold on why aren't you doing this right now?Lol, there isn't one. It was just an example.

[1338 h4x0r]

that's because you think this question has an answer

Either a person has free will or a person does not have free will.

That is patently true.

We don't have to follow through on our intentions or I would be screwing a leggy redhead right now.

Strawman. I was talking about "free will" not "omnipotence"

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Either a person has free will or a person does not have free will.

That is patently true.how meaningless

[1338 h4x0r]

How simple, you mean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_excluded_middle

P or not P

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

then you are asking nothing

[1338 h4x0r]

No I am asking which part of the disjunction is true

derp

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

free will is a description of a real illusion

it's not even defined anywhere well enough to act like it's calculus haha

derp

[1338 h4x0r]

free will is a description of a real illusion

What


it's not even defined anywhere well enough to act like it's calculus haha


Logic isn't calculus

It deals in discrete rather than continuous phenomena

Derp

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Whatim just asking you why you think it's possible to know whether free will exists or not

[1338 h4x0r]

Yes

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

okay let me rephrase, (you should study more)

...what difference does it make, ever

it's like asking, can i understand how parts of my brain work ? yes
can i describe my actions as decisions? yes
and then asking
which is more awesome to you!?

[fingers mccoy]

i dont really understand how meaningful the concept of free will is when all scientific fields exploring behaviours will either model it as free or determined depending on what is more efficient

as far as i've understood it since i first had the concept explained to me in a religious concept it's simply a metaphor for the agent aspects of social behaviour that aren't immediately controllable from the outside

an explanation of why some people may always sin despite good

idk... but isn't free will assumed not to really exist in the significant majority of scientific discourse?

but if free will really does die than i suppose so must the idea of moral responsibility... yet i somehow dont see that affecting judicial systems.

[SugarCoatedSour]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/is-free-will-free/

So yeah there's a lot of neuroscientific evidence coming out against it

It makes sense I think: sensory input => stuff happens with 100 billion neurons => behavior. Not entirely predictable (no more so than any other complex system), but I see about as much free will in animal behavior as in plant behavior, or large body of turbulent water behavior. All of these may be hard to pin down for various reasons, but all of them are governed by deterministic laws.

Through this I'm not refuting what you say, but as in all things you must consider duality. The existence of other self-apparent and self-justifiable perspectives can't be denied. Therefore you can't solidify or associate these types of things mentally and must experience them innately. Besides it seems more likely than not that this is just an extension of psycho-analysis(elimination) that's been going on and dictated for over a century
The meanings for language the mind draws at this point is preceptual and are of a connotative basis. And as humans live and breath we are mind manifesting and can realize things not predictably woven into the pattern of nature.

[1338 h4x0r]

^^^

huh, what does that have to do with anything? what does psychoanalysis have to do with neuroscience? they're almost polar opposites

okay let me rephrase, (you should study more)

...what difference does it make, ever

it's like asking, can i understand how parts of my brain work ? yes
can i describe my actions as decisions? yes
and then asking
which is more awesome to you!?

Who cares which is "more awesome"?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Who cares which is "more awesome"?people who ask this question, they are curious to see where their biases will fall

free will isn't yes or no because it's a description of some event and descriptions aren't 0 or 1

[1338 h4x0r]

Events can certainly be described as such

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

free will definition: 1


see doesn't work, helps no one

[SugarCoatedSour]

otter perspectives is what I'm saying dude. Primordial perspectives.

[1338 h4x0r]

free will definition: 1


see doesn't work, helps no one

You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't actually use.

otter perspectives is what I'm saying dude. Primordial perspectives.

And just what the hell does this mean?

[SugarCoatedSour]

Do I gotta send you a link or do you have your own sense of relativity?

[1338 h4x0r]

My eyes glaze over when I see things like this


Through this I'm not refuting what you say, but as in all things you must consider duality. The existence of other self-apparent and self-justifiable perspectives can't be denied. Therefore you can't solidify or associate these types of things mentally and must experience them innately. Besides it seems more likely than not that this is just an extension of psycho-analysis(elimination) that's been going on and dictated for over a century
The meanings for language the mind draws at this point is preceptual and are of a connotative basis. And as humans live and breath we are mind manifesting and can realize things not predictably woven into the pattern of nature.

[1338 h4x0r]

People are voting in my poll and not even backing up their unscientific opinions, that's ****ing lame

[SugarCoatedSour]

Science is governed and screened by THE GOVERNEMTNTA!


Are you one of those bugged out informational dickbags who needs things in paper to realize? It doesn't seem like you grasp the context of words, which is exactly the **** I'm talking about.

[fingers mccoy]

People are voting in my poll and not even backing up their unscientific opinions, that's ****ing lame

that's exactly what a poll is for, raw unqualified data

what do you expect people to say about this? there are no satisfying conclusions as of yet

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

sorry for messing up your mx internet science laboratory ( i didnt vote)

anyways i understand that it's stupid to actually think there is an answer to this question and on top of that, one that will have any use by the time (maybe) we connect the micro-neuronal to the macro-philosophical/psychological and get the answer

[1338 h4x0r]

I think the question of whether free will can be determined without a broad theory of mind

What makes consciousness come into being is another question but free will is in the scientific domain

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

i can't answer the question because if free will exists, it possibly lies in the domain of it not existing, as in: real illusion

how i put it earlier,

i guess on a level you can inteprete this as a no
but i always think it exists to the level it needs to, to exist, in our minds

[Against Miik!]

Yes free will does exist because if it didn't we wouldn't even know. So there is no difference between free will and free will as far as we know.

I do get sick of people who say things were meant happen a certain way though. Of course people only say that when bad **** happens. When good things happen, its all them.

[SugarCoatedSour]

the answer is both, both perspectives share validity. You can think whatever you want. But duality is expressed either way through people by way of contradictions in their idealism and realism. Therefore all perspectives are lived out as long and as you are aware you won't be responding in such subjective and self important manners.

[1338 h4x0r]

Science is governed and screened by THE GOVERNEMTNTA!

What?

Are you one of those bugged out informational dickbags who needs things in paper to realize? It doesn't seem like you grasp the context of words, which is exactly the **** I'm talking about.

No, I expect that when the Emperor says he is wearing clothes, he is actually wearing clothes. Sentences like this:

"Besides it seems more likely than not that this is just an extension of psycho-analysis(elimination) that's been going on and dictated for over a century"

...... tell me the Emperor is buck-naked.

Also "context of words" has nothing to do with free will

Yes free will does exist because if it didn't we wouldn't even know. So there is no difference between free will and free will as far as we know.

Huh?

And what does knowing something have to do with its existence?

[Against Miik!]

There can be two forms of free will. Free will can exist, plain and simple. Or free will cannot exist, but we could not be aware of its non existence, so to us, it exists.

There is no way to empirically prove that free will does or does not exist. So for every action I commit, it could be free will, or it could be something else, but because I don't know the difference, and commit these actions regardless, there is no difference.

[SugarCoatedSour]

context has lots to do with everything. In fact it's quite micro/macro cosmic. If you don't grasp the context how are you supposed to properly understand language? Do you just blather some current societal nonsense about social commentary? or do you actually say something worthwhile? How the **** do you even use words if you can't relate something that's legible but might have a bit of abstraction? Your mind is a fart

[fingers mccoy]

you just got GIBBEROWNED

[1338 h4x0r]

There can be two forms of free will. Free will can exist, plain and simple. Or free will cannot exist, but we could not be aware of its non existence, so to us, it exists.

There are four possibilities in this case:


We don't have free will and don't believe that we have free will.
We have free will and don't believe that we have free will.
We don't have free will and believe that we have free will.
We have free will and believe that we have free will.


I think most people are in option #3


There is no way to empirically prove that free will does or does not exist.

"Empirically prove" is an oxymoron, but I'll overlook that and point out neuroscience as an avenue for determining whether or not we have free will, and so far it's saying "no".

context has lots to do with everything.

Ok Lacan but that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.

In fact it's quite micro/macro cosmic.

Huh?

If you don't grasp the context how are you supposed to properly understand language?

What does this have to do with free will at all?

How the **** do you even use words if you can't relate something that's legible but might have a bit of abstracting?

What do you mean I can't think abstractly? I can think of abstractions, so long as they are analogous to reality. I just can't think in nonsense.

[Against Miik!]

There are four possibilities in this case:


We don't have free will and don't believe that we have free will.
We have free will and don't believe that we have free will.
We don't have free will and believe that we have free will.
We have free will and believe that we have free will.


I think most people are in option #3


Actually yeah that is a better way of putting it.


"Empirically prove" is an oxymoron, but I'll overlook that and point out neuroscience as an avenue for determining whether or not we have free will, and so far it's saying "no".



Mind sharing? I'd actually find this quite interesting.

[SugarCoatedSour]

There are four possibilities in this case:


We don't have free will and don't believe that we have free will.
We have free will and don't believe that we have free will.
We don't have free will and believe that we have free will.
We have free will and believe that we have free will.


I think most people are in option #3



"Empirically prove" is an oxymoron, but I'll overlook that and point out neuroscience as an avenue for determining whether or not we have free will, and so far it's saying "no".



Ok Lacan but that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.



Huh?



What does this have to do with free will at all?



What do you mean I can't think abstractly? I can think of abstractions, so long as they are analogous to reality. I just can't think in nonsense.

I don't know how to respond to a person who is so stuppored of mind. You don't see the point of communication, you simply work on an eliminative basis to make things as simple and logical as possible. GREAT! I guess you're just desensitized

I wish I knew how to be a superposter and just use all the hotkeys to quote you, you prick.

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Free will is only possible with proper nutrition and exercise, i.e. not for computer nerds.

[1338 h4x0r]

Actually yeah that is a better way of putting it.




Mind sharing? I'd actually find this quite interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html

I don't know how to respond to a person who is so stuppored of mind.

"Stuppored" isn't even a word. "Addled" maybe?

You don't see the point of communication, you simply work on an eliminative basis to make things as simple and logical as possible

Trying to make things simple and logical is how we figure things out.

How would you even be posting on the Internet without such a bare-bones description of reality as graph theory? G = (V,E), yes that's where it starts. Much of the Internet can be described largely in terms of two sets.

And yes indeed I like eliminating: *plop plop*

GREAT! I guess you're just desensitized

So far you haven't attacked my argument; you've just attacked little ole me in between sputtering total gibberish.

Free will is only possible with proper nutrition and exercise, i.e. not for computer nerds.

That's ridiculous.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I need slep.

Don't think so much 1338 h4x0r

goodnight niggas

[1338 h4x0r]

If nobody didn't "think too much", you wouldn't even be able to broadcast all this poop to the world and we'd be stuck in the Middle Ages trying to eke out a living on our little dirt patches

What the hell is "thinking too much" anyway?

[Against Miik!]

"Thinking too much" is a term used by people who think too little. imo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html

The experiments cited in the article could very easily be a result of a person believing the 3rd option you gave earlier, free will being nonexistent but people believing in it. Measuring brain waves doesn't give you an idea of reality. They give you an idea of the reality that a person is interpreting. That is equally as important, since often humans are agents of reality, but it still can't answer a question like "does something exist or not?".

[1338 h4x0r]

"Thinking too much" is a term used by people who think too little. imo.

Well my objections to the claim that it is possible to "think too much" are these:


For there to be immoderate behavior, there need to be severe negative consequences. In general, thinking heavily does not have severe negative consequences. The person who does so might realize that he or she is surrounded by idiots, which can affect him or her negatively, but no one else. It's a personal choice: your business is your business.
Most people don't think hard enough, so someone has to pick up the slack for them. There's one Scheele for every million clods like us. Why not encourage people who are capable of thinking hard and deep about something? It's in your own interest.


The experiments cited in the article could very easily be a result of a person believing the 3rd option you gave earlier, free will being nonexistent but people believing in it. Measuring brain waves doesn't give you an idea of reality. They give you an idea of the reality that a person is interpreting. That is equally as important, since often humans are agents of reality, but it still can't answer a question like "does something exist or not?".

I think you're talking about questions of ontology now, which are interesting in themselves but probably belong in a different thread, lol

[Against Miik!]

Actually I think it is the best (most interesting) way to ask the question without getting into a more simplified argument of what this basically is, belief in God* or not.

*God being the guy with the beard or whatever "uniting life force" someone believes in. For fate or destiny or whatever we consider the opposite of free will to be to exist, some form of something beyond ourselves has to exist.

[1338 h4x0r]

...... not really

[Against Miik!]

How else does free will not exist

[1338 h4x0r]

The Universe consists of natural, deterministic phenomena that just kind of "run"?

I'm simplifying my own beliefs because I do have a vague belief in a metaphysical aspect of consciousness, but I don't believe in "God"

[Against Miik!]

O ok well I have trouble wrapping my head around that aka I really don't believe in that. At the very least not on a personal level.

[1338 h4x0r]

Then we're just playing with metaphors now

And no I do not believe in a personal God either. What you might say is that I believe in Spinoza's God, except that ethics do not follow from it. The metaphysical underlying reality just defines what is, not what should be

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I think if you knew the exact input and function of every neuron in a brain you could predict every decision, but given the infinite variables and unknowns I think it's a good enough approximation of free will to call it that.

It's like if you have a random number generator. If it always picks 2, it's obviously not random. If it picks 2 or 3 depending on if it's night or day, it's still not really random. If it calculates things depending on 5 gazillion inputs from what direction the wind is blowing to the price of tea in China, I'd say the inputs themselves are unpredictable and random enough for the generator itself to be random too. You could present the same problem to the same brain 10 different times and you wouldn't get exactly the same series of decisions.

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah but what I'm asking about is whether these functions are deterministic or not. As far as we know, there is nothing special going on at the quantum level in the brain that would give rise to free will

[Against Miik!]

If we are getting into brain chemistry, then I think its safe to say that most humans act in a similar fashion. But the exact choices we make within those constraints are of our own doing. That is what I consider free will.

[1338 h4x0r]

How are they of "our" doing?

I mean I don't even really believe in distinct personhood

[Against Miik!]

To scale things down a bit, I'll relate it to going to a restaurant. There is a menu that you have to pick from, so it is true statement that 100% of the time, a person will be eating something that is on the menu. But a person still gets to choose what they get off the menu.

So do we say their choice was predetermined? Because in a way it kind of was. But in a way they still made their own choice.

[1338 h4x0r]

In a very vague, abstract sense they did

[Against Miik!]

Ok well that is the best metaphor I can come up with without "thinking too much".

So I guess thats how I see things in a larger sense too, at least atm. These things change, of course.

[Smokey D]

Why

Because even if a person's intentions and therefore their actions are determined mechanistically by physical/chemical processes they are still that person's intentions. The person is still involved in the process of making a decision. Individuals aren't discrete phenomena beholden to the callous workings of a pre-determined universe; they are as much a part of the universe as everything else. They aren't subordinate to decisions determined by exterior forces but part of the decision making process. So trying to separate out human agency as if it were distinct and incapable of affecting the decision making process is inane and useless.

Moreover, I would say trying to establish as a matter of science whether free will exists is pointless since it is impossible for science to go behind the veil of free will, whether it is illusory or not. Our scientific understandings of free will are constrained by the limitations of free will, which apparently is the very thing science is seeking to disprove. I can't see how it can arrive at a meaningful conclusion.

[1338 h4x0r]

Because even if a person's intentions and therefore their actions are determined mechanistically by physical/chemical processes they are still that person's intentions. The person is still involved in the process of making a decision. Individuals aren't discrete phenomena beholden to the callous workings of a pre-determined universe; they are as much a part of the universe as everything else. They aren't subordinate to decisions determined by exterior forces but part of the decision making process. So trying to separate out human agency as if it were distinct and incapable of affecting the decision making process is inane and useless.

You're assuming some kind of distinct "person" entity which Hume, as much as I usually tend to disagree with him, cast doubt on several hundred years ago. (Science is backing him up btw: see what happens when you sever someone's corpus callosum.)

Anyway, obviously the brain is part of the decision making process. Whether those decisions are automated or not is another question.

[Smokey D]

You're assuming some kind of distinct "person" entity which Hume, as much as I usually tend to disagree with him, cast doubt on several hundred years ago. (Science is backing him up btw: see what happens when you sever someone's corpus callosum.)


No I'm not. In fact, I'm saying that it is because humans aren't distinct that you can't say they are controlled by exterior forces. Human action is a product of both external and internal processes.


Anyway, obviously the brain is part of the decision making process. Whether those decisions are automated or not is another question.

No, it's irrelevant.

[1338 h4x0r]

Why is it irrelevant

[Smokey D]

Because even if it's mechanistic it doesn't alleviate the person of responsibility. The person is still part of the mechanistic process.

You can only say a person lacks responsibility when they are controlled more or less entirely by forces beyond themselves.

[Against Miik!]

It's irrelevant when it comes to things that actually affect the individual. Like when selecting a mate, for example. Maybe your brain responds to certain people certain ways, and you can't control that. But nothing is determining who is sitting in front of you and when. That all comes down to chance, and like I said earlier, the choice may only be a choice contingent on certain parameters,like the menu, but its still a choice.

[1338 h4x0r]

Yes but the choice is ostensibly automated. This should temper how we deal with people.

[Smokey D]

No it shouldn't.

if you want to start removing responsibility for people's actions because 'choice is automated' then there is no difference between the person who kills someone and the person who 'automatically' responds to the murderer with great violence or great compassion or anything at all. At no point are any of them responsible for anything, since apparently all choice is automatic, and beyond our control.

But the point is that humans aren't robots responding mechanistically to exterior events. They are part of the phenomenon of decision-making, and so are at least in part responsible for the decisions they make.

[1338 h4x0r]

Why

That's retarded

[Smokey D]

if you want to start removing responsibility for people's actions because 'choice is automated' then there is no difference between the person who kills someone and the person who 'automatically' responds to the murderer with great violence or great compassion or anything at all. At no point are any of them responsible for anything, since apparently all choice is automatic, and beyond our control.

You can no more fault me for the mistreatment of a murderer than I can fault the murderer for his acts. Both of our actions were pre-determined.

But the point is that humans aren't robots responding mechanistically to exterior events. They are part of the phenomenon of decision-making, and so are at least in part responsible for the decisions they make.

[1338 h4x0r]

if you want to start removing responsibility for people's actions because 'choice is automated' then there is no difference between the person who kills someone and the person who 'automatically' responds to the murderer with great violence or great compassion or anything at all. At no point are any of them responsible for anything, since apparently all choice is automatic, and beyond our control.

Appeal to consequences of a belief


You can no more fault me for the mistreatment of a murderer than I can fault the murderer for his acts. Both of our actions were pre-determined.


Yeah derp

But the point is that humans aren't robots responding mechanistically to exterior events. They are part of the phenomenon of decision-making, and so are at least in part responsible for the decisions they make.

So are robots

You're raising a difference without a distinction

[Smokey D]

Appeal to consequences of a belief

What? It's true.

And consequently there is no normative difference in treating murderers better or worse or differently than how we do now. If everything is automatic, then everything is irrelevant. The very fact that you think automation means we should treat people differently belies your argument.


So are robots

You're raising a difference without a distinction

Except that as we've discussed humans don't decide things automatically in that way. I do not deny the possibility that humans might just be very advanced computers. But that doesn't remove the burden of responsibility.

[Aaron]

Can we have a rule about people not bringing up the same concepts over and over again? I think I've seen about twenty versions of this thread in my time on here.

[1338 h4x0r]

What? It's true

Except that appeals to consequences of beliefs are faulty

And consequently there is no normative difference in treating murderers better or worse or differently than how we do now. If everything is automatic, then everything is irrelevant. The very fact that you think automation means we should treat people differently belies your argument

I'm arguing automatically in order to propagate an idea so that other automatic decisions have better information.

Except that as we've discussed humans don't decide things automatically in that way

lol basically they do

[Against Miik!]

There is probably a standard deviation for every given action, but that doesn't mean its automated.

[Aaron]

SD = 2.4 at 5% significance level.

[Smokey D]

Except that appeals to consequences of beliefs are faulty


I'm not claiming that the consequences mean you're wrong. I'm claiming that they make your point irrelevant.

I'm arguing automatically in order to propagate an idea so that other automatic decisions have better information.


So apparently humans can respond to things in a non-automatic way.

lol basically they do

"I'm not going to rule out the possibility that intelligence is a function of computational complexity and that therefore things like free will are questions of degree not of "creative powers" different in kind from other kinds of calculation. But the ability to conceive of the process of selection as distinct from the decision itself, the capacity to make non automatic choices and the general evaluative content of practical reasoning seem to me to be reasonable bases on which to distinguish human intelligence and non-biological minds as they currently exist."

[Against Miik!]

SD = 2.4 at 5% significance level.

Do you go to UoW? This isn't relevant or anything, but I attended a presentation by some econ professor from UoW. He was asian though.

[1338 h4x0r]

There is probably a standard deviation for every given action, but that doesn't mean its automated.

But even the choice, as if from a menu is automated:

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/f/e/4fe0fa7b71a7cb4ac5e66c4b3a0632d2.gif

lol

I'm not claiming that the consequences mean you're wrong. I'm claiming that they make your point irrelevant.

No they don't

People have been arguing for utilitarian, non-judgmental corrections systems for years. I'm just adding to that


So apparently humans can respond to things in a non-automatic way.


That's like saying those experimental robots that evolved cooperative and cheating behaviors aren't "automated", just because they had input from their environment

That's like saying the game of life automaton isn't "automated" because it looks like a natural phenomenon (which, by the way, is also automated in a deep sense, just like everything else)

Nigga please

"I'm not going to rule out the possibility that intelligence is a function of computational complexity and that therefore things like free will are questions of degree not of "creative powers" different in kind from other kinds of calculation. But the ability to conceive of the process of selection as distinct from the decision itself, the capacity to make non automatic choices and the general evaluative content of practical reasoning seem to me to be reasonable bases on which to distinguish human intelligence and non-biological minds as they currently exist."

Yes but I'm not talking about artificial intellects as they "currently exist"

If you made a robot that copied the function of the neurons and muscles and everything 100%, it's not clear how it would be liable for anything

I'm not clear on how a person is either

[Aaron]

Do you go to UoW? This isn't relevant or anything, but I attended a presentation by some econ professor from UoW. He was asian though.
:lol: Yeah I do. What was his name?

[cobert]

I don't think free will exists and I subscribe to the theory of radical behaviorism.

That said, I agree with everything Smokey says a few posts up, and have come to the conclusion that as our reactions to murderers are just as automated as his murder, whether free will exists or not is actually pretty inconsequential.

[1338 h4x0r]

It is inconsequential, but the great process of automated evolution and learning and society on this planet has finally given us neuroscience, which our automated decision making faculties will (hopefully) use to start making better decisions

[Against Miik!]

:lol: Yeah I do. What was his name?

Man for the life of me I can't remember. He was very Asian though, which I was not expecting obviously when I heard he was from Wollongong. His presentation was on pork imports in Japan or something dumb. So he said pork like powk and all that. I can't imagine there would be too many asians in the economics department, although if its anything like here, that may not be true.

Kind of funny though, I was walking home from another class with a friend telling them about the presentation, and no joke right when I was explaining how asian this guy was, I see him out of the corner of my eye walking right passed me with his associate and I'm like o shi.

[1338 h4x0r]

Man for the life of me I can't remember. He was very Asian though, which I was not expecting obviously when I heard he was from Wollongong. His presentation was on pork imports in Japan or something dumb. So he said pork like powk and all that. I can't imagine there would be too many asians in the economics department, although if its anything like here, that may not be true.

Why not, there's a lot where I go

There again, this is SUNY at Buffalo in a nutshell:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2a8gdmw.png

[Aaron]

There's a big asian population at UoW due to the fee structure for international entry to uni. Pretty sure it'd be Jimmy:
http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@commerce/@econ/d0cuments/mm/uow011486.jpg

EDIT: Foiled by the d0cument filter.

[Against Miik!]

lol. I just figure its more common to have foreign professors in some places than others, the States being a places where its more common (especially in sciences/math/econ)

edit: link didn't work. I'd probably know him if I saw him.

ninja edit (no pun intended): nm I had to fix documents lol. naw that ain't him this guy was a bit younger. A little thinner in the face. Not balding. Nice head of hair acutally. Wore glasses.

[Aaron]

Change the 0 in document in the url to an o.

[Iskandar]

People have been arguing for utilitarian, non-judgmental corrections systems for years. I'm just adding to thatWe don't need to be automatons in order to have a enlightened policy on corrections.
Why not, there's a lot where I go

There again, this is SUNY at Buffalo in a nutshell:

http://i40.tinypic.com/2a8gdmw.pngSo that's why you went there.

[Aaron]

lol. I just figure its more common to have foreign professors in some places than others, the States being a places where its more common (especially in sciences/math/econ)

edit: link didn't work. I'd probably know him if I saw him.

ninja edit (no pun intended): nm I had to fix d0cuments lol. naw that ain't him this guy was a bit younger. A little thinner in the face. Not balding. Nice head of hair acutally. Wore glasses.
Hmm. It might've been Johnny, but he's not a professor, he's a Double-PhD student who's allowed to lecture. Hmm.

ps. Lol @ pun

[1338 h4x0r]

We don't need to be automatons in order to have a enlightened policy on corrections.

Yes but we are as is everything else in the Universe big or small. Derp

So that's why you went there.

Actually, yeah, but not in the sense that you meant it: I have an unlikely friend from Jilin (a Christian who likes to get drunk) who intends to go to UB with me

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

hey aaron i was at that lecture too eh?
i love wollongong and watching you create your music is purely incredibliculous!

[Aaron]

Thanks Mang! Glad you enjoy it.

[Smokey D]

No they don't

People have been arguing for utilitarian, non-judgmental corrections systems for years. I'm just adding to that

If your argument is to make any sense, you have no more right to judge the executioner than he has to judge the murderer.

That's like saying those experimental robots that evolved cooperative and cheating behaviors aren't "automated", just because they had input from their environment

That's like saying the game of life automaton isn't "automated" because it looks like a natural phenomenon (which, by the way, is also automated in a deep sense, just like everything else)

A super advanced robot might indeed not be automated.

Yes but I'm not talking about artificial intellects as they "currently exist"
If you made a robot that copied the function of the neurons and muscles and everything 100%, it's not clear how it would be liable for anything

I'm not clear on how a person is either

That computer would be liable. Because the decision to kill isn't automatic. It isn't acting within strict limits, it's acting within an incredibly broad variety of possible behaviours. The computer/person has a role in selecting the negative behaviour, even if that behaviour was inevitably selected. if the person has the capability of conceiving of an alternative, there will be liability.

[1338 h4x0r]

If your argument is to make any sense, you have no more right to judge the executioner than he has to judge the murderer.

Yeah derp that's what I'm saying

A super advanced robot might indeed not be automated.

Everything is automated. The whole Cosmos

That computer would be liable. Because the decision to kill isn't automatic. It isn't acting within strict limits, it's acting within an incredibly broad variety of possible behaviours. The computer/person has a role in selecting the negative behaviour, even if that behaviour was inevitably selected. if the person has the capability of conceiving of an alternative, there will be liability.

Huh

[SugarCoatedSour]

You're such a stubborn bore.

You don't speak your mind unless you filled it with some text driven nonsense you hope people will react to "properly"

Really superficial as a human, but then again you act in the way that justifies what you do best so I guess that is where the balance lies.

[1338 h4x0r]

You're such a stubborn bore.

You don't speak your mind unless you filled it with some text driven nonsense you hope people will react to "properly"

Really superficial as a human, but then again you act in the way that justifies what you do best so I guess that is where the balance lies.

http://htmlgiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/internet-serious-business.jpg

You know, you could always attack my argument instead of attacking me, but I don't think you have a sound counterargument

Oh I'm "stubborn", I'm a "bore" BOO ****ING HOO start addressing my points

[SugarCoatedSour]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, it's actually worth talking about I think. The problem is you are incapable, I'm sure you've taken on enough information to endlessly refute everything that comes from another party but your own. Basically there are concrete ideas that precede the pavement you lay with your words and thoughts in-hand. If you're so smart, how come you can't read what I'm saying and respond plainly?

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm not saying you don't have a point, it's actually worth talking about I think. The problem is you are incapable, I'm sure you've taken on enough information to endlessly refute everything that comes from another party but your own.

No, I have admitted to being wrong before. I used to think that there were such things as free will and **** like that (kind of a Roger Penrose follower), and defended those ideas vigorously. I got my *** kicked in an argument, reviewed the facts, and now you're arguing with me here.

Basically there are concrete ideas that precede the pavement you lay with your words and thoughts in-hand. If you're so smart, how come you can't read what I'm saying and respond plainly?

I didn't say I was smart in any thread (all intelligence is puny given the appropriate measuring stick) and I can't respond to your posts because you string together words in ways that don't make sense semantically (at least not for me) and occasionally even in ways that don't make sense syntactically.

So when you say things like "primordial perspectives", I have a thought process like this: "'Primordial perspective' ...... what can that mean? Primordial means 'from or at the very beginning', perspective means 'viewpoint', so are we talking about viewpoints that have been held from the beginning of the human kind? That's the only meaning I can think of. So what does that mean with respect to whether we have free will?"

[SugarCoatedSour]

What doesn't it. And by the way, don't get held up on any "attacks" on you or your personality, as I don't know you and most of all we can agree that the internet is garbage. I'll respond more when I have the time, right now i'm at work.

[1338 h4x0r]

What doesn't it

Burden of proof is on you dude

[SugarCoatedSour]

But it's like asking "why is a chicken a chicken" because it is born as a chicken.

in the wild it can thrive as a chicken with other chickens, or by happenstance it can live as turkey amongst other turkeys. Might not be what's best for it's nature but it's worked out in this manner. I say it's both free and on-the-rails-will because we are presented with a choice or a happening, then we automatically have a physical or mental response that triggers our decision based on our individual composure. There are many ways to describe this process which is why only a general and relative concept can be used to summate it.

[1338 h4x0r]

The relation of "primordial perspectives" (whatever they are) to whether we have free will (not our opinions on whether we have free will) is less than obvious.

Also "Why is a chicken a chicken?" or indeed "Why is an X an X?" is a very interesting question if you think about it.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I find at this point in time (the progressive modern age) society is in a constant upkeep to refresh what the norm is. That means that language goes through very minute reinventions and our mental symbolism for meanings changes as well. Some people don't even keep up with societal standard (that's me to a degree, as in I often do as others do but do not stock personal values on that base).

Therefore a debate of meanings needs to be rid of the normal communication

[1338 h4x0r]

I find at this point in time (the progressive modern age) society is in a constant upkeep to refresh what the norm is. That means that language goes through very minute reinventions and our mental symbolism for meanings changes as well. Some people don't even keep up with societal standard (that's me to a degree, as in I often do as others do but do not stock personal values on that base).

I study linguistics but I see no reason why this has to do with free will

Our language has nothing to do with whether our neurology just "runs"

[gregulus]

Everything is automated. The whole Cosmos

I don't think anyone will debate that the world is not deterministic. There are a myriad of factors that ultimately influence any one thing. Evolutionarily, though, it seems that the ability to act with some degree of freedom grows as evolution proceeds. For ourselves, such freedom lies within our ability to anticipate possible futures. Given that we are not omniscient beings, we can only anticipate possible worlds (with each world containing a possible set of conditions) and try to act towards what is ultimately the best result--to obtain or seek the "good." The "good" is, of course, not ubiquitous. It does seem that we have the ability to act in at least some ways to obtain what we consider "good." Whether or not I act to get out of the way of a rock being thrown at my head might depend on my circumstances. If I'm low on money, I could let the rock hit me in the head and file a lawsuit. If I'm well off, I can avoid the rock and, thus, avoid potential head trauma. Intentions certainly seem to play some role in decision making, be it conscious or unconscious.

[SugarCoatedSour]

I study linguistics but I see no reason why this has to do with free will

Our language has nothing to do with whether our neurology just "runs"

I guess it's only to say that the many concepts of existence are merely synonomous with one another. Everything is a valid part of a total whole. Even seemingly contradictory elements are meant to coexist. By mirroring each other they inform themselves of not the many differences but the inherent similarity of being part of one much larger thing.

The deterministic factor could simply be: belief, whether or not you, without a doubt, believe in something. It's as if the difference is simply between thinking and knowing.

Me graemmar os no gud so bear with me~

[1338 h4x0r]

I guess it's only to say that the many concepts of existence are merely synonomous with one another. Everything is a valid part of a total whole. Even seemingly contradictory elements are meant to coexist. By mirroring each other they inform themselves of not the many differences but the inherent similarity of being part of one much larger thing.

/points at the sun

"The sun emits light."

"The sun does not emit light."

huh????

The deterministic factor could simply be: belief, whether or not you, without a doubt, believe in something. It's as if the difference is simply between thinking and knowing.

I challenge people who say things like this to stop believing in gravity then step out of the window of a high rise.

Of course I don't really want them to die; that is a rhetorical device.

[SugarCoatedSour]

A rhetorical principal is irrefutable.

Even if there is indeed a counterpart or exterior, once one is rhetorical it is void of answer.

The principal of belief is not one thing I can explain truthfully.

[1338 h4x0r]

http://gadgetsteria.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/confusion.jpg

Seriously

I'd be surprised if anyone else understood that

[Luc214]

Pretty sure I got it.

When speaking in rhetoric you are not speaking in terms that are meant for answers so any answers or refuting arguments are rendered null.

[SugarCoatedSour]

he's just an information drone, soon to be reprogrammed for more streamlined use.

[1338 h4x0r]

Information drones don't read Borges, nice try

Oh and try to stay on point instead of aiming cheap insults at me

When speaking in rhetoric you are not speaking in terms that are meant for answers so any answers or refuting arguments are rendered null.

Of course you can argue against the implicit argument in a rhetorical device

[SugarCoatedSour]

I can't possibly argue with you. You seem to stubborn to primary factors of being a human being.

[1338 h4x0r]

Oh sorry I didn't know speaking plainly and honestly and sticking to the argument rather than indulging in personal attacks made me a robot.

http://senecacountyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/emperor-copy.jpg

oh and

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[The Flying Barron]

robots and animals have free will, humans don't

[1338 h4x0r]

^^^ nice

[The Flying Barron]

omg the anti-free-will force doesnt permit me to not eat or I'll die. not to mention sometimes my body pees when I don't want it too :(

[1338 h4x0r]

You're a siqq bro

[Mr. Ron]

My bodily functions are under the strictest control. I can shift my liver down into my shin to avoid mortal wounds during combat.

[Chu]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/is-free-will-free/

So yeah there's a lot of neuroscientific evidence coming out against it

It makes sense I think: sensory input => stuff happens with 100 billion neurons => behavior. Not entirely predictable (no more so than any other complex system), but I see about as much free will in animal behavior as in plant behavior, or large body of turbulent water behavior. All of these may be hard to pin down for various reasons, but all of them are governed by deterministic laws.
I'm fairly sure, if you were to combine some of the work by Godel, and any of Church's PhD students, you would work out:

For free will to exist in a deterministic world, it necessarily must exist in a non-deterministic world too (equivalence!).

The question becomes something more along the lines of "In what sense is free will a precondition for moral responsibility?", unfortunately, at this point I am lost :p

Edit: Hmm. It might've been Johnny, but he's not a professor, he's a Double-PhD student who's allowed to lecture. Hmm.

ps. Lol @ pun
Just like to point out that we (Australians/Americans) have 2 different views on what a professor is.

In the US, I have been told a professor is anyone who lectures. That's not quite the same here (actually, it's rare to find a professor who will lecture here, purely because they are mainly researchers).

Of course, I do go to a research school, so that would explain why all the professors here are in research.

[rasputin]

humans are condemned to be free

[misterfitch]

does free will exist

this question doesn't mean anything

[Against Miik!]

deep

edit: wait, did you mean it means nothing without a question mark?

[misterfitch]

no i was quoting the thread title. i don't think the question means anything even with a question mark.