Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:But let's focus on the here and now. Each of us as thinking organisms exercise free will all the time whenever we make decisions. We are not like preprogrammed robots hiding in organic bodies. Otherwise, concepts like freedom would be mere illusions.

I've never encountered a definition of "free will" that was sufficiently clear or coherent for me to make sense of what an assertion like the one you make here even means.

google wrote:1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence ...

BDanielMayfield wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:But let's focus on the here and now. Each of us as thinking organisms exercise free will all the time whenever we make decisions. We are not like preprogrammed robots hiding in organic bodies. Otherwise, concepts like freedom would be mere illusions.

I've never encountered a definition of "free will" that was sufficiently clear or coherent for me to make sense of what an assertion like the one you make here even means.

You have the freedom to accept or reject definitions at will Chris. Personally, I liked this, found at the top of a long list of good, simple to understand definitions brought up by searching "free will definition"

google wrote:1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence ...

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:
You have the freedom to accept or reject definitions at will Chris. Personally, I liked this, found at the top of a long list of good, simple to understand definitions brought up by searching "free will definition"

google wrote:1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence ...

Doesn't work for me, because I don't know how we can identify "constraints", what "fate" is, or what it means to "act at one's own discretion". These all become circular when closely examined. In fact, we have very little idea of how we make decisions at all- the vast majority of actions we take are arrived at unconsciously, and the majority of decisions, both conscious and unconscious, that a person is observed to make are predictable by an outside party in advance.

In reality, I expect the question of "free will" as most people seem to understand it is meaningless.

https://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english320/Maugham-AS.htm wrote:

"The Appointment in Samarra"
(as retold by W. Somerset Maugham [1933])

The speaker is Death

"There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threating getsture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:"free will definition"

google wrote:1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. synonyms: self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence ...

Doesn't work for me, because I don't know how we can identify "constraints", what "fate" is, or what it means to "act at one's own discretion". These all become circular when closely examined. In fact, we have very little idea of how we make decisions at all- the vast majority of actions we take are arrived at unconsciously, and the majority of decisions, both conscious and unconscious, that a person is observed to make are predictable by an outside party in advance.

In reality, I expect the question of "free will" as most people seem to understand it is meaningless.

BDanielMayfield wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Doesn't work for me, because I don't know how we can identify "constraints", what "fate" is, or what it means to "act at one's own discretion". These all become circular when closely examined. In fact, we have very little idea of how we make decisions at all- the vast majority of actions we take are arrived at unconsciously, and the majority of decisions, both conscious and unconscious, that a person is observed to make are predictable by an outside party in advance.

"Constraints" means limitations or restrictions that would force one to make a certain choice. "Fate" we can toss out since I think nether of us believe in it. "Acting without the constraint of necessity" means one is not locked in or required to act in only one way when given a choice. A simple example is picking heads or tails when a coin is tossed. The one picking is unconstrained as to choice, totally free to pick ether way.

The fact that we don't completely understand how our brains work doesn't rule out freedom to choose.

Nor does predictability prove that we don't have free choice. Those who knew us well as kids could have accurately predicted that we would at some point study astronomy, but that didn't force us into this study.

In reality, I expect the question of "free will" as most people seem to understand it is meaningless.

If that were true then everything would be meaningless, a hopeless, dismal outlook indeed. I'll use your words right back, "Doesn't work for me."

geckzilla wrote:You're going about this all wrong, Bruce. If you want to make a strong argument to Chris on this matter, you have to remember that he is a physicist and is expecting a physical explanation for how things work. Of course, there isn't an easy way to go from atomic particles and all their ways of interacting to the idea of free will. This is the sort of problem that physicists have grappled with for a long time now. Most of them accept that all life at this level of understanding is deterministic. There is no way for you to think an atom into doing something that it wasn't going to do, no matter how much it feels like you can.

geckzilla wrote:But you had those thoughts because some atoms somewhere interacted in some way producing some chemistry which to you felt like a thought or a feeling. Seems a little circular itself.

I gave up on the feeling of agency and consciousness as anything more than a kind of illusion a little while ago. The moral implications are quite interesting. It's something I strongly doubt most people will ever accept.

Chris Peterson wrote:As I said, as long as we feel we're driving our own ship, I can't see that it really matters if raw physics or some kind of abstract "me" is responsible.

geckzilla wrote:
But you had those thoughts because some atoms somewhere interacted in some way producing some chemistry which to you felt like a thought or a feeling. Seems a little circular itself. I gave up on the feeling of agency and consciousness as anything more than a kind of illusion a little while ago. The moral implications are quite interesting. It's something I strongly doubt most people will ever accept.

Ann wrote:
There is a Swedish poem by Eva Kilpi which in a very rough translation goes like this:

• Began falling like a leaf
  changed its mind halfway down
  transformed itself into a yellow butterfly
  and flew away.

I've always liked that poem, because of the similarity yet difference between a falling yellow leaf and a yellow butterfly. The path of one is totally determined by gravity, wind and air resistance. The path of the other is determined by how its own nervous system makes its body move in response to the influence of gravity, wind and air resistance.

Does the falling leaf have free will? It most certainly doesn't. Does the butterfly have free will? Who is to say?

Ann wrote:
Of course, it is possible to think of the poem as if it describes a person who is at first completely apathetic, but then perks up and finds new reasons to live and to be active. Or maybe that person just flew away, but maybe that, too, was an act of free will.

neufer wrote:And does the tornado that ultimately resulted from the flap of that butterfly's wings have free will?

Ann wrote:
Of course, it is possible to think of the poem as if it describes a person who is at first completely apathetic, but then perks up and finds new reasons to live and to be active. Or maybe that person just flew away, but maybe that, too, was an act of free will.

And does the tornado that ultimately resulted from the flap of that butterfly's wings have free will?

The poem got one person (who many say is completely pathetic) to perk up and find a new reason to post yet another post.

Ann wrote:

neufer wrote:
The poem got one person (who many say is completely pathetic) to perk up and find a new reason to post yet another post.

This forum would be so much more boring without you, as you know very well!

You made me angry at first, though, when I thought that the "completely pathetic" person might refer to me!

neufer wrote:

Ann wrote:

neufer wrote: The poem got one person (who many say is completely pathetic) to perk up and find a new reason to post yet another post.

This forum would be so much more boring without you, as you know very well!

You made me angry at first, though, when I thought that the "completely pathetic" person might refer to me!

I had actually gone to bed when it suddenly dawned on me that my "Don Rickles Memorial afterthought" might be misunderstood in that way so I quickly went back to clarify it. Rest assured that I consider everyone at Starship Asterisk* as family...

Chris Peterson wrote:
So possibly, completely pathetic?

http://www.etymonline.com/ wrote:
<<pathetic (adj.) 1590s, "affecting the emotions, exciting the passions," from Middle French pathétique "moving, stirring, affecting" (16c.), from Late Latin patheticus, from Greek pathetikos "subject to feeling, sensitive, capable of emotion," from pathetos "liable to suffer," verbal adjective of pathein "to suffer" (see pathos). Meaning "arousing pity, pitiful" is first recorded 1737. Colloquial sense of "so miserable as to be ridiculous" is attested from 1937.>>

neufer wrote:I was thinking last night that humans are basically not much different from heuristic electronic computers that quantitatively evalute (as a chess program might) the pros & cons of various actions or inactions and then response accordingly.

What is difficult is to make it actually "feel" the pain, pleasure and many other more complicated emotions which so influence our own evolving heuristic evaluations. (If only they could be as pathetic as us.)

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:I was thinking last night that humans are basically not much different from heuristic electronic computers that quantitatively evalute (as a chess program might) the pros & cons of various actions or inactions and then response accordingly.

Perhaps a better example would be the computer built last year to play Go... a game vastly more complex than chess and one which nobody had previously been able to write a program that could beat a skilled human player. The new computer examined a large number of human-human games, and then started playing itself, learning what strategies worked and modifying itself until it became the best player in the world. But no human can look at it and figure out how it wins. From our viewpoint, its operation is not deterministic.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:What is difficult is to make it actually "feel" the pain, pleasure and many other more complicated emotions which so influence our own evolving heuristic evaluations. (If only they could be as pathetic as us.)

How do you know there aren't programs that have at least the rudiments of such feelings? Do insects feel pain? Do animals with less complex brains than us feel pain?

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:I was thinking last night that humans are basically not much different from heuristic electronic computers that quantitatively evalute (as a chess program might) the pros & cons of various actions or inactions and then response accordingly.

Perhaps a better example would be the computer built last year to play Go... a game vastly more complex than chess and one which nobody had previously been able to write a program that could beat a skilled human player. The new computer examined a large number of human-human games, and then started playing itself, learning what strategies worked and modifying itself until it became the best player in the world. But no human can look at it and figure out how it wins. From our viewpoint, its operation is not deterministic.

But we both agree that it is, in fact, deterministic.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
Perhaps a better example would be the computer built last year to play Go... a game vastly more complex than chess and one which nobody had previously been able to write a program that could beat a skilled human player. The new computer examined a large number of human-human games, and then started playing itself, learning what strategies worked and modifying itself until it became the best player in the world. But no human can look at it and figure out how it wins. From our viewpoint, its operation is not deterministic.

But we both agree that it is, in fact, deterministic.

I don't believe it's deterministic. It is not possible by examining the code in any amount of detail, or the machine state, to predict with certainty the next move. It is not possible to define an algorithm that the machine uses to determine a move.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote: But we both agree that it is, in fact, deterministic.

I don't believe it's deterministic. It is not possible by examining the code in any amount of detail, or the machine state, to predict with certainty the next move. It is not possible to define an algorithm that the machine uses to determine a move.

Often the best strategy in playing a game is to make moves according to predetermined probability rules.

It would be interesting to know to what extent brains do that.

Chris Peterson wrote:... Regarding the Go playing computer, I imagine the program must observe some kind of probabilistic rules. But Go is too complex to really have any such rules that you can write down. If that's what the computer is using, it figured them out for itself.

rstevenson wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:... Regarding the Go playing computer, I imagine the program must observe some kind of probabilistic rules. But Go is too complex to really have any such rules that you can write down. If that's what the computer is using, it figured them out for itself.

But surely the computer could now be instructed to print out its rules.