that would be haggling over definitions, rather than facts.
I find this true about most arguments…
Comment on Those books are different from how I remembered…
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Your mind is a computer attempting to optimally fulfill several prerogatives which are determined primarily through evolutionary pressures. It is free to do this in the way it sees best and is free to adapt as the environment in which it operates changes, in the sense that it is not forced to override it’s internal decisions and come to a different conclusion regarding how to act. I consider this to be free will. You may disagree, but that would be haggling over definitions, rather than facts.
Crucially, this definition is true regardless of whether the universe’s course is predetermined or not. I personally don’t think it is, because a good chunk of the universe is random and I find it hard to believe that that randomness was predetermined.
Malfeasant@lemm.ee 3 months ago
needthosepylons@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I propose to sincerely rebute this conception which I always found lacking. And if we’re to rely on facts and facts only, I’ll say its internal decision are themselves absolutely determined by several factors, most if not all of them being determined causally.
In that sense, it is imo both the more scientific and logical, but also eliminates vague and speculative concepts like “free(dom)” and “free will”, which would somehow escape universal determinism, hence creating a special case in the laws of causality for humanity only.
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
At no point did I say that humanity is exempt.
I guess you could say I’m a compatabilist.
needthosepylons@lemmy.world 3 months ago
By pushing the idea that the humain brain is capable of “free” decision making to adapt to its environment without being forced by external factors it seemed to me that it implied an exception, or, otherwise, you’d be forced to extend that hypothesis to all living beings, and causality would surely take offense ?
I’m answering, but I see what you mean, and I generally agree with it. I just tend to think the idea of free orientation/action is both dangerous and the reason of a lot of human suffering. I’m also a compatabilist, but I another way I suppose.
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
I believe that all living things that are capable of making decisions possess free will
WldFyre@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Being “free” to take in inputs and then output the corresponding outputs like a computer isn’t what anyone I know would call “free will.”
Redefining free will as exactly what a computer running code would do doesn’t make sense to me.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
My argument would go something like this: If you are the computer, then it is free will. If you could predict the computer, you could argue, but you can’t. You can’t even do this theoretically since you’d need more mass than the universe and can’t initialize your predictive model. So you can only say “that decision was made inside that brain”. That is at least one sensible definition of free will.
It’s like looking at a motor that breaks down and then saying that it’s not really the motor that breaks because the motor had no choice in it’s parts breaking. That’s just rhetoric.
The error I believe is that we don’t want to accept that sentience can arise from mechanical universe and it’s a matter of degree and that this can create meaning. People want to set the bar higher because they want the idea of some type of “pure mind”. But since we’re already discussing the meaning of all these things, arguing that what you are reading is just quantum physics is rhetoric.
Either what you are saying is supposed to be meaningful, or you concede that your words are meaningless. Then I anyone else wins the argument by default ;)
Basically the definition of free will can only be made by someone who claims that meaning exists, emerging from the material world. Therefor within that emergent layer of mind and meaning, a definition of free will other than basic physics is at least acceptable.
WldFyre@lemm.ee 3 months ago
The error I believe is that we don’t want to accept that sentience can arise from mechanical universe and it’s a matter of degree and that this can create meaning. People want to set the bar higher because they want the idea of some type of “pure mind”. But since we’re already discussing the meaning of all these things, arguing that what you are reading is just quantum physics is rhetoric.
I don’t follow. It sounds like you agree that the concept of a “pure mind” is ridiculous, so I’m not sure what you mean by your last sentence.
I also don’t think of free will in terms of predictability. I think of it like this: if you could recreate this moment an infinite amount of times, you would always “choose” to do/think/react the exact same way every single time.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Well imagine we could copy or approximate a human mind and run it on a typical computer, free from an quantum effects. From the outside you would say “no this is not a mind, this is a computer!” (I threw it on the ground). You could restart a human mind simulation (which would be deeply unethical of course) and it would return the same results, but it would still not be predictable outside of such a simulation.
But from the inside your mind you would of course say you have free will because that is how you defined it. The word has meaning because we created the meaning. In a universe with only such PC based human minds, you wouldn’t argue that you don’t have free will because we’re just software running silicon chips. Otherwise you’d have to invent a new word for what you meant with free will, like internally derived mental agency or something. But that is just rhetoric.
A classical computer based human mind would in fact be more free since it could investigate, analyze and edit it’s own mind, overcoming things that it perceives as weaknesses or faults. Like my evolutionary programming might have made me biased to conserve energy and time and not think too hard on certain new information, dismissing it instead. Maybe instead you’d want to be more open minded.
So I think arguing that free will is based on determinism, repeatability or predictability is sort of an appeal to a “pure mind”. Not sure if that is a good way to put it, but like appealing to higher standard like we’re supposed to be a supernatural soul or something. We’re not, but we still came up with that word all on our own.
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
As far as I’m concerned, a chess bot that doesn’t have a preprogrammed set of moves but rather is capable of adapting and learning does in fact process a limited form of free will.
WldFyre@lemm.ee 3 months ago
That’s so far removed from the standard definition of free will that it kinda seems disingenuous, for lack of a better word.
I get that we don’t have a choice in believing how we do, though!
CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
My personal tale on this is that given that the brain contains chaotic circuits (i.e. circuits in which tiny perturbations lead to cascading effects), and these circuits are complex and sensitive enough, the brain may be inherently unpredictable due to quantum fluctuations causing non-negligible effects.
I don’t know if the above is the case, but if there’s anything like free will out there, I’m inclined to believe that its origins lie in something like that.