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.
Comment on Those books are different from how I remembered…
WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 month agoBeing “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.
rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 month 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!
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 month 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 1 month ago
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 1 month 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.
WldFyre@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It’s so funny and interesting how completely differently we feel about this haha
No I wouldn’t say that. And that’s how compatibilists have re-defined free will, it’s not what people generally think of when they think of free will. “You don’t have a choice, but you just feel like you have a choice, which is actually free will” is not a statement most people would agree with.
Yes I would. I’m also arguing that now about our human based human minds.
Or, I could just accept that free will doesn’t exist, it’s a fake feeling. Similar to how love feels like it comes from the heart but it’s all in the brain.
We have consciousness, and are self aware. But the universe is deterministic and there was never any other choice you could have made at any point in your life. A million times over and you would have always done exactly the same things, and had the exact same chemical reactions to the stimuli you experienced. It’s not a contradictory world view, and it doesn’t require any form of free will, let alone redefining it. But people get uncomfortable thinking about it so it often gets rejected out of hand.