Freewill

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Aggie hits the nail on the head. There isn't even a debate to be had on this.

It's a matter of perspective. Free will means that my choices are made by myself, not by someone or something else. The computer that determines my actions is me; therefore, I make my own choices and I have free will. In addition, this is true of everything in the universe. Choice in the sense of free will is not meaningful when applied to a nonsentient being, therefore sentience is both necessary and sufficient for free will, therefore free will is equivalent to sentience.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"The notion of Free Will is at odds with the mechanistic explanations that underly our thinking about how stuff works.

If we faced up to the fact that we are wholly material beings and jettisoned the religious crap, this discussion would be unnecessary."

Explain consciousness with a material, Newtonian explanation.

You don't need to. Consciousness is an illusion.

[Caligastia]

An illusion is not possible without a consciousness to perceive it.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




It's a matter of perspective. Free will means that my choices are made by myself, not by someone or something else.

It actually doesn't mean this. Free will is a massively charged concept, with centuries of philosophical and scientific discussion behind it. The meaning you are attaching to it just doesn't have any importance in those debates - it's irrelevant.

The computer that determines my actions is me; therefore, I make my own choices and I have free will.

The illusion of "choice" falls to Ockham's razor. To properly describe an action, there is no need to add any form of "choice" over it. It's just a useless metaphysical construct.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Caligastia
An illusion is not possible without a consciousness to perceive it.

I take it that you can't fool a bird?

[Caligastia]

Birds are conscious.

[Fake Boris]

I thought you meant self consciousness. Anyway, a robot can be fooled.

[Caligastia]

...because the robot is conscious of the illusion.

[Fake Boris]

Wrong. The robot perceives something, and falsely identifies it. This in NO WAY speaks in favor of free will, or PA's question (explain conscience in mechanical terms).

[Fake Boris]

BTW, PA was referring to self conscience (this is what people usually mean when they say "conscious").

A bird is more appropriately described as a "perceptive being".

[Caligastia]

My response was to the assertion that "consciousness is an illusion". Consciousness can be defined in several different ways. If you want to define it as being self conscious, fine. An illusion is a false perception of reality. Birds are conscious of themselves, just as humans are. A bird that flies into a window has falsely perceived reality. Robots are not "fooled", and they do not "falsely" identify anything. They do what they were programmed to do. The fault is with the programmer, not the robot.

[Caligastia]

Consciousness cannot be an illusion because there must be a consciousness in order to perceive the illusion. Robots don't count because they are not self conscious.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It actually doesn't mean this. Free will is a massively charged concept, with centuries of philosophical and scientific discussion behind it. The meaning you are attaching to it just doesn't have any importance in those debates - it's irrelevant.

Can you provide a better definition of free will than "I make my own decisions"?

According to wiki: "Free will is the philosophical doctrine that holds that our choices are ultimately up to ourselves." That seems to be roughly equivalent to my definition, and my argument holds up equally well when applied to it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MikeH
You don't need to. Consciousness is an illusion.

I'm trying to determine if you're stupid or being deliberately ironic.

[Odin]

I don't think we have free will in the strict sense of the word, but I think the higher centers of the brain involved with thinking, especially the prefrontal cortex, acts as a veto on impulses. The reason I think this is that in people with ADHD (as well as teenagers) the prefrontal cortex is not as developed as in the average adult, and this seems to corespond with impusiveness.