Freewill

[Kuciwalker]

Are you trying to equate philosophers and real men?

[Fake Boris]

Actually, it was YOU that I was trying to equate to unmannitude

[Kuciwalker]

I'll give you another chance, then.

[Fake Boris]

Your misconception about "choice" all boils down to this.

When you say "Alex did Y", adding that "Alex chose to do Y" does not provide any valuable information in describing what happened. That's why it appears meaningless to insert a notion of choice - and even more so to use that wrongly inserted idea as the core of a big metaphysical construct such as free will.

[Kuciwalker]

When you say "Alex did Y", adding that "Alex chose to do Y" does not provide any valuable information in describing what happened.

I pointed this out. Notice how I established that free will was identical to sentience.

[Sava]

oh man, I knew this thread would turn into a big piece of crap with a lot of dumb arguments

no such thing as consciousness??


all I know is I am here...

it may be an illusion for you fools... not me man

I am here and I am enjoying the experience (or trying to anyways)

I'm trying to understand it as best I can

one day I'll be gone...

maybe I will get answers, maybe not

it will end one day

for me and for all of us

and then more morons will argue of all this same **** over and over until the end of time because nobody will ever know for sure

[Berzerker]

oh man, I knew this thread would turn into a big piece of crap with a lot of dumb arguments

Didnt start out that way

[Fake Boris]

I'm afraid you didn't demonstrate anything.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I pointed this out. Notice how I established that free will was identical to sentience.

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.

Such an impressive demonstration. Explain then

1° why the term "free will" has any use
2° why is it that no significant philosopher has ever equated free will to sentience

You know, I might as well solve the problem of universals by saying that after all, a universal is just a word

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sava
and then more morons will argue of all this same **** over and over until the end of time because nobody will ever know for sure

That's ridiculous, many scientists believe that by the end of the 21st century at the latest we'll have functional simulated brains that are 100% predictable (like a computer). But then again those who will be doing that aren't smoking all day long.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
many scientists believe that by the end of the 21st century at the latest we'll have functional simulated brains that are 100% predictable (like a computer)

I doubt it. The brain is fundamentally quantum-mechanical in nature.

Even today's computers are not "100% predictable", and their operations are far more protected from quantum uncertainties than are our brains. The tunneling probability for electrons in those transistors is starting to get non-negligible as things keep shrinking...

[KrazyHorse]

The best we will ever do will be probabilistic determinations. It's likely that order will emerge on different scales, allowing for narrowly-defined errors (idea of strange attractors), so that you might be able to predict with 99% accuracy whether the man will choose to eat an apple or an orange, but at other intermediate stages the picture will appear more chaotic and the possible states will be much more smeared out.

If free-will fanatics want to take solace in anything, this is probably what they should concentrate on...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I doubt it. The brain is fundamentally quantum-mechanical in nature.

Yeah. I was more thinking about the "brains in a vat". If we can generate two identical brains and pit them in a vat, then we can compare their activity.

Quite frankly, I'm scientifically illiterate, but I once read about a guy who claimed that the brain was a quantum computer. If this is true, I wonder what are the implications wrt free will.

Even today's computers are not "100% predictable", and their operations are far more protected from quantum uncertainties than are our brains.

I know, but they're sufficiently predictable to make it clear that they don't have free will. My bad for wrongly using the term "100%".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah. I was more thinking about the "brains in a vat". If we can generate two identical brains and pit them in a vat, then we can compare their activity.

Yes...and though they will be probabilistically identical there is no guarantee that they will come up with the same result in any specific realisation.

Quite frankly, I'm scientifically illiterate, but I once read about a guy who claimed that the brain was a quantum computer. If this is true, I wonder what are the implications wrt free will.

It is a computer, in that it takes in data and provides output. It is quantum in that quantum effects make themselves apparent in emergent phenomena in the brain (in other words certain properties of the brain as a whole are not explicable without the understanding of the brain on a quantum level; the classical description won't cut it). It is not clear to me that the brain is a simple quantum computer, without large-scale correlations and interactions happening. Computers nowadays are built so that the each element carries out its operations independently of elements which are far from it. In that sense, they're like a rational network of local, regional and national roadways. Each intersection is simple, and is identical to every other intersection. Roads always meet at 90 degrees, there are no one-way streets etc. I have a feeling that the human brain is probably more akin to the road network we have in real life. Streets dead end, there are intersections at crazy angles, etc. because the network has grown up "organically", where each step in the process was a means to a specific end. Now we're left with this legacy of crazy streets because it would be impossible to tear it all down and rebuild it from scratch. In the same way I think that in addition to the fundamental quantum noise in the system there is simply a lot of complexity in the design. Everything's a workaround which made sense at the time. This is one reason I'm a little bit skeptical about a 2100 date for any sort of accurate model of the human brain.

I know, but they're sufficiently predictable to make it clear that they don't have free will. My bad for wrongly using the term "100%".

Yeah, but they're only so because we design them so simply, with multiple error checks to reduce the noise in the system to acceptable levels (1 part in millions? billions?). I just don't think our brains are quite that rationally designed. There's a bunch of analogue crap happening in there that allows those quantum uncertainties to really shine through.

We might well get a brain in a vat at some point. I don't think there's anything magical about the three pounds of stuff at the top of my spinal cord which would prevent us from understanding its inner workings. I just don't think we're at that point yet, and even once we get there I think that the behaviour of the human brain will be chaotic in the extreme.

The weather will never be fully predictable and neither will our thought processes...

[Kuciwalker]

1° why the term "free will" has any use

It doesn't, which is why this is intellectual masturbation.

2° why is it that no significant philosopher has ever equated free will to sentience

Because overall it's a useless topic?

You know, I might as well solve the problem of universals by saying that after all, a universal is just a word

What problem is associated with free will?

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, but they're only so because we design them so simply, with multiple error checks to reduce the noise in the system to acceptable levels (1 part in millions? billions?).

I think it's less than that. Remember, computers perform billions of operations per second.