Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#8981  Postby GrahamH » Aug 26, 2017 4:27 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
GrahamH wrote:Free will is nothing to do with having intentions in any particular situation.


Free will has nothing to do with intentions? WTF?
That's what 'will' is.

Well, usually, but not necessarily, because it is always possible to decide not to think about what you are doing, and no-one will know that you are not thinking.
Free will includes the freedom to not think before acting, although that is not the norm (I hope!).
The point is that observers cannot observe your thinking, only your actions.


Can you 'decide' without thinking?
If you act without thought is that a willful action, a potential instance of free will?
What of your 'biological free will' that requires deliberation as opposed to 'habit or instinct' ?
I don't see ho YOU can call action without intentional thought 'free will. :scratch:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18464

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#8982  Postby scott1328 » Aug 26, 2017 4:29 pm

romansh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
Google's Go player

I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8093
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8983  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 4:32 pm

scott1328 wrote:
romansh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
Google's Go player

I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)

it seems to me to meet these criteria:
    regularity in the world,
    an ability to create a model,
    ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model,
    ability to enact a choice.
Last edited by romansh on Aug 26, 2017 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8984  Postby GrahamH » Aug 26, 2017 4:32 pm

romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
romansh wrote:
So freedom is regularity in the world, an ability to create a model, and ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model?
Is this about right?

The capacity for free will, yes. Regularity in the world is necessary in as much as it makes prediction and modeling possible.

But to make use of free will also requires the ability to enact the choices.

OK .. fair enough free will is ... regularity in the world, an ability to create a model, ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model, and ability to enact a choice.
Fair enough.
Does AlphaGo have free will by this definition?


Scotts definition raises an interesting point. Does it mean that any act that is performed without a clear idea of outcome can't be a free will act? I should think that it is enough to intend the act, even if you don't know how it will turn out. If you merely hope with no greta confidence or you do something to try and see can't that be free will? Hoe does that work for responsibility? Can you do what you like in ignorance or are you accountable for knowingly taking a risk?
Last edited by GrahamH on Aug 26, 2017 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18464

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8985  Postby GrahamH » Aug 26, 2017 4:34 pm

romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
romansh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
Google's Go player

I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)

it seems to me to meet these criteria:
    regularity in the world,
    an ability to create a model,
    ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model,
    ability to enact a choice.


It would certainly seem to meet Jon Platko's criteria.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18464

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8986  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 4:40 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Scotts definition raises an interesting point. Does it mean that any act is performed without a clear idea of outcome can't be a free will act? I should think that it is enough to intend the act, even if you don't know how it will turn out. If you merely hope with no greta confidence or you do something to try and see can't that be free will? Hoe does that work for responsibility? Can you do what you like in ignorance or are you accountable for knowingly taking a risk?

I quite like Scott's definition ... I don't think he is claiming an infallible outcome of the evaluation. But it does raise questions about really crappy evaluations and how they might be distinguished from cursory evaluations.

Intend to act? Simply having a will makes it free? I don't think you are saying this. Hope the consequence is what I want? Again it seems to be defining my will/want as free.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8987  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 4:40 pm

GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
romansh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
Google's Go player

I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)

it seems to me to meet these criteria:
    regularity in the world,
    an ability to create a model,
    ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model,
    ability to enact a choice.


It would certainly seem to meet Jon Platko's criteria.

I was hoping to avoid that aspect of the discussion.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#8988  Postby GrahamH » Aug 26, 2017 4:55 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Scotts definition raises an interesting point. Does it mean that any act is performed without a clear idea of outcome can't be a free will act? I should think that it is enough to intend the act, even if you don't know how it will turn out. If you merely hope with no greta confidence or you do something to try and see can't that be free will? Hoe does that work for responsibility? Can you do what you like in ignorance or are you accountable for knowingly taking a risk?

I quite like Scott's definition ... I don't think he is claiming an infallible outcome of the evaluation. But it does raise questions about really crappy evaluations and how they might be distinguished from cursory evaluations.

Intend to act? Simply having a will makes it free? I don't think you are saying this. Hope the consequence is what I want? Again it seems to be defining my will/want as free.


It seems to me it is enough for free will to have the thought that I may do X and then do X. If I have the capacity to realise I don't know what the outcome of X may be that surely doesn't rob me of free will. Why would it?

Conversely there is a sense in which knowing the outcome reduced freedom. Outcomes are constraints. In particular people can be too afraid to act for fear of what might happen. There is some freedom in not being bound by such constraints. Some may do what they hope may happen rather than what they may reasonably expect to happen.

The total focus on deliberation seems to me to about rational agents rather than free will agents. These are surely not the same thing in all cases. Rational agents need not be free and free will agents need not be rational.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18464

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8989  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 5:13 pm

GrahamH wrote:
It seems to me it is enough for free will to have the thought that I may do X and then do X. If I have the capacity to realise I don't know what the outcome of X may be that surely doesn't rob me of free will. Why would it?

Having a thought I may do X seems to be simply saying I have a will to do X. So when we put the adjective free in front of will what does it mean? Free from constraint? Isn't that freedom of action?

GrahamH wrote:
Conversely there is a sense in which knowing the outcome reduced freedom. Outcomes are constraints. In particular people can be too afraid to act for fear of what might happen. There is some freedom in not being bound by such constraints. Some may do what they hope may happen rather than what they may reasonably expect to happen.

Sort of agree ... potential outcomes can be constraints either inhibiting or engendering the action to create the outcome. This leaves us with the more chaotic (for want of a better word) aspects of our thought processes. But I don't think this what most people who claim they have free will mean by that term. But either way the fundamental processes that create our choices are the same (patterns may vary) for cogitated and intuitive choices. I don't get a sense I really control either, especially the intuitive ones.

GrahamH wrote:
The total focus on deliberation seems to me to about rational agents rather than free will agents. These are surely not the same thing in all cases. Rational agents need not be free and free will agents need not be rational.

Again I agree ... but it seems important to those that have a belief in free will.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8990  Postby GrahamH » Aug 26, 2017 5:21 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
It seems to me it is enough for free will to have the thought that I may do X and then do X. If I have the capacity to realise I don't know what the outcome of X may be that surely doesn't rob me of free will. Why would it?

Having a thought I may do X seems to be simply saying I have a will to do X. So when we put the adjective free in front of will what does it mean? Free from constraint? Isn't that freedom of action?


It would just mean that what you will was not obviously coerced. thought to do X occurs to you and you act on it considering that it is your own thought. Isn't that what free will means?

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Conversely there is a sense in which knowing the outcome reduced freedom. Outcomes are constraints. In particular people can be too afraid to act for fear of what might happen. There is some freedom in not being bound by such constraints. Some may do what they hope may happen rather than what they may reasonably expect to happen.

Sort of agree ... potential outcomes can be constraints either inhibiting or engendering the action to create the outcome. This leaves us with the more chaotic (for want of a better word) aspects of our thought processes. But I don't think this what most people who claim they have free will mean by that term. But either way the fundamental processes that create our choices are the same (patterns may vary) for cogitated and intuitive choices. I don't get a sense I really control either, especially the intuitive ones.


This is tricky. What does free will mean to most people? Is there one definitive definition? A common theme is autonomy of thought and thought being a cause of actions. Anyone who argues that deliberation is required is tacitly acknowledging that.

I would be surprised if many people would think that acts of artistic creativity were not free will acts, but they are surely not primarily the result of deliberation of outcomes.

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
The total focus on deliberation seems to me to about rational agents rather than free will agents. These are surely not the same thing in all cases. Rational agents need not be free and free will agents need not be rational.

Again I agree ... but it seems important to those that have a belief in free will.


Agreed, it does seem important to them.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18464

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8991  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 5:29 pm

GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
Having a thought I may do X seems to be simply saying I have a will to do X. So when we put the adjective free in front of will what does it mean? Free from constraint? Isn't that freedom of action?

It would just mean that what you will was not obviously coerced. thought to do X occurs to you and you act on it considering that it is your own thought. Isn't that what free will means?

If you mean having a gun to my head type of coercion then I would agree. If we mean my biology forced me to do X then I am not so sure.

I think we are agreeing overall.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8992  Postby scott1328 » Aug 26, 2017 5:43 pm

romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
romansh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
Google's Go player

I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)

it seems to me to meet these criteria:
    regularity in the world,
    an ability to create a model,
    ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model,
    ability to enact a choice.

I don't believe the alphaGo has the capacities you attribute to it. It has no model. It does not evaluate outcomes. It is,at best, a situatuation reaction machine; an expensive thermostat.

Better, that you should have asked me about my dog's free will.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8093
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8993  Postby DavidMcC » Aug 26, 2017 6:02 pm

GrahamH wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:


Free will has nothing to do with intentions? WTF?
That's what 'will' is.

Well, usually, but not necessarily, because it is always possible to decide not to think about what you are doing, and no-one will know that you are not thinking.
Free will includes the freedom to not think before acting, although that is not the norm (I hope!).
The point is that observers cannot observe your thinking, only your actions.


Can you 'decide' without thinking?
...
You are right, it wouid not be free-willed, so I withdraw that, BUT there is also the possibility that different people have different thoughts about the same situation, and this also creates unpredictability if the observer hasn't thought of everything.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8994  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 6:39 pm

scott1328 wrote:
I don't believe the alphaGo has the capacities you attribute to it. It has no model. It does not evaluate outcomes. It is,at best, a situatuation reaction machine; an expensive thermostat.

Better, that you should have asked me about my dog's free will.


I don't know whether it has a model, I suspect it does and as it plays games it updates it model.
Does it compare different outcomes and choose amongst them? It by definition must do.
I agree it is an expensive thermostat ... but then so what?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8995  Postby scott1328 » Aug 26, 2017 7:11 pm

Get back to me when it refuses to play and takes up bridge instead
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8093
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#8996  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 7:26 pm

scott1328 wrote:Get back to me when it refuses to play and takes up bridge instead

I will when I have sprouted feathers and start flying.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8997  Postby GrahamH » Aug 26, 2017 7:31 pm

romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
I don't believe the alphaGo has the capacities you attribute to it. It has no model. It does not evaluate outcomes. It is,at best, a situatuation reaction machine; an expensive thermostat.

Better, that you should have asked me about my dog's free will.


I don't know whether it has a model, I suspect it does and as it plays games it updates it model.
Does it compare different outcomes and choose amongst them? It by definition must do.
I agree it is an expensive thermostat ... but then so what?

What it almost certainly doesn't do is know it is doing any of that. But maybe that would only a more elaborate game than Go.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18464

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8998  Postby romansh » Aug 26, 2017 7:41 pm

GrahamH wrote:
What it almost certainly doesn't do is know it is doing any of that. But maybe that would only a more elaborate game than Go.

I presume by this you mean it is consciously self aware. Is this tautology conscious and self aware?

While I too doubt it is conscious, is this necessary for will. I think a more testing question does its capability to analyse the board game and its ability to virtually surround opposing pieces count as a "will".

So I think a prerequisite for a free will would be a will. Has that will been programmed into the machine? More your field than mine.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2494

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#8999  Postby John Platko » Aug 26, 2017 9:16 pm

GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
romansh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
Google's Go player

I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)

it seems to me to meet these criteria:
    regularity in the world,
    an ability to create a model,
    ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model,
    ability to enact a choice.


It would certainly seem to meet Jon Platko's criteria.


Indeed it does. :thumbup:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#9000  Postby John Platko » Aug 26, 2017 9:18 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:
I want you to tell me what it is about an alphaGo that made you mention it. (Socratic reductio?) What are its capacities and capabilities? Why didn't you ask me if my dog has free will? (He does to a limited extent)

it seems to me to meet these criteria:
    regularity in the world,
    an ability to create a model,
    ability to evaluate consequences of enacting a component of that model,
    ability to enact a choice.


It would certainly seem to meet Jon Platko's criteria.

I was hoping to avoid that aspect of the discussion.


Me too!
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests