Thanks for bringing that to my notice. Stage 2 covers that phase of the choice-making process. Looks like it didn't quite satisfy your high standards of accuracy and truth. I've been accused of wooly thinking. So there. — Agent Smith
How could you choose what one likes and dislikes? These are, as far as I can tell, formed way before one is even conscious about them. I, for example, didn't opt for heterosexuality, but, from what I can gather, I have. The same goes for homo/bisexuals. This proves my point to my satisfaction. — Agent Smith
How could you choose what one likes and dislikes? These are, as far as I can tell, formed way before one is even conscious about them. I, for example, didn't opt for heterosexuality, but, from what I can gather, I have. The same goes for homo/bisexuals. This proves my point to my satisfaction. — Agent Smith
I said you had a hand in it - not that you consciously chose them. — Possibility
The last several posts have indeed be well besides the point. The point I thought concerned free will, and not how decisions are made.However, they seem to be beside the point as far as I can tell. — Agent Smith
Probably less than 1% of all choices are made by such a cumbersome and formal mechanism, including the smoking example. But as you say, besides the point of free will. The older chess playing programs made almost all their decisions exactly as you describe above, and they hardly have what most people like to qualify as free will, so a decision made this way (by virtual choices as you put it) is not necessarily free, by your definition.Please bear in mind that there are two stages when it comes to making a choice:
Stage 1. Deliberation on the available options
Stage 2. Actually making a selection
So in stage 1, you examine the options and rightly conclude that quitting smoking would be in your best interest, and in stage 2, the immediate-gratification-monkey (a waitbutwhy term) totally ignores the output of stage 1 and reaches for the ciggy. Still not an example of free will or the lack of it, and not anything that cannot occur with a deterministic robot, a supposedly not free-willed thing.In stage 2, all the choices have been processed and the one that we like is selected. It's in this stage, our preferences come into play, preferences we had no hand in determining i.e. we're not free now.
So in stage 1, you examine the options and rightly conclude that quitting smoking would be in your best interest, and in stage 2, the immediate-gratification-monkey (a waitbutwhy term) totally ignores the output of stage 1 and reaches for the ciggy. Still not an example of free will or the lack of it, and not anything that cannot occur with a deterministic robot, a supposedly not free-willed thing.
So my point is: what distinguishes a supposedly free willed human (or squirrel if you want) from something else that isn't free willed? — noAxioms
what distinguishes a supposedly free willed human (or squirrel if you want) from something else that isn't free willed? — noAxioms
By the law of excluded middle, that's true of anything. A rock will reach for the ciggy or not, every time, just like the human. OK, you probably don't mean it that way. You probably mean that there's a finite probability of reaching for it or not, which may or may not be true depending on how the statement is interpreted.At the end of stage 2 the person might reach for the ciggy or not reach for the ciggy. Therefore the person's will is free.. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, you seem to be interpreting it as a statement of determinism. Under a completely deterministic interpretation of QM (such as Bohmian mechanics), the future action any robot, human or squirrel is completely determined by the state at a given time. Unless you can falsify such an interpretation, your statement above is a mere assertion, not any kind of evidence that a human can in any way do something other than what is utterly determined.If the person was a deterministic robot there would be only one way which the person could go after stage 2.
Nonsense. It usually forages whether it is hungry or not, and only if it passes phase 1 first where it might prioritize another task due to time of day, weather, danger, or being horny or something. But it certainly isn't a straight hunger-causes-foraging relationship.A squirrel feels hungry and immediately starts foraging. — Agent Smith
Nonsense. It usually forages whether it is hungry or not, and only if it passes phase 1 first where it might prioritize another task due to time of day, weather, danger, or being horny or something. But it certainly isn't a straight hunger-causes-foraging relationship.
I brought up the squirrel in case you included it in your list of things with free will. Apparently you don't, which is what I wanted to know. This tells me you're not one of those 'biology is special' types, but instead take an anthropocentric stance. At what point in our evolution do you suggest that the change from deterministic animal to free-willed creature,and more specifically, what distinguished the one physiology from its immediate predecessor? Or are you in denial of evolution? — noAxioms
OK, you seem to be interpreting it as a statement of determinism. Under a completely deterministic interpretation of QM (such as Bohmian mechanics), the future action any robot, human or squirrel is completely determined by the state at a given time. Unless you can falsify such an interpretation, your statement above is a mere assertion, not any kind of evidence that a human can in any way do something other than what is utterly determined. — noAxioms
This is easily falsified, as you request. A "state at a given time" cannot by itself determine any future activity. This is because a state is static, without activity, and any future activity of the thing in this state is dependent on what forces are applied to it. Therefore it is clearly false to say that the future action of a thing is "completely determined" by its present state, because it is also dependent on whatever forces are applied to it — Metaphysician Undercover
That's just an example of something having a higher priority than eating, straight up cause and effect, not an example of free will. And you're wrong: Other things have done this as well, starved in the presence of food due to prioritizing something higher. I can think of one species in danger of extinction because of it.It (the squirrel) eats when it's hungry. We can resist the urge to eat even when we're dying of hunger — Agent Smith
This does not follow from any hard-deterministic physics. Quite the opposite in fact, by definition.[A hard-determinsitic QM interpretation such as Bohmian mechanics] is easily falsified, as you request. A "state at a given time" cannot by itself determine any future activity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps you should give an example where the forces are not a function of the state at a given moment. The above quote uses the word 'clearly' to justify a statement which cannot otherwise be backed, a tell-tale sign that either you don't understand the subject, or simply refuse to accept the premises.This is because a state is static, without activity, and any future activity of the thing in this state is dependent on what forces are applied to it. Therefore it is clearly false to say that the future action of a thing is "completely determined" by its present state, because it is also dependent on whatever forces are applied to it.
That's just an example of something having a higher priority than eating, straight up cause and effect, not an example of free will. — noAxioms
This does not follow from any hard-deterministic physics. Quite the opposite in fact, by definition. — noAxioms
Perhaps you should give an example where the forces are not a function of the state at a given moment. — noAxioms
Quite a ridiculous assertion. A thrown rock (in space say, no significant forces acting on it) is just beyond the reach of the hand that threw it. A second later it is meters away, a changed state. It is also likely facing a different direction after that second since it's really hard to throw a rock without any spin.In any physics, a force is required to change a state.. — Metaphysician Undercover
Changing the motion is not the same as changing the state. The thrown rock is still heading in the same direction after a second (unchanged motion) and has the same spin (unchanged motion) but has a different location and orientation (both changed states). Yes, force is required to change its linear and angular momentum, per Newton's 2nd law, and is that to which your wiki quote refers), but no force is required to change its location, orientation, temperature, etc, all of which are part of its classic state.From Wikipedia: "In physics, a force is an influence that can change the motion of an object." So, in physics, a "force" is what what would change the state which exists at "a given moment". .
Quite a ridiculous assertion. A thrown rock (in space say, no significant forces acting on it) is just beyond the reach of the hand that threw it. A second later it is meters away, a changed state. It is also likely facing a different direction after that second since it's really hard to throw a rock without any spin. — noAxioms
Changing the motion is not the same as changing the state. The thrown rock is still heading in the same direction after a second (unchanged motion) and has the same spin (unchanged motion) but has a different location and orientation (both changed states). Yes, force is required to change its linear and angular momentum, per Newton's 2nd law, and is that to which your wiki quote refers), but no force is required to change its location, orientation, temperature, etc, all of which are part of its classic state. — noAxioms
This has absolutely nothing to do with the falsification of deterministic physics. Why are you going on about this? — noAxioms
Are you still stuck with "free will"?
Or you have reached a conclusion? I would like to hear about it ... — Alkis Piskas
We must comply, unwillingly! — Agent Smith
No. Metaphysical/psychological claim. What does it mean? It means we can't measure it, nor conduct a scientific experiment to show proof of it. It could only be surmised.Is free will (existence/nonexistence) an empirical claim? — Agent Smith
No. Metaphysical/psychological claim. What does it mean? It means we can't measure it, nor conduct a scientific experiment to show proof of it. It could only be surmised — L'éléphant
Very well applied! To be honest, I've never heard of Alder's razor until now.Time for Newton's Flaming Laser Sword aka Alder's razor! — Agent Smith
Comply with what? If this is your conclusion, can you elaborate it a little or provide me with a link? Thanks.We must comply, unwillingly! — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.