48 of 69
48
Do non-human animals have free will?
Posted: 27 January 2014 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 706 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 27 January 2014 02:31 PM

No, not based on Kane’s definition, which specifies the need for an control of *actions*, not wants or desires.  If you take that route then it implies that all wants are actions.  But are they? 

Can you give an example of a want or desire that isn’t an action Bryan?
Let’s just have one…one example.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 02:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 707 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 27 January 2014 02:46 PM
Bryan - 27 January 2014 02:31 PM

No, not based on Kane’s definition, which specifies the need for an control of *actions*, not wants or desires.  If you take that route then it implies that all wants are actions.  But are they? 

Can you give an example of a want or desire that isn’t an action Bryan?
Let’s just have one…one example.

Sure.  Take the want for food, for example (hungry).

Hungry’s not an action.  It’s a state.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 03:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 708 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 27 January 2014 02:56 PM

Sure.  Take the want for food, for example (hungry).

Hungry’s not an action.  It’s a state.

I thought you would have gone with something more esoteric…
Hungry is the action of nerve impulses sending signals to the brain to eat.
If there wasn’t an action there, then people would starve to death. They wouldn’t know their stomachs were empty.

A stomach that is empty could be described as a state. But hungry is the action of nerve impulses.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 03:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 709 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14

Which just to head off possible “language morasses” I’ll also add that a “state” can easily describe a set of actions.
“The machine is in a state of operation”.
So hungry as a state still suits my point.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 710 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9280
Joined  2006-08-29
Bryan - 27 January 2014 02:56 PM
VYAZMA - 27 January 2014 02:46 PM
Bryan - 27 January 2014 02:31 PM

No, not based on Kane’s definition, which specifies the need for an control of *actions*, not wants or desires.  If you take that route then it implies that all wants are actions.  But are they? 

Can you give an example of a want or desire that isn’t an action Bryan?
Let’s just have one…one example.

Sure.  Take the want for food, for example (hungry).

Hungry’s not an action.  It’s a state.

I don’t know about “hungry,” but “being hungry” is as much of an action as is walking. Just like with walking, when we are hungry all kinds of things are happening in our body with many organs, muscles, chemicals in our body, etc., all working simultaneously to create the feeling. Just because you don’t see the action with your eyes it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 06:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 711 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1822
Joined  2007-10-28
StephenLawrence - 27 January 2014 12:25 AM

No it doesn’t. If you’re talking about probabilistic causation you still have a regress from effect back to cause and so on.

That is because you conceive of causation as long cause/effect deterministic chains which are highly problematic, in reality.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Probabilistic causation

Interpreting causation as a deterministic relation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, war does not cause deaths, nor does smoking cause cancer. As a result, many turn to a notion of probabilistic causation. Informally, A probabilistically causes B if A’s occurrence increases the probability of B. This is sometimes interpreted to reflect imperfect knowledge of a deterministic system but other times interpreted to mean that the causal system under study is inherently probabilistic, such as quantum mechanics.

Bold added by me.

And of course choices don’t ultimately originate in us since we are built by natural selection, the product of our nuture and nature, so it’s not like there is a problem to solve unless you think we have God like powers.

Notwithstanding that we are the outcome of nature and nurture, if you don’t think that our choices can originate from ourselves, then we have no free will per se.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 712 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1822
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 27 January 2014 04:20 AM

Because only in systems where quantum effects play a decisive role indeterminism is relevant. In all other cases we can safely assume determinism. Adequate determinism, indeed.

Not quite so simple. Consider this article.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8570836.stm

“With this experiment, we’ve shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms.”

And that is not the definite limit.

Yeah, right. Reconcile free will with determinism is simple, that is compatibilism. Reconcile it with indeterminism is simple too: quantum effects normally do not propagate to macro events in the brain, so this form of indeterminism is irrelevant. As said, adequate determinism.

From the above article:

In either case, these devices have added to the debate about quantum mechanics and whether its surprising and, as Albert Einstein famously put it, “spooky” effects play a role in the everyday objects around us.

“I don’t think there is a limit, that there will be a certain size where quantum mechanics starts to break down,” Dr Aspelmeyer said.

So, do quantum events propagate to macro events in the brain?

As done above.

Not quite so. Indeterminism is inherent in the universe and FW must be reconciled with it.

OTOH, how about a Turing test for free will?

From http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

The test consists of simple yes/no questions.

Q1: Am I a decider?

N.B., a decider is anything that, like a thermostat, takes in the inputs needed to make a decision, processes the information needed to come up with the decision, and issues the decision.

Q2: Do I make my decisions using recursive reasoning?

That is, does my decision process operate by logic, mathematics, ordinary language, human thought, or any other process that that can in principle be simulated on a digital computer or Turing machine? Note that because the known laws of physics can be simulated on a computer, the dynamics of the brain can be simulated by a computer in principle – it is not necessary that we know how to simulate the operation of the brain in practice.

Q3: Can I model and simulate – at least partially – my own behavior and that of other
deciders?

If you can, then you possess not only recursive reasoning, but fully recursive reasoning: you have the ability to perform universal computation (modulo the subtlety of being able to add memory as required).

Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand?

This is just a check. If you answered Yes to questions 1 to 3, and you answer Yes to question 4, then you are lying. If you answer Yes to questions 1,2,3, and No to question 4, then you are likely to believe that you have free will.

LOL

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 January 2014 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 713 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Bryan - 27 January 2014 01:52 PM

On what basis do you rule out indeterminism not associated with quantum effects?  Because it’s convenient???

On what basis do you assume indeterminism not associated with quantum effects?  Because it fits your intuitions about ‘could have done otherwise’?

But I can give you the answer: a few days ago I talked with God, and I asked him if he, as an experiment of our mortal’s intuitions, could assure that no random event in our brain would have any influence on our behaviour. The old man found that a funny idea, and as he for already so long had not intervened in our lives at all, he was in for a practical joke. As it turned out, the joke was only ours. Nobody even noticed that anything changed.

Now if you think we should have noticed, I ask you how we would have done that. What in our daily experience would change when suddenly randomness would play no role at all in our actions.

(I also noticed you did not react on my most recent posting in the other thread. Maybe you just oversaw it, maybe you see the problem.)

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 12:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 714 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 27 January 2014 07:12 PM
GdB - 27 January 2014 04:20 AM

Because only in systems where quantum effects play a decisive role indeterminism is relevant. In all other cases we can safely assume determinism. Adequate determinism, indeed.

Not quite so simple. Consider this article.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8570836.stm

“With this experiment, we’ve shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms.”

Read before you thi.., quote. Did I exclude macro effects?

kkwan - 27 January 2014 07:12 PM

So, do quantum events propagate to macro events in the brain?

As done above.

Not quite so. Indeterminism is inherent in the universe and FW must be reconciled with it.

Where is the empirical proof that some form of indeterminism plays an essential role in our actions?

kkwan - 27 January 2014 07:12 PM

OTOH, how about a Turing test for free will?

From http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

Again, you use an article that does not support your POV, because you only google a bit, and do not really read.

From your article:

But are decisions ‘free’ simply because they are probabilistic? Flipping a coin to make a decision is typically used as a last resort by deciders who are unable to make the decision themselves: the outcome of the coin toss determines the decision, not you. As the twentieth century wended on, it became clear that merely adding randomness did not obvously solve the problem posed by incompatibilism. After all, as the philosopher Karl Popper noted, one of they key features of a decision arrived at by the process of free will is that it is NOT random.

<snip>

In fact, cross-cultural surveys on attitudes about free will amongst ordinary people reveal that (A) most people believe the world to be mechanistic – even deterministic, and yet (B) most people regard themselves and others as possessing free will. As will now be seen, this apparently self-contradictory response is in fact rational.

Bold by me.

Edit: I forgot the greatest contribution in these and similar discussions by you:  LOL

[ Edited: 28 January 2014 12:23 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 12:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 715 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
kkwan - 27 January 2014 06:26 PM

That is because you conceive of causation as long cause/effect deterministic chains which are highly problematic, in reality.

Nope. If there is no chain then the desire or whatever just appears, in which case how it got there has nothing to do with you, you just have it, obviously.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 12:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 716 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
GdB - 27 January 2014 11:50 PM
Bryan - 27 January 2014 01:52 PM

On what basis do you rule out indeterminism not associated with quantum effects?  Because it’s convenient???

On what basis do you assume indeterminism not associated with quantum effects?  Because it fits your intuitions about ‘could have done otherwise’?

Haw—the old answer a question with a question routine.  Yet only one of us is claiming that we can assume either indeterminism or determinism is true at the macro level.  That’s you.  It appears you’ve met a burden of proof you don’t like.  I assume indeterminism for the sake of argument for reasons I’ve already described.  It’s appropriate in philosophy to assume things for the sake of argument, both to try to show that it is incoherent and to try to show how it may coherently describe libertarian free will.

Your assumption looks a whole lot more like begging the question unless we obtain a real answer from you instead of a dodge.

But I can give you the answer: a few days ago I talked with God, and I asked him if he, as an experiment of our mortal’s intuitions, could assure that no random event in our brain would have any influence on our behaviour. The old man found that a funny idea, and as he for already so long had not intervened in our lives at all, he was in for a practical joke. As it turned out, the joke was only ours. Nobody even noticed that anything changed.

Now if you think we should have noticed, I ask you how we would have done that. What in our daily experience would change when suddenly randomness would play no role at all in our actions.

I don’t get it.  Doesn’t seem like a serious answer, though.

(I also noticed you did not react on my most recent posting in the other thread. Maybe you just oversaw it, maybe you see the problem.)

Thanks for mentioning it.  I’ll have a look.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 12:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 717 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Bryan - 28 January 2014 12:46 AM
GdB - 27 January 2014 11:50 PM
Bryan - 27 January 2014 01:52 PM

On what basis do you rule out indeterminism not associated with quantum effects?  Because it’s convenient???

On what basis do you assume indeterminism not associated with quantum effects?  Because it fits your intuitions about ‘could have done otherwise’?

Haw—the old answer a question with a question routine.  Yet only one of us is claiming that we can assume either indeterminism or determinism is true at the macro level.  That’s you.  It appears you’ve met a burden of proof you don’t like.  I assume indeterminism for the sake of argument for reasons I’ve already described.  It’s appropriate in philosophy to assume things for the sake of argument, both to try to show that it is incoherent and to try to show how it may coherently describe libertarian free will.

Your assumption looks a whole lot more like begging the question unless we obtain a real answer from you instead of a dodge.

It’s easy: it’s like the believe in God. As long as there is no proof for his existence, there is no reason to believe in his existence. You can’t mention what the source of indeterminism would be. So except wishful thinking (“there must be indeterminism, otherwise my idea of ‘could have done otherwise’ does not work”), there is no reason to believe in any other form of indeterminism.

Bryan - 28 January 2014 12:46 AM

I don’t get it.  Doesn’t seem like a serious answer, though.

Ok, let me phrase it differently: what is the empirical basis of assuming that indeterminism plays a role in our actions? How would the world look different for us, when our actions would be determined?

It seems to my that you use rhetorical tricks to avoid the problems I show you. If you want a discussion on content, then let that be, please. Otherwise I am done with you.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 01:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 718 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
VYAZMA - 27 January 2014 03:06 PM
Bryan - 27 January 2014 02:56 PM

Sure.  Take the want for food, for example (hungry).

Hungry’s not an action.  It’s a state.

I thought you would have gone with something more esoteric…
Hungry is the action of nerve impulses sending signals to the brain to eat.
If there wasn’t an action there, then people would starve to death. They wouldn’t know their stomachs were empty.

A stomach that is empty could be described as a state. But hungry is the action of nerve impulses.

Got no time for word games, sorry.  Hungry is an action as standing is an action.  When one rises from sitting to standing, that’s an action.  But standing as a position is merely a state.  So it is with hunger.  The point I’m making with Stephen is that there are two kinds of wants:  Those that directly result in actions and those that do not.  It’s nonsensical to apply Kane’s definition for ultimate responsibility to a want such as hunger.  A person who does that isn’t paying attention to what Kane’s saying.  You can take a still picture of “standing.”  But you really can’t take a still picture of an action, such as kicking.  Though you can end up with a pic of a person with his foot touching a ball that’s misshapen on account of the contact.  You infer the action from the photo, but there’s no action in the photo.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 01:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 719 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
GdB - 28 January 2014 12:59 AM
Bryan - 28 January 2014 12:46 AM

Your assumption looks a whole lot more like begging the question unless we obtain a real answer from you instead of a dodge.

It’s easy: it’s like the believe in God. As long as there is no proof for his existence, there is no reason to believe in his existence.

That’s a marvelous example.  Since there’s no proof of God’s existence (as you say) therefore nobody believes in God (if there’s no reason to believe in God’s existence it stands to reason that belief in God is impossible).  Are we all hard atheists, then?

You can’t mention what the source of indeterminism would be.

lmao
Exactly.  It’s nonsensical to posit any prior cause of indeterminism.  That’s not a point in your favor.  It simply underscores a tendency on your part to fallaciously beg the question.

On the other hand, I can posit a source of indeterminism via illustrations such as the one I used earlier.  One of colored shapes I described seems to serve as the source of indeterminism in the illustration.

So except wishful thinking (“there must be indeterminism, otherwise my idea of ‘could have done otherwise’ does not work”), there is no reason to believe in any other form of indeterminism.

Nobody’s asking you to believe in determinism at this point.  You’re being asked to avoid begging the question while it is demonstrated that the idea is coherent.  That should be easy for a smart guy like you.

Bryan - 28 January 2014 12:46 AM

I don’t get it.  Doesn’t seem like a serious answer, though.

Ok, let me phrase it differently: what is the empirical basis of assuming that indeterminism plays a role in our actions? How would the world look different for us, when our actions would be determined?

I think consciousness is evolutionary dead weight if we are determined beings.  A causally determined universe has no need for consciousness; there’s nothing causal determinism can’t physically accomplish via an unconscious universe (except indeterminism!).

It seems to my that you use rhetorical tricks to avoid the problems I show you.

What, like answering a question with a question of my own?

Seriously, I’d love to see an example where you think I’m using a rhetorical trick to avoid a problem you’re showing me.

If you want a discussion on content, then let that be, please. Otherwise I am done with you.

Speaking of rhetorical tricks ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 January 2014 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 720 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Bryan - 28 January 2014 01:29 AM

That’s a marvelous example.  Since there’s no proof of God’s existence (as you say) therefore nobody believes in God (if there’s no reason to believe in God’s existence it stands to reason that belief in God is impossible).  Are we all hard atheists, then?

Argumentum ad populum.

Bryan - 28 January 2014 01:29 AM

Exactly.  It’s nonsensical to posit any prior cause of indeterminism.  That’s not a point in your favor.  It simply underscores a tendency on your part to fallaciously beg the question..

Did I ask for a prior cause? Strawman.

Bryan - 28 January 2014 01:29 AM

On the other hand, I can posit a source of indeterminism via illustrations such as the one I used earlier.  One of colored shapes I described seems to serve as the source of indeterminism in the illustration.

Fine. You illustrated a concept. But what when nothing in reality (except quantum events) fit this concept, what is then the relevance of it? Trying to show that LFW could be a logical coherent concept is at most a first step.

Bryan - 28 January 2014 01:29 AM

I think consciousness is evolutionary dead weight if we are determined beings.  A causally determined universe has no need for consciousness; there’s nothing causal determinism can’t physically accomplish via an unconscious universe (except indeterminism!).

So you assume that consciousness is something extra, above, or next to, our physical universe. That leads to dualism. Are you a dualist? Do you believe in a soul?
Late night edit: how does randomness explain consciousness? If it does not, why should I assume that in a determinist universe consciousness cannot arise in the course of evolution?

Bryan - 28 January 2014 01:29 AM

Speaking of rhetorical tricks ...

It is just impatience.

[ Edited: 28 January 2014 10:31 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
48 of 69
48
 
‹‹ Destiny..?      Babies are bigots ››