MG's free-will extravaganza

Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:50 pm

The Turing Test is not sufficient to prove AI, merely that a machine can look like it posesses AI... which of course would be a great milestone in the research. I have seen ref's to AI software that is convincing for a short period of time...

OC's objections concerning the limitations of neuroscience and AI research are an argument from (relative) ignorance. It is reasonable to reassert that it is valid to ask the question; can the mind and therefore consciousness (difficult to define IMO) be understood using natural models and not relying on supernatural conjecture? IMO, very reasonable.

So, the question is how likely is it? IMO more likely than unlikely. I think it will shock the socks off us when critical mass is aquired in this research and it takes off. One defense of philosophical naturalism is the 'it works so far' argument. One that I feel cannot be invalidated by the 'it has not yet been shown' argument. It may have worked 200 or even 100 yrs ago, but not now.

One reason why neuroscience is the retarded cousin (again, IMO Smile

) is FUNDAMENTALISM namely P.E.T.A. - I'm not going into details here but I refer to the Silver Springs Monkeys and the lunatic fringe (not that I support the UNethical treatment of animals BTW!!) - so our understanding of neuroplasticity and therefore the innerworkings of how phantom limbs work and how we aquire habits (incl. of thought) were set back a decade or so.

Not to be naive about it (iRobot is not anytime soon, nor is HAL) but let's ease up on the 'deep mysterious workings of the human psyche' routine and discuss specifics... such as HOW PLAUSIBLE IS 'TRADING PLACES" Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

If no free will exists, then it is incoherent for a person to claim to be a free thinker.

If contra-causal free-will exists then by the same reasoning it is incoherent to believe a persons actions could be affected by things such as discipline.

Discipline is a good example of free will in action. The very notion of acting disciplined is to go contrary to one's inherent behaviors.

Maybe I don't understand your point.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

iPondR wrote:

The Turing Test is not sufficient to prove AI, merely that a machine can look like it posesses AI... which of course would be a great milestone in the research. I have seen ref's to AI software that is convincing for a short period of time...

OC's objections concerning the limitations of neuroscience and AI research are an argument from (relative) ignorance. It is reasonable to reassert that it is valid to ask the question; can the mind and therefore consciousness (difficult to define IMO) be understood using natural models and not relying on supernatural conjecture? IMO, very reasonable.

That is not completely fair. I understand AI fairly well, so I can make a personally informed decision about the state of AI. Of course, if what you mean is that I can not say we will never ever produce true machine consciousness, then, sure I can not predict the future. Of course, I would not make such a claim.

Quote:

So, the question is how likely is it? IMO more likely than unlikely. I think it will shock the socks off us when critical mass is aquired in this research and it takes off. One defense of philosophical naturalism is the 'it works so far' argument. One that I feel cannot be invalidated by the 'it has not yet been shown' argument. It may have worked 200 or even 100 yrs ago, but not now.

Your apparently bald claim we will reach the goal of creating machine consciousness seems just as much an opinion as you claim I'm making. No?

It is important to understand the difference between an argument from ignorance and an argument based on best explanations. The former is a fallacy, but the latter is not. The latter is completely scientific as long as the current best explanation can be changed based on new evidence.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:47 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

If no free will exists, then it is incoherent for a person to claim to be a free thinker.

If contra-causal free-will exists then by the same reasoning it is incoherent to believe a persons actions could be affected by things such as discipline.

Discipline is a good example of free will in action. The very notion of acting disciplined is to go contrary to one's inherent behaviors.

Maybe I don't understand your point.

My point is that if our will can void causality and work counter to it, then any external, causal action taken to affect our will is pointless.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:01 pm

invixxtus wrote:

So, yes, we do what we do because we are who we are in the situation that we are in at a point in time, in accordance with our will (our beliefs, desires and values)- and if we are free from outside coercion then we might say that we have free will in this minimalist sense-

"Coercion" in the sense of someone holding a gun to our heads or reprogramming our brains with certain techniques? I suppose most human volition is formed without those overt stimuli. If this is what "free will" means, I could support that definition and find minimally for its existence.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:03 pm

I think I'm asking the right questions in this thread but about the wrong thing. Perhaps these questions should address volition and NOT free will.

Volition is easily defined as the ability to make choices or take actions. I do not disagree that most, if not all forms of animal life, possess varying degrees volition. Maybe we should turn our attention to how volition is formed, and forget this fuzzy free-will debate.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:35 pm

MockingGods wrote:

I think I'm asking the right questions in this thread but about the wrong thing. Perhaps these questions should address volition and NOT free will.

Volition is easily defined as the ability to make choices or take actions. I do not disagree that most, if not all forms of animal life, possess varying degrees volition. Maybe we should turn our attention to how volition is formed, and forget this fuzzy free-will debate.

It doesn't matter what you call it, motivation, volition will. This is some essential quality that moves us to act. Is that based on thought processes (explainable in detail or not) memories and cultural influences (plastic as they are) AND environmental interactions. AND can these things be reductively (weak or Turing) explained?

In other words, we could go on for months debating if the mind will ever be explained or copied/simulated using a naturalistic paradigm. In fact I agree with the 'spirit' of what OC is saying there... but I'm not advocating we will create a human consciousness necessarily. (let's not go there, that's a different topic)

-meanwhile- supernaturalist/theists get a free pass (not on here, so much) where they can bang on about how the mind is a result of a disembodied soul/spirit mechanism , how, therefore, telepathy and prophesy is real and how you don't die when you die. Also, how your body can be invaded by evil spirits, how illness is the result of bad juju energy, how homeopathy and prayer really work, etcetera et-cetera et-cet-er-a.

So, IMHO, that is what the crux (allusion intended) and indeed the crisis (also intended) really is. They haven't proved their case. When will someone win the Million Dollar Challenge? Then I'll reconsider my position.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

If no free will exists, then it is incoherent for a person to claim to be a free thinker.

If contra-causal free-will exists then by the same reasoning it is incoherent to believe a persons actions could be affected by things such as discipline.

Discipline is a good example of free will in action. The very notion of acting disciplined is to go contrary to one's inherent behaviors.

Maybe I don't understand your point.

My point is that if our will can void causality and work counter to it, then any external, causal action taken to affect our will is pointless.

Our will can bring about causality.

There is brain function which causes free will in some biochemical sense, then our free will can produce causes. Just because we have biochemical operations going on in our brain does not allow one to jump to the conclusion that behavior is deterministic. See above for my las post to invixxtus.

Confident Learner Joined: Jul 28, 2009 Posts: 98

OC wrote:

Just because we have biochemical operations going on in our brain does not allow one to jump to the conclusion that behavior is deterministic.

True. However the fact that everything we currently know about the brain is consistent with physicalism, and the fact that we are aware of nothing at the atomic level that occurs without a cause would make arguing that indeterminsim is true or even likely, foolish. You need something to liberate the will from the causal world and we haven't seen it yet.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:18 am

The OC wrote:

Our will can bring about causality.

Of course it can.

Quote:

There is brain function which causes free will in some biochemical sense, then our free will can produce causes.

I would change this to read, There are brain functions which produce volition, then the subsequent actions interact with our environment to produce causes.

Quote:

Just because we have biochemical operations going on in our brain does not allow one to jump to the conclusion that behavior is deterministic.

I not sure volition is completely deterministic. There may indeed be indeterministic, or more accurately random, mechanisms also involved.

One thing I would like to add to our discussion about discipline. If your idea of "free-will" includes making choices without coercion, then discipline would be an attempt at a direct, overt suppression of this supposed attribute.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:22 am

invixxtus wrote:

OC wrote:

Just because we have biochemical operations going on in our brain does not allow one to jump to the conclusion that behavior is deterministic.

True. However the fact that everything we currently know about the brain is consistent with physicalism, and the fact that we are aware of nothing at the atomic level that occurs without a cause would make arguing that indeterminsim is true or even likely, foolish. You need something to liberate the will from the causal world and we haven't seen it yet.

I agree, he has said nothing to convince me that human volition isn't driven by the same casual factors that appear to drive everything else in nature.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:33 am

iPondR wrote:

It doesn't matter what you call it, motivation, volition will.

Perhaps only for the sake of clarity in our discussion.

Quote:

This is some essential quality that moves us to act.

Indeed

Quote:

Is that based on thought processes (explainable in detail or not) memories and cultural influences (plastic as they are) AND environmental interactions. AND can these things be reductively (weak or Turing) explained?

I would add to your list of influences, innate biology.

Quote:

In other words, we could go on for months debating if the mind will ever be explained or copied/simulated using a naturalistic paradigm.

Indeed we could.

Quote:

In fact I agree with the 'spirit' of what OC is saying there... but I'm not advocating we will create a human consciousness necessarily.

It's my hope that when and if we create a non-human consciousness, it will be better (relatively speaking). I'm somewhat convinced we're on the path to doing this and it might be closer then many think.

Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:53 am

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Our will can bring about causality.

Thanks OC, in one concise statement, there it is! I envy your brevity. I assume you imply this type of 'will' as a force independent of physical causality? If so, how does it influence matter? I of course understand that one can make a faith argument of subjective experience, but other than that?

Quote:

There is brain function which causes free will in some biochemical sense, then our free will can produce causes. Just because we have biochemical operations going on in our brain does not allow one to jump to the conclusion that behavior is deterministic. See above for my las post to invixxtus.

Methodologically, science does commence from that point while many also do so philosophically. However it does not demand a philosophical naturalist position for it to work. It's a premise not a conclusion. It's agnostic with regard to supernatural postulates, as they are considered (thus far) unnecessary.

MG wrote:

I would add to your list of influences, innate biology.

Thanks M_G, of course, the wetware Wink

Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:49 am

I wrote:

I would change this to read, There are brain functions which produce volition, then the subsequent actions interact with our environment to produce causes.

What I didn't include in this line of reasoning is this; "There are causes (mostly external) prior to the brain functions which produce volition", which is the quintessential point of this discussion.

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:21 pm

MockingGods wrote:

I wrote:

I would change this to read, There are brain functions which produce volition, then the subsequent actions interact with our environment to produce causes.

What I didn't include in this line of reasoning is this; "There are causes (mostly external) prior to the brain functions which produce volition", which is the quintessential point of this discussion.

Hey M_G, I had the JW's back at my door recently, the phrase 'free will' cropped up, I was much better prepared this time! Thanks! Smile

During our very civil conversation (I treat everyone as my equal of course) I expressed the desire that Christianity become more 'humanistic' and gave him my opinion of free will that I did not support the idea of totally non-determined (i.e. supernatural) free will and asked if surely he would accept that there were physicalist factors involved... etc.

All in all an interesting exchange. For brevity, I did not use the 'A' word, I just let him assume whatever (for now...) He suggested I read this book of Job thing, hmmm never heard of it... Wink


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile