Freewill?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Basically, I don't have sufficient time for a dialogue of this magnitude, assuming it is nowhere near ending. At the same time, I don't want to simply leave off. The goal of my next post would be to considerably whittle down the post size while emphasizing the main principles upon which we differ. Yet I know that you prefer a conversational rather than syllogistic approach, and so your input is welcome.

I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.

Great. I wanted to provide a full response alongside premises to start to move in that direction, but time prevented this. Here is a normal reply:

1. Have you never discovered or realised that you've learnt something without attending to it at the time?

In a word, no.

I'm not saying anything about what humans have or don't have, or what they can do or can't do. I'm simply suggesting a simple set of basic definitions that are suitably contextual, and reasonably close to the dictionary versions, that we can match with any system, human or otherwise, to determine whether it has that basic property. If a system has more than the basic features, we can expand the definition and add a qualifier (e.g. 'self-knowledge').

Your arguments imply a great deal about humans, but my comment was not meant to directly address your definitions.

The definitions should be able to be compared to any system, organic or inorganic.

If you're right then they will apply to all such systems. If you're not they won't. To shape them that way from the outset is a form of begging the question. (But again, I am not criticizing your definitions, only providing structure to the methodology)

Precisely my point - that's the only information it gives you. Of itself, it tells you nothing about human beings (let alone their 'essence'), other than that Socrates is one. You may be able to tell something about humans from what you already know about Socrates, and vice-versa, but that's all.

Let me say a little bit, for I don't want this to turn into a logic class.

When the proposition is a conclusion--I explained why it is a conclusion in my last--the syllogism provides insight into the conclusion via the middle term. Thus the reason that one concludes such a proposition will inevitably provide insight into the essence of attribution in the conclusion:

1. All humans are mortal
2. Socrates is a human
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

According to this argument Socrates is mortal because of his humanity. A sound syllogism always tells you something about the terms of the conclusion. We multiply these sorts of syllogisms ad nauseam in order to understand different parts of reality.

So if "Applying rules without understanding them in order to come to a "conclusion" is not understanding" for a computer, and you admit to applying rules without understanding them, then - by your own logic - you are not understanding either. This kind of confusion is why I think a clear definition of understanding is necessary.

Oh, I misunderstood your question. Applying rules without understanding them in order to come to a "conclusion" is not understanding. I thought you were asking about epistemology, about understanding my understanding. Such recursive understanding grows weaker at each level, but when the human understands at the first level he is not applying unknown rules as the computer is. Do you think that applying rules without understanding them in order to come to a "conclusion" is understanding?

Yet the human population continues to grow...

Generation and creation are very different things. We do not make babies in the same way we make computers.

The computational acts of more than trivially simple artificial neural networks cannot be more exhaustively defined than human knowing - not least because they're architecturally similar substrates. This can be a problem for understanding why ANNs do what they do.

Although I disagree, you missed the point and did not address the argument behind it. You are characteristically claiming that the difference is one of degree, but I gave an argument for why it is not. A thing cannot understand itself in the way it can understand other things, especially things that it created. "This is because the part that is actively understanding cannot simultaneously be passively understood."

Alex the parrot knew and understood that, and a whole lot more

How wonderful.

My point wasn't about the colour of the blocks, but the knowledge and understanding of their spatial relationships, as I thought I'd made clear.

The same argument applies.

On the contrary, deriving the rules that apply from a number of example situations, and then correctly applying them to novel situations, involves abstraction (abstracting the rules from the examples), conceptualization (the rules express the concepts), and generalization (applying the rules to novel situations). This is a clear example of understanding.

Where did such "derivation" take place?

Certainly (assuming that by 'capable of knowledge' you mean 'capable of acquiring knowledge'). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is fine; a goal need not involve practical manipulation, nor a defined end point.

Okay. And how could a computer ever seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge (given that its commands always come externally, from the programmer)?

If I am reading about black holes, and someone asks me why, I can just answer, "Because I want to know; I'm interested." It seems that all the computer can say is, "Because my programming caused me to do so; I seek knowledge always as a means to obedience to my programming" (or something like that). Presumably you would say that the human does not truly seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but for the remote sake of survival or some other thing; he only thinks he seeks knowledge in itself.

Yes and no; that conflates programmed behaviours and learnt behaviours (functioning at a higher level of abstraction), which is a crucial distinction. I don't think you'll find many AIs with hard-coded behaviours these days. Most are based on artificial neural networks and trained to behave in the desired way. So the ANNABELL system was programmed to be a network system that could learn; it had no program code or data relating to language. It was trained to learn a language by linguistic interaction alone - which, incidentally, suggests that Chomsky's idea of an innate grammar is not required for language acquisition.

You're begging the question that there is some qualitative difference between programmed behaviors and "learned" behaviors. Like I said, any behavior is a function of the programming and the input, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with whether the behavior is "hard-coded." A roomba navigating a rectangular room hasn't really learned anything. Else demonstrate behavior that transcends the programming and the input.

That assumes the programmer knows what his algorithms will be used for; for example, evolutionary algorithms often produce unexpected but highly effective results, without the programmer having any way to predict what they might be.

If he knows the domain of inputs then he knows what it can be used for, not to mention what it will be used for.

No, should it? AI at present is domain-specific, and those domains are narrow. Within those domains AI can rival or exceed rival human knowledge and understanding, but I don't think anyone's claiming more than that.

Like I said, cars have been able to outrun men for over a century, yet no one made the mistake of thinking that humans are glorified cars.

I don't think that's a coherent question - AI is, by definition, less complex than life that is more complex than AI; how complex that is depends on the AI and the domain in question. And humans are apes - specifically, Great Apes (Hominidae).

It is a coherent question precisely because "complex life" is a common term signifying higher animal life.

The human being learns from experience and constructs representational models using a biological neural network. An artificial neural network can learn from experience and construct representational models in a broadly similar way (though with orders of magnitude less processing complexity & sophistication). Agency (acting to some effect, i.e. interacting with the environment) is obviously necessary; if, by 'agency', you mean something different, explain what you mean and why you think it is necessary.

Agency creeps in because every computer is made by a human agent.

That was plain assertion. Computers respond to their inputs, and humans to theirs (perceptions and sensations).

And computers are purely passive, are they not? Purely determined by antecedent conditions?

Who said anything about 'equalizing' humans and computers? Humans are orders of magnitude more complex than any current computer system.

And yet your thesis is that it is only a matter of time before computers catch up.

Humans are not passive, they actively interact with their environment, but yes, I think those interactions are determined by antecedent conditions (there may be a smidgen of randomness, but insignificant). When you make a decision or a choice, or take an action, do you base it on anything? do you have a reason for it?

Good, I just wanted you to state that explicitly.

I don't see it as a demotion at all; humans are the result of over 2.5 billion years of evolution, the most awesomely complex and sophisticated system yet discovered. It's just a shame it's still so unreliable and prone to magical thinking...

Most would say the idea that a human isn't a self-moving agent is a demotion.

Depends what you mean by 'truly agents'. Care to give a coherent definition or explanation?

I already did and you already admitted that humans aren't agents. (One essential condition would be that an agent is not fully determined by antecedent conditions)

I'm not denying 'speculative knowledge', or human agency (if you mean acting to some effect), and I have no problem with goals that appear entirely divorced from the evolutionary goal of reproduction - it's a feature of complex systems that you can get emergent, indirect, or unexpected behaviours.

Keyword: appear. No?

Um, no again. Input to the human is restricted to the limited data it receives through its senses - a wider variety than most computers, but in many cases considerably less in quantity (consider the LHC computer and 'big data' processors).

How does this relate whatsoever to my point? You like to nitpick, don't you?

True for hard-coded computer systems, not so much for artificial neural network learning systems. For both humans and ANN learning systems, the patterns of data input (for humans, data from the senses, passing up the afferent nerves to the brain) have no intrinsic meaning apart from that imposed by the processing areas (first stage sensory processing areas in humans), that have been trained (not programmed), by experience (interaction with the environment), to interpret them in useful ways.

I would just call that something like "second-level programming."

Data only has meaning to some system that can interpret it (as information).

Okay.

Neither agency (acting and deciding to act or not), nor speculative knowledge, or knowledge for the sake of knowledge, necessarily transcend evolutionary or AI systems possibility; and determinism doesn't mean you can't decide to act or not, it simply means that what you do (or don't) decide is determined. I don't know what you mean by 'truth apart from manipulation' - truth is correspondence with reality, and (apart from analytic truths) necessarily uncertain.

I asked a relevant question above about speculative knowledge that applies here as well.

Free will and ATDO are more complicated; if you like, I can address them in a separate post, to stop this one becoming even longer...

We can table it for now.

It is true by definition. We know this if we have been told it or learnt about it (e.g. from early modern philosophy or substance dualism), and understand it if we know about objects, and the world. But I don't see why one couldn't, in principle, train an ANN system to understand it in simple terms (e.g. to explain what it means); I also don't see why one would.
Like humans, computers can only do such things if they have the cognitive capability and training. But if you could build an ANN system with the structure and complexity of a human brain, and train it as thoroughly, I would expect it to be able to do so - although there's really no good reason to do so...

Are you granting that a human could ponder such a proposition and come to see it more clearly and fully?

If you read the sample interactions (link), you'll see the ANNABELL system behaving as one interpreter and the teacher as another, in conversation about things and events in the world (the 3rd pole), comparing favourably to a 5 year-old and mother on the same subjects.

I did read it, but my friend also has a parrot. He's never confused it with a human being.

Geometrical shapes are abstractions that can be formulated mathematically. Computers can handle that kind of abstraction with ease - it's applying it to material approximations they've had difficulty with, though this has been much improved recently.

A computer that holds the equation of a circle understands a circle about as much as a blackboard that holds the equation. To the computer it is just a set of numbers and operations that can be used to produce material approximations.

We can understand geometrical shapes in various ways - as can computers. You'll have to explain what you mean by 'truly understand' and 'really understand'; I've suggested a basic definition - do you accept it, or would you like to supply one of your own?

A relevant aspect of such understanding would be the ability to reflect or ponder over it. I can imagine circles, think about the definition of a circle, consider mathematical representations, etc.

I don't agree that a computer can only approximate truth because I don't know what you mean by that (example?). Truths about the world (non-analytic truths) are necessarily uncertain, so in that sense, neither computer nor human can 'really know truth'.

Truths about the world are sufficient.

Nope - I have already given my definition of knowledge, which doesn't involve approximation. A perfect circle is a mathematical abstraction; computers can handle them easily.

What this comes down to is the computer's capacity for mathematics as opposed to manipulation of numbers.

1. Does the definition of a circle transcend material reality?
2. Can a purely material computer understand something which transcends material reality?

Monkeys are not computers. Computer systems can be made that can infer or idealise 'pure' geometric forms from multiple approximations.

No, they can't.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm happy to abbreviate the discussion; syllogisms are OK as something to discuss, but the premises are often disputed at length, so not necessarily shorter.

Frumious, I can see that we are drawing to something of a stalemate. I do not find your arguments against free will and in favor of computer knowledge convincing. At the same time, you do not find my arguments convincing. It is notable that my failure to convince is apparently not due to any lack of understanding on your part--your case is well thought-out.

While I have a few other unused arguments that will probably fall short, the one on the table relates to speculative knowledge. This has some promise and could be developed, but after reviewing this topic in my head I keep coming back to Walker Percy, who was instrumental for me in this area.

Although I am confident in my ability to sway the average person on this topic due to the common belief in free will, human agency, speculative knowledge, moral agency, etc., you have resisted these arguments. As noted earlier in our conversation, I don't think you are right in denying these realities, but it would take a great deal to move you on such considerations.

Yet, contrary to these other areas, recourse to Percy's semiotics seems quite promising to me. The problem is that I have not read Percy in a long time, and even if I had I still would not have the time to draw out his case at the moment.

In reviewing Percy's work, I came across a Georgia State University dissertation on Percy. Walker Percy was fascinated by the difference between human language abilities and animal stimulus-response abilities (symbol and sign, respectively). He himself fathered a deaf child, and he studied Helen Keller and the feral child, Victor of Aveyron to drill into this reality more fully.

If you ever want to challenge your belief that humans are capable of the same kind of knowledge that humans are capable of, I would suggest reading Percy. To begin you might look at that dissertation. Section 2.1 is about Helen and Victor. Pages 94-101 are devoted to Helen Keller, and contain a number of excerpts from her own writings (Helen is an interesting case because she was able to reflect and write on her own experience of moving from a sign world to a symbol world). Those 7 pages are interesting, beautiful, and provide good insight into Percy's project. Other sections are also relevant in getting a grasp of his philosophy.

Along with Percy I believe that a true understanding of the human ability for language shatters not only the idea that we are qualitatively similar to computers, but also that we are merely material, that we are not moral agents, and perhaps even that we do not have free will. In any case, it certainly undermines the computer equivalence. As I noted earlier, in equating (qualitatively) humans and computers, you demote humans rather than elevate computers. Furthermore, your knowledge of computers is strong, but I think your knowledge of humans is weak. Percy is ideal for providing a window into authentically human realities. He is also philosophically rigorous and was even a student of the realist-nominalist divide of the Middle Ages that grew into Modern Philosophy and the very topics we are now debating.

I'm happy to continue our conversation, but I think more fruit would be borne in an investigation of Percy than my own words.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I am confident in my ability to sway the average person on this topic due to the common belief in free will, human agency, speculative knowledge, moral agency, etc., you have resisted these arguments.

Seems to me that if you rely on people's common beliefs in order to sway them to your arguments, your arguments need more work.

If you ever want to challenge your belief that humans are capable of the same kind of knowledge that humans are capable of, I would suggest reading Percy. To begin you might look at that dissertation. Section 2.1 is about Helen and Victor. Pages 94-101 are devoted to Helen Keller, and contain a number of excerpts from her own writings (Helen is an interesting case because she was able to reflect and write on her own experience of moving from a sign world to a symbol world). Those 7 pages are interesting, beautiful, and provide good insight into Percy's project. Other sections are also relevant in getting a grasp of his philosophy.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have a choice between A or B. God knows that I will choose A. By my freewill I choose B.

Maybe someone else already pointed this out, as I didn't read the whole thread yet, but...

If you can only choose between two options, your will is limited, and therefore not free. In order to have actual free will I would need to be able to choose from all possible choices. By possible I mean no logical contradictions (ye 'ole square circle). No one, not even God, can do absolutely anything possible. This may seem like inconsequential semantics, but consider the implications of expanding or limiting our will, and it means a lot.

 

[Doveaman]

Hello everyone. I would like to discuss freewill, and whether such a thing is possible Scientifically, Logically, and according to Scripture. I will start with Logic.

I have a choice between A or B. God knows that I will choose A. By my freewill I choose B. Please explain. Thank you all and God bless you.

Your OP is not Logical.

How will God know you will choose something you will not choose?

God will only know what you will actually choose.

If by your freewill you choose B, then God cannot possibly know you will choose A.

Since B is what you will choose, then God can only know you will choose B.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your OP is not Logical.

How will God know you will choose something you will not choose?

God will only know what you will actually choose.

If by your freewill you choose B, then God cannot possibly know you will choose A.

Since B is what you will choose, then God can only know you will choose B.

I think the OP was trying to go for this:
If god already knows what I am going to do, how can I possibly have free will? If I have free will, then what should happen is that there are multiple possible decisions I can make, and I have some chance of making all those possible decisions. But, in order for god to know what choice I am going to make with absolute certainty, there must be a 100% chance of me making that decision, making my free will nothing more than an illusion, as I had no chance of making the other choices that had the appearance of being available. Basically, nothing can know the future with absolute certainty unless the future is predetermined, so unless there is a chance of god guessing incorrectly as to a person's decision, free will cannot exist.

 

[zippy2006]

Seems to me that if you rely on people's common beliefs in order to sway them to your arguments, your arguments need more work.

Yes, I know you believe that, but I think the belief is symptomatic of a faulty logical system and a form of Scientism. Inevitably a system which denies all forms of common sense results in something analogous to a conspiracy theory.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it.

His approach to metaphysics is impressively empirical.

"…it is my hope to show that a true ‘semiotic,’ far from being the coup de grace of metaphysics, may prove of immense value, inasmuch as it validates and illumines a classic metaphysical relation – and this at an empirical level" (Message in a Bottle, 245, as cited in the dissertation noted above, 66).​

 

[anonymouswho]

I think the OP was trying to go for this:
If god already knows what I am going to do, how can I possibly have free will? If I have free will, then what should happen is that there are multiple possible decisions I can make, and I have some chance of making all those possible decisions. But, in order for god to know what choice I am going to make with absolute certainty, there must be a 100% chance of me making that decision, making my free will nothing more than an illusion, as I had no chance of making the other choices that had the appearance of being available. Basically, nothing can know the future with absolute certainty unless the future is predetermined, so unless there is a chance of god guessing incorrectly as to a person's decision, free will cannot exist.

You're smart. I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't been on here in a while, but I just wanted to let you know that you're correct about my intentions. I don't believe in freewill. I believe YHVH is God, not men. I noticed you have some trouble understanding how YHVH can be the only true God when He seems so violent and takes the lives of children. This is a tough topic, but we can discuss it if you want. I'd like to start off by saying God kills everyone. Death is not evil. It makes us sad, and we worry about it sometimes, but that doesn't make it evil. If a child dies, this is no more or less evil than any other death. We can live out 60 meaningless years and then die, or live 3 meaningless days and die. Either way, we die and our lives are meaningless. But who cares... what are we gonna do about it anyways? Evil has nothing to do with our outward actions. We're only going to do what we are determined to do. Evil is in our intentions.

If I kill Bob because I coveted Bob's wallet, this is evil. If I kill Bob because I'm angry at him, this is evil. If I kill Bob because I get some selfish, sick pleasure, this is evil. If I kill Bob for no reason whatsoever, then I am ignorant and cannot be held responsible. If I kill Bob because I KNOW that killing him will bring about much good (whether it be to humble hearts, save other lives, teach others to appreciate their loved ones) and I KNOW I have the power and future plan to bring him back to life, this is not evil.

Evil is a tool. We experience evil to teach us what is good. If we never experienced evil, we couldn't know that good is truly good. We would have nothing to compare it to. Getting thirsty is evil, but when we drink a big glass of cold water, all the suffering of thirst disappears and we are overwhelmed with good. If we're not thirsty and we drink water, we feel nothing.

The Scriptures are much deeper than a simple reading of an English bible, or listening to some preacher babble about hell, freewill, a triune God that is both his father and son (and some other guy that supposedly got a woman pregnant but isn't the father), some all-powerful entity named Lucifer, mankind "falling into sin", a god that is outside of time (and logic, and reason, and any sense of justice), and whatever other nonsense the theologians bark about.

It's about mankind, and the reason God made us. "In beginning was the Reason (λόγος G3056), and the Reason was with the God, and divine was the Reason. It was in beginning with the God. All was made because of (δι’ G1223) it, and without it was not made one thing that has been made." A man, Yeshua, taught us this. He is our older brother, and the life he lived is the perfect example of how we will all be.

Thanks for replying, and God bless you- Joshua

 

[Chriliman]

You're smart. I don't have a lot of time, and I haven't been on here in a while, but I just wanted to let you know that you're correct about my intentions. I don't believe in freewill. I believe YHVH is God, not men. I noticed you have some trouble understanding how YHVH can be the only true God when He seems so violent and takes the lives of children. This is a tough topic, but we can discuss it if you want. I'd like to start off by saying God kills everyone. Death is not evil.

You'll have a tough time explaining why God's word states that death is the last enemy to be destroyed.

1 Corinthians 15:25-26
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

If death is not evil, then why must it be destroyed?

The only logical answer is that death is evil and only God can destroy it.

 

[anonymouswho]

You'll have a tough time explaining why God's word states that death is the last enemy to be destroyed.

1 Corinthians 15:25-26
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

If death is not evil, then why must it be destroyed?

The only logical answer is that death is evil and only God can destroy it.

Hello, and thanks for joining us. I look at this in two ways. The first, and most important, is to understand that "the word of God" says no such thing. This is the word of Paul. There is only one man that spoke the word of God, Yeshua the Messiah. The prophets quoted God, so this is also the word of God. He has also written His word in our hearts, so that we can understand what is true and what is false based on reasoning.

Now I have always liked Paul, but I had to come to the conclusion that his word is not God's word. This doesn't mean he is wrong about everything, it just means he is a man. So if we were to accept his statement, Paul still doesn't say death is evil. Death is a tool that God uses. It is our enemy because we try to fight it, but it is not God's enemy. God's enemy is a wicked heart. Paul calls this "the flesh". He reasoned that when the flesh is destroyed, death is also destroyed.

I'm pretty sure Paul believed the flesh was evil, and that we would be ressurected into spiritual beings. If this is true, then he missed the point of God making mankind. We can discuss this if you'd like, but I doubt we will ever agree with each other because quoting Paul is going to lead to a lot of confusion.

For example, Paul is the only writer that says Adam sinned (Romans 5:14 and 1 Timothy 2:14). Deauteronomy 19:15 says that one man may not accuse another of sin. There must be at least two or preferably three witnesses before a transgression can be confirmed. I cannot comprehend how Adam sinned whatsoever. All I see was an ignorant man that could not have committed evil because he didn't even have knowledge of good or evil. I see a man that only did what external influences (the serpent- formed by God) caused him to do. So we can discuss this, but I need Scriptural evidence or the words of Yeshua to confirm anything Paul says.

Thank you my friend and God bless.

 

[Chriliman]

Hello, and thanks for joining us. I look at this in two ways. The first, and most important, is to understand that "the word of God" says no such thing. This is the word of Paul. There is only one man that spoke the word of God, Yeshua the Messiah. The prophets quoted God, so this is also the word of God. He has also written His word in our hearts, so that we can understand what is true and what is false based on reasoning.

Now I have always liked Paul, but I had to come to the conclusion that his word is not God's word. This doesn't mean he is wrong about everything, it just means he is a man. So if we were to accept his statement, Paul still doesn't say death is evil. Death is a tool that God uses. It is our enemy because we try to fight it, but it is not God's enemy. God's enemy is a wicked heart. Paul calls this "the flesh". He reasoned that when the flesh is destroyed, death is also destroyed.

I'm pretty sure Paul believed the flesh was evil, and that we would be ressurected into spiritual beings. If this is true, then he missed the point of God making mankind. We can discuss this if you'd like, but I doubt we will ever agree with each other because quoting Paul is going to lead to a lot of confusion.

For example, Paul is the only writer that says Adam sinned (Romans 5:14 and 1 Timothy 2:14). Deauteronomy 19:15 says that one man may not accuse another of sin. There must be at least two or preferably three witnesses before a transgression can be confirmed. I cannot comprehend how Adam sinned whatsoever. All I see was an ignorant man that could not have committed evil because he didn't even have knowledge of good or evil. I see a man that only did what external influences (the serpent- formed by God) caused him to do. So we can discuss this, but I need Scriptural evidence or the words of Yeshua to confirm anything Paul says.

Thank you my friend and God bless.

Okay, thanks for the explanation, so sin is evil and death is the penalty for sin. I can see how this could mean that death isn't necessarily evil, but rather a punishment that is enforced by God because of sin. Jesus was sent to take our sins upon Himself and suffer death and be resurrected so that we don't have to be eternally separated from God and eternal life.

I think anyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit does speak the word of God, it's not them speaking, but rather the Spirit of God speaking. I can't say for sure that Paul did not have the Holy Spirit, but we can trust the Holy Spirit to discern all truth for us. Thanks!