Free Will

Bump

Shamelessly. :wink:

Our brain is computer running some software.
Each decision that computer does at any given moment is completely defined by current program and by current input parameters.
And since at any given moment program can be in only one state and input parameters can have only one values this exactly defines only one possible outcome for that moment.
Here is concrete example.

if (temperature<10) { say("It is cold"); }
if (temperature>=10) { say("It is not cold"); }
if(1=10) {say("Number 1 equals number 10")}

At some concrete moment in time temperature can have one exact value.
So if temperature is 34 degres at that moment you will say "It is not cold".
There is no way in hell that your program could output enything else if this is the complete program in your brain at that given time which makes decisions for.
You could argue that your choices at that moment were also to say "It is cold" or "Number one equals number 10" but that would be completely wrong. For that concrete moment in time you only choice was to say "It is not cold" which isn't really a choice, because choice is when you have more then one option to choose from.
So GENERALLY speaking you can choose to say "It is cold" or "It is not cold" but at any given moment you can say only one of those things which is totaly determined by temperature at that moement.

Just because you have many if(){} lines in your program in brain doesn't mean you can choose which line to execute.
For example last will never be executed because input parameters will never be so taht 1=10 is true.

Uh Huh!

Then why punish criminals?

How do you know that?

For anybody to compare a computer to our brain has already lost it all! LOL

I suppose you're right, CI. Imagine if you are a pc:

Everything will be fine until all of a sudden you die and need to reboot

Who wrote the program?

1. Then why punish criminals?
Because criminals are like broken computers and you don't want them to run around raping and looting other humans/computers.
But unlike broken computers which can be fixed we still don't possess technology to reprogram human brains effectivly in most cases so we are left with no choice but to issolate such individuals or even destroy them by killing them.
There are some primitive methods that allow us to reprogram such individuals and teoreticly this is done in jails or maybe eve with hypnosis.
Antoher way to program humans is our system with rewards and punishment which is supposed to motivate humans/computers to behave as most people see fit.

2. How do you know that? (That our brain is computer)
I don't know that our computer is brain. People have extended knowledge about how humans work and the way it works is considered to be very much like any other computer. We have sensors collecting data from our environment, we have memory for storing that data, and we have capabilities of processing those input values resutling in decision making process. The same principals are used for computer which regulates room tempretare or computer that plays chess.

3. For anybody to compare a computer to our brain has already lost it all! LOL
Artificial Intellignece is part of sciense which tries to create computers that mimic human behaviour. Part of AI are Mathematical Models of Neural Networks which try to mimic how our brain works. These always include self learning algorithms and procedures which allow NN to change to be able to learn and to adapt to changing environment just like our brain does. Such algorithms allow computer to hear, see, think, combine, just like our brain can. Our brain uses electrical impulses to work just like most popular computers do. Both can be fried with high voltage. Both stop workgin at high or low temperatures. Both have limits in their processing power. Both need power to work. Both can proccess the same type of data.

4. Who wrote the program?
Brain as complex network of connected neurons is our computer hardware created by nature through natural selection following rules fh the evolution. Such brain comes equiped with some very basic software providing basic functonality like instincts. As soon as we are born our brain knows how to control heart, lungs, reacts on light and pain and so on. During our life span neurons in our brain constantly reorganize them self, their chemical content is changing making certain connections to neighbouring neurons more or less important. This way our brain is programming itself, learning how to do more complex actions. Such selflearning capabilities might seem like something magic and out of this world for those who are used to think of programs as monolit static structures. But self learning methods as used for instance in NN AI are acctually very simple to impement in their basic form. Program that changes itself is still just a simple program, but just a special type of it.

And we choose to do this because. . . ?

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

This time you're right !

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

An analogy that compares the brain to a computer doesn't mean the brain is a computer any more than "Love is like a rose" means that love is a rose. Love can be thorny and so is a rose but it doesn't mean they work the same way.

Computers process information because the people that designed them do. That doesn't mean the computers work just like a brain. Humans dig holes but it doesn't mean a back hoe digs holes like a human does although there are similarities. Computers are binary because it was the easy way humans to make them work. Brains are not binary in form.

parados,

The key issue is that "information" and "data" are user defined. They have no "existence" except with respect to human decision making. That is why the brain/computer analogy ultimately breaks down because machines are only proxy decision makers.

And we choose to do this because. . . ?
What exactly?

Computers are not binary.
Most computers today are built so that the smallest part of memory can have two states. But there are computers whose smallest parts have multiple states.
This is only determined by the technology you use to built computers.

Information and data are any measurable physical value.
When you put your hand over fire your heat sensors measure the heat of the flame, temperature. Temperature of the flame as measured by your hand heat sensor is transfered to the brain and to the brain this now becomes an information which will be used in decision making process.

Saying that ball is sun just because they are both round would be of course mistake. But if two systems have so many similarities, and if the number of similarities grows as our knowledge about those systems increases we can assume that those two things are the same. On the other hand if we define computer as any system capable of collecting and processing information and making decision based on them them for brain could be certanly said that it is a computer.

I don't know that our computer is brain. Just like I don't know anything about anything if knowing means that you are 100% sure of something. We can only assume that some thruths are more probable then the others.

Salient points

1.The first level of measurement is nominal (i.e. naming). Only humans do this (as far as we know). Naming is axiomatic to measurability.

2. Any two items are necessarily both similar and different. (Trivially they are "similar" because they are both being observed, and they are different because there are two of them). It follows that the use of the term "similarity" is always functional with respect to an observer defined context.

3. The term "free will" has different semantic connotations to the term "choice". " Free will" is specifically associated with particular social contexts such as those involving religion and responsibility. The fact that we appear to be "free to chose" between a white shirt and a blue one may have little to do with "choice" between so-called moral and immoral actions because the former has few (or no) dynamic social consequences. For this reason, any attempt at reductionist explanation of "free will" in terms of context insensitive decision systems, misses the mark.

1.The first level of measurement is nominal (i.e. naming).
If you don't know how to speak, if you have no words for hot, cold, warm and so on you can still measure the heat. Your hand heat sensors transfer info about detected level of heat to your brain. There is no naming involved here. Sensors do not use words like warm or cold to inform brain of the level of heat. They send specific type and combination of electrical impulses to the brain to inform him of the level of detected heat. Brain can then instictivly decide to move your arm to avoid burns, or it can decide to map received messurment to the word "hot" and say it out loud.
Also Fuzzy Logic, part of AI, uses naming measurments for decision making process because Fuzzy Logic was specificly created to mimic human way of thinking so that such way of thinking could be implemented into computers.

2. Any two items are necessarily both similar and different.
You are absolutly correct. If you heat a rock and it becomes red you could say that rock has detected heat, processed it and reacted to it by getting red, therefore it acted like a computer. Everything that goes on in the brain can be stripped down to such a basic action-reaction pairs directed through physical laws. It is just that common understanding is that for something to be called computer should involve more complex behaviour.

3. The term "free will" has different semantic connotations to the term "choice".
Free will means that you have choice, which means that at any given moment you can choose betwen more then one options. This influences religion and responsabilty but term free will is by no way only associated with religion and responsibility.

You've completely missed the point that social context is the a priori in each case.
This is conveyed by...




The fact that we only use "free will" in particular contexts is semantically significant.

1. The limits of my language are the limits of my world
What is this supposed to mean exactly .
Rock, plants and animals have no langugae and they still leave and perfomr complex tasks. Languagw was invented by humans in late stage of their exitanse. Is this supposed to mean that people didn't exist before langugae is invented. Language is nothing more but a way to share thoughts between each pther since we have no telepatic capabilities. If we were to have telepatic capabiliites it is possible that we wouldn't need language at all. We could tune in in another persons brain waves and "read" directly from them that for instance that other persons is thirsty, or that is planning to play tennis later and so on. Words are just one of the many ways to comunicate. World definitly exists without the words.

2. Meaning is use
Ehm, and what is this supposed to mean ?

3. The fact that we only use "free will" in particular contexts is semantically significant.
Free will is not used in particular contexts. Rock means rock in any context it is used. So does term "free will". If most peopel discuss free will in context of responseability of ther actions, or in religios context that only measn that those poepl are most interested in how non existance of free will influences those terms.
In Europe most people when talking about ball talk about it in context of footbal because it is the most popular sport in europe. Saying that because of that ball exists only in context of footbal would be wrong.
In USA when talking about ball most poeple would talk in the context of basketball.
And if there were no basketball or footbal child could still play with the ball because ball as term is not connected to any kind of context.

For many philosophers, maybe not !
This isn't the thread to take you on the journey away from Cartesian dualism, via Kant and phenomenology to Wittgenstein and beyond. Suffice to say that your comment "what does this mean" implies that that journey, if undertaken, might require a lot of effort on your part and the shedding several entrenched positions on "reality" which you might hold dear. Allow me therefore to refer you to an earlier thread in which these issues are discussed.

http://able2know.org/topic/1119-1