Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Nick Keighley on 20 May 2010 09:28 On 18 May, 02:21, RG <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <hssp12$rm...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Raffael Cavallaro > > This is where we part company. The kind of free will that is possible > > is not the kind that most people think of when they think they have > > free will. They think they have an extra-physical will or soul that > > makes free choices. speak for yourself > They don't. > > What difference does it make whether people really have a soul, or > whether the emergent properties of physics are indistinguishable in > day-to-day life from people having a soul? what are the indications that people have souls? What else has souls? <snip> > > >> No, he's right; most legal systems originated in an era when this sort > > >> of mind-body or soul-body dualism was the accepted truth, a > > >> pre-scientific belief that most people unthinkingly hew to today. and I don't think the abolition of naive dualism has much affect on the legal system (nor should it). The legal system runs quite fine without souls. > > > Not all pre-scientific truths are wrong. And even some that are wrong > > > turn out to be reasonable approximations to the actual truth. > > > True, but the pre-scientific belief in dualism *is* wrong, and it isn't > > even a reasonable approximation to the truth, hradware/software emergent behaviour. I don't believe in metaphysical souls or minds but I do think the behaviour of complex things (brains, laptops) cannot be predicted based on just a description of the hardware. > > as some of the > > experiments I pointed to show. For example, the kind of "free will" > > compatible with QM you're talking is completely compatible with what > > are perceived to be free choices but are actually strongly constrained > > by magnets. However, the idea that one's "free will" choices can be > > strongly constrained by magnets is completely incompatible with the > > sort of extra-physical will or soul most people believe they have. sorry, you're hacking their brains with magnets! And if you forced them to ingest a pint of whiskey they wouldn't be able to freely choose to walk in a straight line either! again, its not what I believe and I'm not sure its what "most" people believe. I know a fair number of atheists and I doubt they think they've got a "soul". > I disagree with your interpretation of these experiments. The magnets > in particular are a red herring. You don't need to resort to magnets, > you only have to point to straightforward psychological manipulation to > show that people's choices can be influenced in ways that they are not > aware of. Even dualists would concede that. The magnet experiments > might refute dualism (though even that is arguable) but they certainly > don't refute free will. It is also not at all clear that an artificial > choice like twiddle-left-finger versus twiddle-right-finger can be > extrapolated to real choices involving real preferences, like > chocolate/vanilla, Lisp/Java, college/job, Beatles/Stones, etc.
From: Nick Keighley on 20 May 2010 09:37 On 18 May, 15:07, RG <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: > Rafael claims that dualism is essential to free will, but this is, as > Kenny said earlier in this thread, a category error. Free will is not > about cause, it is about effect. Specifically, free will refers > (Wikipedia notwithstanding) to a certain kind of information asymmetry: > *I* can know why (or that) I choose to do X, but you can't unless I tell > you. Whether that information asymmetry is "really" caused (whatever > that might mean) by an extra-physical soul, or preconscious mental > processes, or quantum randomness, or the flying spaghetti monster > doesn't matter. What matters is simply the information asymmetry. > > Note that this theory of free will is completely consistent with both > science and contemporary legal theory. Sometimes a person makes choices > where even they don't know why (and sometimes not even that) they made > them. The law treats those cases differently because there is no > information asymmetry and hence no free will. > > If someone comes up with a theory that allows them to predict (or > control) *all* of someone else's choices then that information asymmetry > will disappear, taking free will along with it. But until that happens, > the information asymmetry, and hence free will, persists. "the experience of free will is a gift of ignorance or a product of incomplete information" John Wilkinson (I think) talk.origins
From: ok on 20 May 2010 09:41 On 17 Mag, 05:06, Don Geddis <d...(a)geddis.org> wrote: > The brain is basically a computational device. Hmm, so free will "does not exist". OK, so let's change either 1 or 2: 1) Imprison all animals who kill humans (33 years should be long enough). 2) Let free all humans who were motivated (somehow) to kill other humans. Which one do you prefer? --
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 20 May 2010 10:37 On 2010-05-20 07:52:57 -0400, Nicolas Neuss said: > I'm somehow lost how anyone can believe as firmly > as Raffael in determinism nowadays. I don't believe in hard determinism (i.e., I do accept that quantum indeterminacy exists). However, there is no existing evidence that quantum indeterminacy operating in the brain is equivalent to free will. Moreover, as Ron points out elsewhere in this subthread, quantum indeterminacy in the brain may very well amount to the equivalent of classical determinism. On the contrary, we have a great deal of evidence that our subjective evaluation of the freeness of our choices is wildly inaccurate. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 20 May 2010 10:37
On 2010-05-20 09:01:48 -0400, Nick Keighley said: > The law is part of what constrains behaviour of > the robots and leads to stable societies that maximise average > reproductive success. I wrote "recast" our legal system, not eliminate. In particular, legal theories of criminal penalties typically deal with several types of penalty, among them, deterrence (as you note), incapacitation ("keeping criminals off the street"), rehabilitation (re-training, or re-educating criminals so they become less likely to commit future offenses), and retribution ("punishing the morally wicked"). If we have no free will, then any penalties based on retribution become pointless, even cruel, like sentencing a slug to 40 lashes for wickedly eating your garden lettuce. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |