https://www.facebook.com/groups/nofreewill/posts/5630779490267632
Me:
I believe that when people try to prove their free will, they instantiate a goal of performing "sufficiently random behavior", then they allow their creativity to begin identifying potential random actions, their creativity follows a path of psychic salience, thinking of the most salient and obvious ideas first. Then the mental algorithm evaluates the idea against the requirement of being "sufficiently random". The algorithm will reject the first couple ideas because their salience means they are too obvious to appear random. Then as the brain climbs down the hierarchy of salience the algorithm will eventually agree that said idea is sufficiently random, and the person will perform said random behavior to justify their free will. All the while not recognizing that they are merely following an algorithm triggered by a conversation.
Me:
I am of the opinion that free will is impossible in all possible worlds
it is even impossible for supernatural creatures like spirits to have free will because there is a fundamental contradiction between "free" and "will"
no square circles, no hot coldness, no free will
Interlocutor:
Perhaps free will is like the 2nd law of thermodynamics--in that it applies only in a closed system
I think we need to flesh out the mechanics of how free will would operate, or what it really means. You seem to be saying it's an oxymoron, can you elaborate on that?
Me:
"In order to make a decision, I assume you would agree that you must
1) identify options,
2) evaluate each option based on your innate value systems,
3) choose the option that maximizes your values.
Step 2 violates free will, because the decision process becomes governed by a value system that you didn't have control over. The idea of the "good, true, and beautiful" are all based on innate value systems that no one can freely choose. We are slaves to our innate values of what we think is good, true, or beautiful. It doesn't matter if you are flesh or spirit. This decision process violates free will every time."
Interlocutor:
Must one always make decisions like that? Are their intuitions so clear? Is the overall value of one option always superior?
Isn't free will also the ability to make mistakes and be wrong? Both objectively and internally
Me:
Additionally, step 1 - identifying options is based on salience, both external salience and internal salience. Salience is the degree to which we naturally notice something. We don't have free will to control what our eyes notice. We don't have free will to control what mental connections our brain is able to notice. So, salience is not under our control, but is rather a biological function running "value system" algorithms to highlight things for us. Our ability to generate options is not under our control.
I had a bunch of junk piled up right outside and behind my bedroom exit. It was shaped in just the right way to trigger the salience of a "evil person hiding in the corner to get me" reaction every time I exited my room. It wasn't rational - rather an immediate sensory alarm. Even though my rational mind knew it was safe, I had this reaction occur every time
An AI system can be programmed to make decisions based on a preprogrammed value system. The AI system can make mistakes. The AI system can be immaculate in its performance. None of that changes the fact that it doesn't have free will.
Being unconscious of the variables involved in decisions don't make them free either
Interlocutor:
You don't perceive there to be a gap in establishing this view with certainty? What if you combine a bunch of people together and decide something based partially on how other people feel about it? What if it's a bunch of strangers or a bunch of family? What if there is or is not a threat against you?
Just seems there are so many variables that it's awfully confident to say 'yes, it's simply an algorithm; no more or less' and at that point, what does it matter whether you call it free will? With enough complexity or specificity, you'd have to be God or at least a planet-sized supercomputer to predict anything, or make an absolutely foolproof decision
Can humans have, or collectively create, enough momentum of will to tip the universe in a slightly different direction? Even affecting just one person or thing? Who can say?
As for the term itself, is it simply a contradiction (a square circle, as you said), or is there a context in which it could exist? Is there another term you would use to replace 'free will' that would represent the same valuable concept?
Me:
complexity does not imply free will
We can program complex software. We can inject random numbers into software algorithms. We can run an infinite number of input variables into an algorithm. Doesn't give it free will.
if the justification for free will is a principle that AI can do without free will, then that principle doesn't justify free will
regarding certainty - Value systems are inherently unfree.
Interlocutor:
Why can't AI have free will?
And it's not about the complexity, but about the element of choice
Me:
If the choice is based on an unfree value system than it isn't a free choice
Interlocutor:
That's the hard assertion to make, in my view
Me:
Which?
Interlocutor:
Your choice comes 100% from a value system that is 100% unfree
Anything less than 100 leaves room for free will
Me:
in order for a value system to be free, you must freely choose your values
but in order to freely choose your values, you must appeal to a value system from which you judge and choose values
decisions require value systems
so in order to freely choose a value system, you must appeal to a deeper value system that is not free
if you want the deeper value system to be free, then you must appeal to deeper_2 value system that is unfree
so it sets up an infinite regress
the result of which lands us on an unfree value system
Interlocutor:
Who can trace back an infinite regress to confirm this?
Me:
biologists
DNA
the fundamental value system
you don't choose your DNA
your DNA is unfreely given to you
Interlocutor:
The link to DNA and even biology is part of the claim in question. How can you be so sure that these things 100% account for all decisions? Or that these things plus other uncontrolled factors do
And at what point can a decision even be from free will? When there are no contributing factors left? What if you are basing a decision on an imaginary world or a dream? Is it theoretically possible to give human-like sentience to an AI and then accurately predict what it will do thenceforth?
Me:
if a spirit makes a decision - they must appeal to a spiritual value system
is the spirit's value system free?
Why did Lucifer rebel?
Lucifer must have had a value system that makes rebelling calculate out as the decision that maximizes his values
why did Lucifer have a value system that supports rebellion?
in order for Lucifer to freely choose to rebel, he must have been free to choose between "support rebellion" value system, and "don't support rebellion" value system -> trigger infinite regress -> land on Lucifer's spiritual DNA as the root unfree cause
within "free will", "free" - implies free value system, "will" implies a decision that necessitates an unfree value system
Interlocutor:
I'm not so sure about spirits having free will, I suspect if they exist, it would seem most consistent that they have to manifest physically to be able to change; but that's just my hypothesis
Lucifer could have been a spiritual embodiment of a necessary part of the whole of everything--allowing the existence of beauty, and all things that contrast with evil. The other side of the coin to Jesus
Probably fell because he thought God was doing it wrong by allowing suffering. Maybe thought he could run things better by advancing knowledge and naturalism. I think ultimately, his emphasis on naturalism would have caused him to hate humans for their unnecessary flaws and self-inflicted suffering, and become jealous that they have a chance to be saved, when all he tried to do was be perfect and compassionate
I think that's why he went bad, turning beauty into narcissism and virtue into pride, and why he now wants to bring God's favorite pet creatures, humans, down with him--maybe hoping God "surely can't condemn ALL of us"
Maybe trying to prove his way really was better, or at least a forgivable mistake. If humans are not redeemable, then suffering really was for nothing
But anyway, not much you can do with my personal religious head canon lol
I'm still wondering about some of my other questions though
Me:
which question are you pointing to here?
Interlocutor:
What could free will possibly be? In what kind of world (even imaginary) could it exist, if any?
Let's address em in smaller chunks lol
Me:
If my above argument is sound, then I am under the conclusion that free will isn't possible in any possible world
Lucifer CHOOSE REBELLION because
[he thought God was doing it wrong by allowing suffering] -> requires a value system that has [pride],[love for wellbeing/hatred for suffering],[judgemental],[audacity],[cocksure:thinks he is right]
Did Lucifer freely choose to have [pride],[love for wellbeing/hatred for suffering],[judgemental],[audacity],[cocksure:thinks he is right] or was it a part of his spiritual DNA?
Decision Algorithm
1. Identify options
2. Evaluate against value system
3. Choose the option that maximizes your values
If Lucifer freely chose to have [pride], how did he freely choose it?
1. Options: Choose X% [pride], or X% [humility]
2. Evaluate: [value authority]
3. Choice: X% [pride] fulfills Lucifer's value systems.
Did Lucifer freely choose to [value authority] or was it a part of his spiritual DNA?
LOOP:
If Lucifer freely chose to [value authority], how did he freely choose it?
1. Options: Choose X% [value authority], or X% [diregard authority]
2. Evaluate: Value glory
3. Choice: X% [value authority] fulfills Lucifer's value systems.
why does he value glory? maybe because he values something else, why does he value something else
its an infinite loop
reductio ad absurdum
eventually we have to admit that Lucifer has some innate "tastes" , "dispositions", "preferences", etc that inspire his value choices
just like men and women have different innate temperaments
Interlocutor:
So is that to say that the term is an oxymoron?
I think part of this argument assumes the conclusion though. "Requires an unfree value system." By applying this logic to spirits, who I don't think even have free will, it skips over the possibility that we have a choice as to what spiritual influences we allow to move us
With respect to our world alone, choices made under spiritual influence would be free, even if the spirit is not free, because it would involve an unnatural connection to their realm--breaking the infinite regress
I also just am not convinced that decision making is that comprehensible. Highly, sure, but theoretically 100%? If a super duper computer knew everything about me and the universe, could it predict my every thought and action? (I have speculated this before myself)
I understand it must be frustrating when you're up against such unknowns and mysteries and conjectures that might be baseless, I get it. That's certainly why I don't expect anyone to accept the things I consider possible
Likewise, if there's no God or no other realm, then your thinking would be my default, so I hope it's clear that I know my position is based on my choice to be open to some absurd things lol you might say it's an exercise of free will 😆
I don't disparage your thinking at all, either, and I think it's sharp enough that you are equipped to discern truth efficiently with it. If there's anything missing, I'd guess it'd come from a deep understanding of more of a variety of people, and then adjusting your ambitions for humanity. In other words, acquiring more of a need for hope against all odds lol. A desire for faith, I suppose
Is that proof, or even an argument? Obviously not. But I think it contains and enables something precious that everyone wants or needs
I hope that makes a lick of sense lol
Me:
I think the illusion of free will comes from our prefrontal cortex
If you take a dog on a road trip, the dog will pee in the car. Animals don't have well developed prefrontal cortexes. If you take a human on a road trip, they won't pee in the car. Humans have developed cognition that allows them to suppress their instincts. So [pee!] value system activates. But the prefrontal cortex has its own rational value systems - [don't dirty the car], [avoid disgusting smells], [don't embarrass yourself by exhibiting low cognitive powers] value systems. Then the human can 1) feel an instinctual drive, 2) feel their ability to suppress it, and conclude that they have free will. But all they did was apply a different value system to change the outcome. If they didn't have those value systems, they would pee in the car just like the dog.
"Requires an unfree value system." is proven by reductio ad absurdum - its unreasonable to allow an infinite regress
[we have a choice as to what spiritual influences we allow to move us] -> based on a value system that traces to an unfree innate preference
"With respect to our world alone, choices made under spiritual influence would be free, even if the spirit is not free, because it would involve an unnatural connection to their realm--breaking the infinite regress" - this doesn't resonate with me as true, because I believe we must appeal to value systems before we allow them to influence us -> hence no free will
"I also just am not convinced that decision making is that comprehensible. " - its much more complex, because multiple value systems are always in combat with each other and they grow and shrink in power over time, but none of those complexities imbibe the process with free will
"I understand it must be frustrating" I don't view it as frustrating at all! I am very open-minded and willing to reverse my position on free will if I can find a way to comprehend its logical possibility AND find that possibility compelling if not necessary!
"Adjusting your ambitions for humanity. In other words, acquiring more of a need for hope against all odds lol. A desire for faith" - At first I was uncomfortable with the idea of free will for these reasons, but after "switching sides" I don't find the conclusion of a lack of free will disturbing or disheartening. In some ways, it seems like a Neo-style "matrix hack" that helps us get inside the code so we can reprogram ourselves to be better, cuz we understand its all code, not magic
Me:
Was thinking a bit more on some of your points. I think I agree with your skeptical angle in general.
But here is the problem. IF choices are made based on my 3 step algorithm, then they are equivalent to determinism - something an AI can do without free will. Would you agree that this algorithm is not free?
I can't comprehend how choices can be made in a fashion that doesn't follow the 3-step algorithm.
If a choice is made randomly, then that isn't really free because dice are not free. A pair of dice is a slave to probability.
If a choice isn't random and it isn't calculated, and it isn't connected to values, what is it? Possession isn't free.
To me, it seems like the root of your decision must be free if the decision is to be free.
Because if the root is determined, then everything from that point forward is also determined
Interlocutor:
"if you have ANY free will, it must be all-powerful free will" lol
Paraphrasing there, but I got that impression from what he said
"It's an all-or-nothing proposition"
Me:
well yeah, but that's not to say that that 1% should have absolute power over the rest of your brain, or else it's not free at all
Interlocutor:
It could be a 100% free variable that itself is only one small part of the whole function
Me:
I think they mean that is 1% of your decisions are free, those decisions must have 0% constraining factors
but since there is no such thing as a decision without constraining factors, then no decisions are free
Interlocutor:
I don't see how that is any deeper than the disagreement itself though. That's just re-stating the same position, isn't it?
It's like "reverse god of the gaps" 😆
If you don't have a model/theory for how free will works, there must not be any!
Me:
lol
the 1% doesn't need to control the 99%
the 1% just needs to be validly free
"If you don't have a model/theory for how square circles work, then there must not be any!"