Warp wrote:
>   I think that the difference between our definitions is that you are
> defining the concept of "choice" while I am trying to define the concept
> of "free choice". There's a difference.

Hmmm... To some extent.

>   A computer makes choices based in its input. A conditional statement is
> basically choice-making: Depending on the input, it chooses either one
> execution branch or another.

Agreed.

>   That kind of choice is deterministic and predictable. 

Predictable in the small. In the large, it's possible that the only way to 
predict what the result of a program will be is to run the program and find 
out. In other words, the only way to predict what the program will choose is 
to let it choose and see what the result is.

> If a computer is
> reading a source of true randomness (such as sampling the noise produced
> by a resistor) and making choices based on that input, then these choices
> are non-deterministic and unpredictable.

Right.

>   However, neither case is "free choice". The computer is bound by the laws
> of physics to act according to its input (be it deterministic or not). The
> computer is not a sentient being which is making a choice according to what
> it wants. 

How complex can the computer get before you'd say it's a sentient being 
making a choice based on what it wants?  If we had SciFi levels of AI 
around, would you claim they're not sentient, not really making choices?

> It's mechanically making choices according to its input and to the
> laws of physics. The computer is not "free" to make any choice it desires,
> because it has no desires.

What if it gets complex enough that you can't distinguish the computer's 
desires from its programming? If it's too complex to understand why it made 
a choice, even given everything you know about it? If it's so integrated 
with its inputs that it's impossible to make it take the same path through 
the program twice, even tho it is deterministic?

It's like asking whether computers can be intelligent, then declaring "No, 
because intelligence requires soul, so even if a computer's behavior was 
100% indistinguishable from a person, it still would only be pretending to 
be intelligent."

>   So if we pose my original question in another way: Are we intelligent
> sentient beings capable of making free choices, or are we simply computers
> acting according to laws of physics based on input?

I'm claiming those two aren't incompatible. You're claiming the only way to 
have free choice is to disobey the laws of physics (by defining it that 
way). I'm questioning whether that's a useful definition, intuitive as it 
may be.

I'm also questioning whether it even makes sense to ask such a question, 
given you're asking about whether the laws of physics apply to our own 
physical behavior. I.e., how could our free will *not* be part of physics if 
it results in physical results?

I'm also questioning whether you can rationally distinguish between 
"intrinsically random" and "chosen by supernatural means".

>   Maybe free will cannot exist, and is just an invented, artificial and
> ultimately false notion. An illusion.

Possibly, given the definition that it's supernatural. However, given the 
definition that it's supernatural, you've just defined it as being 
impossible to investigate. That's the way in which I'm saying it's not a 
useful definition: you've defined it in a way that blocks further useful 
inquiry into the subject.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message