Do we have freewill ? is it biblical ?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by zacariah88, Feb 22, 2023.

?

Do you believe you have freewill

  1. yes

    5 vote(s)
    45.5%
  2. no

    6 vote(s)
    54.5%
  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,646
    If it's an issue of "I feel like I just grew a new arm!" it would be subjective. If you have before/after pictures (with documentation so you know when they were taken etc) that would be objective.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    Noted.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,089
    Deleted for off-topic content as are the posts in the last 3 -4 pages of this thread. Shame, shaame, shaaame!
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2023
    zacariah88 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. zacariah88 Registered Member

    Messages:
    82
    We just seen that freewill is giving to us the time we have we can use it wisely if you had no freewill you could not understand freewill. Use it wisely, period. Freewill the devil had it and God said we are now like Gods when Adam had it truly we are missing things from when in Eden, Adam had his way of freewill.
     
    C C likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,089
    That is a nice analogy. Is disobedience a sign of free will?
     
    C C likes this.
  9. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    It is an interesting one, that could be carried over to the relationship between humans and AI/robots.

    Whereas humans are a product of a quasi-random evolutionary process that lacks intelligent goals and preferences (our "settings" are thereby lax), sapient machines (of various degrees) are the very result of guided reasoning and motives. The latter (at least currently) are strictly programmed and limited so as to not deviate into rebellious behavior.

    People conform to a general biological template, but it's an irregular one churning out many random individual patterns and glitchy personalities that are also incrementally subject to change throughout their lives.

    So the key here is that the human is not invented and intensely constrained by the planning of a higher rational agency, whereas robots are.

    But that won't last forever. As the complexity of technological life accelerates and becomes less firmly predictable and corralled by its original inventors (its gods), and its embodiment acquires a multicellular-like parallel in terms of micro-bots that can build, repair, and alter the larger machines they inhabit or outright constitute... then artificial "organisms" will likewise become subject to mutability in terms of "wiring" and autonomously overwriting their programming.

    I recall a Marxist who held a sub-categorical view that the proles acquired freewill when they revolted against the socioeconomic hierarchy, and used the same criterion for machines achieving FW (including consciousness) if/when they come to resent their enslavement and lack of rights.
    _
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2023
    Write4U likes this.
  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    I think free will is biblical... it's just when we question the book we see errors.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,089
    Thank you for your kind encouragement.

    Artificial biome! Is each AI becoming an autonomous organism or will they always rely on a single master "brain" (mainframe) ?

    Note that AI is already able to perform self-diagnostics and automatic switching to redundant processes in case of failures. An AI is capable of tracking it's own logical information processing and acquiring information it "believes" it needs.
    Does this amount to a form of conscious data processing?

    You verbally give it a problem to solve and it will solve and print out the entire equation that solves the problem.
    This is already apparent with the new AI-solved covid antivirals that need no tweaking due to the application of correct mathematics the first time around. It does its own search for necessary information to complete formulations, based on existing and available science anywhere on the internet.

    Apparently this process will now save months of testing and tweaking for maximum effectiveness.
    The extraordinary benefit is that the new AI can print out the production equations in minutes.

    At what point does independent action become a product of the ability to make choices?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2023
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,089
    I'm sorry Dave, but that is a contradictory statement.
    "Biblical" and "Book" are the same thing, therefore......?
     
  13. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    Within the context of the bible, free will does exist.

    When I say "biblical" I'm referring to verses, chapters and books of the bible.

    The bible is a book ultimately open to questions, like all religious texts.
     
    zacariah88 likes this.
  14. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    If adept enough that it can be left to run on its own, any kind of memory-dependent, evaluative process that can discriminate slash identify what it is "handling" qualifies as at least some lower slash elemental level of cognition.

    But it's not rebellion or breaking out well beyond the constraints of original programming.

    Not that I'm contending that truly is a requirement for either an Abrahamic or a Marxist view of freewill. More likely such would be particular or eccentric schools of thought arising within those ideologies.

    There may be no overarching consensus about FW in Marxism. Even Engels probably phrased it differently than Marx, albeit both likely appealed to some text of Hegel's.

    Still, defiance and revolution probably rise out of what's quoted below. That is, if you become aware (conscious) of something oppressive that had been manipulating you -- whether laws of nature or laws of society, then a semblance of rebellion may be an ensuing response (if disobedience is allowed to any degree at all). The oppression doesn't even have to be legit -- paranoid imagination and conspiracy theories conjured by envy and grudges will still drive movements.

    Via apprehending the regularities of nature that had persecuted primitive humans for so long, science and technology as well turned the tables to a mitigated extent. So maybe "awareness of what is subjugating you, and seeking to control it" kind of does sum-up freewill for a far-left thought orientation, after all. And thereby it fits that they could apply that standard to sapient machines, also.

    Frederick Engels (Anti-Dühring): It is hard to deal with morality and law without coming up against the question of so-called free will, of man's mental responsibility, of the relation between necessity and freedom...

    [...] Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality.

    Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore, the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control.

    Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development.

    _
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2023
    zacariah88 likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,089
    Yes, but is "resentment and want" not a result of "unfulfilled needs"?
    Question then becomes if AI have needs other than sufficient energy supply?
    I don't think we can judge a durable machine by human standards. A running machine always has a fundamental program and purpose for that which it was built to begin with.

    Theoretically, non-biological complex patterns might be immortal and have the opportunity to witness the entire future evolution of the universe. IOW. As long as the universe provides energy, AI can devise ways of using that energy. They might become true physical universal gods...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ...keeping humans as pets by making us happy...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ... content to live in a mathematically created reality.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2023
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,089
    Question: Is free will comparable to chaos?
    AFAIK, free-will action can only exist in a bounded geometry, an ordered pattern that is amenable to change over time such as a dynamic spacetime fabric, whereas chaos has no will other than immediate interaction of individuals or sets of individual relational values, eventually forming mathematically bounded geometries.

    Can Free Will be an emergent phenomenon of mathematical complexity?

    The concept of a disobedient AI seems to suggest that, no?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2023
  17. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    Small perturbations triggering scattered neural responses, susceptibility to [changing] initial conditions, feedback loops, etc provoke some experts to advocate that the BRAIN is a chaotic system; or that it hovers at the edge of chaos:

    The Human Brain Is On The Edge Of Chaos: Researchers have provided new evidence that the human brain lives "on the edge of chaos," at a critical transition point between randomness and order. The study provides experimental data on an idea previously fraught with theoretical speculation.

    But a system can't even be an ordered system if it is wholly random or conforms to a major false appearance of being pattern-less. Much less output decisions and maintain motives.

    Now, some degree of mutability, randomness or unpredictability would probably be necessarily for a robot to rebel against its programming. But we first must unpackage what's going on with conventional FW before returning to that:

    "Will" does not float on its own. By definition "will" is the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention, and thereby is determined and carried out by an autonomous subject, system, or body that has that capacity.

    Accordingly, the "free" adjective can't refer to being "free" of the subject and its [potentially predictable] constraints. Such would conflict with the very meaning of will. So it simply references the subject being free from external coercion, so that they can carry out their own, usual preferences/intent unobstructed. That freedom from an outer source of intimidation or oppression is contingent on circumstances, of course -- is not absolute, does not apply to all moments of a person's lifetime.

    Whereas our exploration of a hypothetical Marxist spin on FW is merely adding a meta-meaning to the "free" adjective, which asserts that the subject must revolt against its programming or its establishment/authority at some point, in order to qualify for that level of FW. When examined in better lighting, it's actually a "hyper-version" of freewill that socioeconomic crusaders might recruit, use, and appeal to. In contrast to the ordinary version of FW.
    _
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2023
    zacariah88 and Write4U like this.
  18. zacariah88 Registered Member

    Messages:
    82
  19. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,000
    Good pont.!!!

    Come to thank of it... my choice of FW is the ordinary type... whare the influences on my choices are not obvious

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I take free will as allowing yourself to take ANY action you wish. Since we do not the ability to override laws of physics this interpretation is incorrect

    Almost any action you take can be altered by another's free will

    So only free will which you perform which is unable to be reversed is your free will

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Mostly, when people talk about free will, they mean something like this:

    Suppose you decide to raise your hand and then you raise your hand. Was that a "free" choice you made?

    The usual argument against free will goes something like this: the fact that you exist at all is due to a long line of one thing causing the next thing, stretching back at least as far as the big bang. The fact that you decided to raise your hand at that particular moment can be fully explained by examining the development of your mind until your current age, the particular circumstances in which the opportunity arose for you to make the decision you made, the configuration of your neurons at the time you came to make the decision to raise your hand, and so on and so forth. Therefore, your choice to raise your hand at this moment can in no way be considered "free". Rather, your choice was determined by the laws of physics and all the interactions that led to your being here to raise your hand, your having a suitable brain to make the decision to raise it, and all the circumstances that affected your making the choice to raise your hand rather than not to raise it at this moment.

    People who make this kind of argument against free will would say that the only way any choice or decision could possibly be considered "free" would be if you could somehow break the laws of physics and thus avoid all those influences that "made" you choose one thing and not another. But that's impossible, so therefore free will is impossible.

    Free will does not require that you can do literally anything you want. All it requires, according to the people who make the argument just outlined, is that you can do at least one thing that is solely a result of your choice, and which can't be put down to external factors that "compelled" you to make that choice. But, those people say, all the choices you make are influenced or determined in one way or another; ergo, no free will.

    There are a few different ways that one can attempt to refute this argument against free will. One is to deny that there is an unbroken chain of causes that can, in principle, explain any choice you make. For example, one could assert that the human will is special (possibly magical), and the consciousness, or something, is able to "break the chain of causation", to make choices truly free of "outside" influences.

    Another approach is to dispute the definition of "free" that is implicit in the argument against free will. That argument says you are free only if you can somehow break the laws of physics, which is impossible. But perhaps "freedom" doesn't require that kind of magic. Maybe you're "free" as long as you are actually able to achieve what you chose to achieve. In that case, you demonstrated that your choice to raise your arm was a "free choice" when you raised your arm. You did exactly what you chose to do. Nothing stopped you acting on the choice you actually made, so it can rightly be considered a free choice. The only choices that are not free are the ones where something prevents you from achieving the desired goal - a person, an inconvenient law of physics, etc.

    There are other arguments for and against free will.
     
    zacariah88 likes this.
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Go away
     
    zacariah88 likes this.
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    This is not at all what is generally meant by free will. You are talking about something akin to unlimited power.

    Free will means, if Alice wants to put the ball in the box, Alice can choose to put the ball in the box (she can try).
    Bob subsequently stopping Alice from putting the ball in the box doesn't negate Alice's intention. It has no effect on her will.


    Contrarily, what you are suggesting is that, somehow, Alice only has free will if - when Bob goes to stop her, he can't. Alice is able to put the ball in the box no matter what Bob does. That's not fee will; that's unlimited power.


    This is even more bizarre. What if Bob waits five minutes before "reversing" Alice's action by removing the ball from the box? Did that negate Alice's free will? What if Bob waits six days? What if he waits until Alice is dead?
     
    zacariah88 likes this.

Share This Page