Not entirely untrue, but there's a difference between acting on external stimuli and making a choice. I can't choose how my reflexes behave if I touch something very hot, but I can choose whether or not to touch it. The reflex is a biochemical event I have very little to no control over, but the decision most definitely is. The chain reaction that reaches my brain when I smell something isn't in my control, but choosing to get close enough to something to smell it is.My understanding of the argument against true free will is that our brains are just very large and complicated biological machines that grind out reactions based on the sensory inputs fed into them. Too large by far to involve any quantum behavior, the processes are all just chemical in nature. Certainly incomprehensibly complex but nonetheless completely deterministic.
Whether we have free will or not doesn't affect how we should arrange society. Society has for the most part concluded that people who are dangerous should not be allowed to roam free causing damage to others.It's clear he'd be wrecked if he tried to argue "I got no free will, judge, so you shouldn't punish me", but he wants that as some sort of universal legal defense. Ultimately, it winds up being "don't bother and suck it up", and rewards the aggressive and/or criminally minded. Maybe if some country goes and conquers another...no free will...it was destined to be...He either never thought of the implications of his modus operandi or believes it's just what it is.
A little cross-examination would impeach him. Let's say he blew a stop sign and hit someone.
Did you see the sign? Yes.
Did you ignore it? Yes.
Why? I don't have free will, it's not a conscious act by me.
The elements of negligence would be failing to exercise a duty of care.
He himself appears to want change to the way people are "punished", thus he clearly has interest in how the American legal system operates.
“The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over,” Sapolsky said. “We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”
Law school students have to be raked through the coals with numerous books. Some of the major texts include the "Restatements" or American Jurisprudence. A legal claim is "won" when the elements of the claim are established, if even there are thousands of moral appeals; this is why people never should open their yap when police question someone or even talk too much in general. Because just one wrong answer can be the road to a judgment someone might not "ethically or morally" deserve, but the elements were proven.
I did not realize at the time, but providing dashcam footage to a GEICO insurance adjuster is such an example of given fuel to the opposition for them to judge in their favor(denying both drivers' claims, me and the other party). The insurance company wanted to deny both as much as possible, and footage gave GEICO grounds to claim contributory negligence(even though they never called it contributory negligence, that's the concept they were going after).
People this guy only further makes me realize that I've got a truly love-hate view of lawyers(who are also work as judges and and commonly as politicians). Because lawyers are corrupt, manipulative, exploitative, and predatory, but the alternative of rule by the masses, even "intellectual" ones is rife with "modes of operation" that are even more ridiculous.
It seems to me that you are saying we can't learn anything from simulations where at least one category of objects in the simulation don't have free will but that can't be right. Take weather simulations. Do we not learn from them? Do we need to give simulated raindrops free will in order to do so?I don't think they do either, but that's an exceedingly simple simulation designed for our interaction and entertainment. If you really want a good simulation, with something useful to extract from it, you need free will.
We can, if our brain believes we'll get enough dopamine or whatever to overcome the negative stimuli that we know will follow. That's why we observe cutters, for example.But we can, we're just inclined not to, hence the psych eval. Just because our brain makes rules for us doesn't mean we cannot break them, hence the whole 'free' part of 'free will' rather than 'imposed will'.
Not saying that at all, just that there probably needs to be a purpose behind designing an advanced life simulation, else why do it? If you have a purpose, it probably requires at least something within to have free will in order to properly simulate life. Take something like dwarf fortess for example, very simple origin states given a rudimentary free will through programming backed by randomization, results in emergent, unpredictable events and interactions.It seems to me that you are saying we can't learn anything from simulations where at least one category of objects in the simulation don't have free will but that can't be right. Take weather simulations. Do we not learn from them? Do we need to give simulated raindrops free will in order to do so?
Or if one has the willpower to do it despite the negative stimuli. Again, it'd be stupid to do something harmful just to prove a point but we still have the free will to do so.We can, if our brain believes we'll get enough dopamine or whatever to overcome the negative stimuli that we know will follow. That's why we observe cutters, for example.
You just said free will through programming...Not saying that at all, just that there probably needs to be a purpose behind designing an advanced life simulation, else why do it? If you have a purpose, it probably requires at least something within to have free will in order to properly simulate life. Take something like dwarf fortess for example, very simple origin states given a rudimentary free will through programming backed by randomization, results in emergent, unpredictable events and interactions.
You can use a simple simulation of things other than sentient beings, like weather patterns, just don't expect the weather simulator to generate a book for you.
And where does willpower come from? It could be through programming.Or if one has the willpower to do it despite the negative stimuli. Again, it'd be stupid to do something harmful just to prove a point but we still have the free will to do so.
That leads to a circular argument though. "The world can be no different than it is", while true, isn't a very useful statement.I don't know. Maybe just like how birds instinctively fly south for the winter or peck at the ground for worms, humans instinctively do human stuff like post on forums or make movies. Our thoughts could just be instincts. We don't think birds have thoughts, but maybe they think they do.
Like, everyone posting in this thread. I bet you're thinking, "Yeah, I could just not post." But you're posting anyways.
Useful to who?That leads to a circular argument though. "The world can be no different than it is", while true, isn't a very useful statement.
Or perhaps our impression that we have a choice is just an illusion.
My understanding of the argument against true free will is that our brains are just very large and complicated biological machines that grind out reactions based on the sensory inputs fed into them. Too large by far to involve any quantum behavior, the processes are all just chemical in nature. Certainly incomprehensibly complex but nonetheless completely deterministic.
It seems to me that the only way around this argument is to identify some new non-physical aspect to our understanding of consciousness - something like a "soul". But prior to having any evidence for such an aspect, adopting one seems like a leap of faith aimed at allowing you to believe what you want to believe is true.
Or so I am compelled to observe... 😏
I think marketing departments would disagree, for just one example.Anyone attempting to understand the world.
He got a Macarthur grant and graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, it's unlikely that he's stupid simply because you disagree with his premise.The whole concept of "free will" is a made up concept by humans.
All the dummy in the article is trying to do is basically change the definition of what "free will" means in order to be able to make a claim that humans don't have it.
What a stupid article and stupid person.
Humans do complicated things simply for the purpose of doing them 🤷♀️Not saying that at all, just that there probably needs to be a purpose behind designing an advanced life simulation, else why do it?
There are a lot of stupid people with degrees.He got a Macarthur grant and graduated summa cum laude from Harvard, it's unlikely that he's stupid simply because you disagree with his premise.
While I don't disagree, I think your reaction says more about you than it does about him.There are a lot of stupid people with degrees.
Sure, for lack of a better phrasing. In computerland it's programming, in bioland it's biochemical programming, but programming isn't inherently deterministic. Nondeterministic programming is a thing, and used by humans and arguably nature already. You can have 'programming' with free will, they're not exclusive to each other.You just said free will through programming...
And where does willpower come from? It could be through programming.
There's generally a reason for it, even if it's personal. I plant trees because I like them and I like to imagine them growing after I'm ash. Generating a simulation of life for no real reason doesn't make any logical sense. Maybe it would to an alien, but if you're going through the effort, why not be getting something out of it? I suppose it could simply be a 'fish tank', but if that's the case you'd at least want the end result to be as realistic or entertaining as possible. That would explain giraffes though.Humans do complicated things simply for the purpose of doing them 🤷♀️
Cool.While I don't disagree, I think your reaction says more about you than it does about him.
AFAIK you can't make actual non-deterministic programming outside of quantum computing. Even with quantum, I suspect it only appears non-deterministic to us because we don't fully understand it.Sure, for lack of a better phrasing. In computerland it's programming, in bioland it's biochemical programming, but programming isn't inherently deterministic. Nondeterministic programming is a thing, and used by humans and arguably nature already. You can have 'programming' with free will, they're not exclusive to each other.
There's generally a reason for it, even if it's personal. I plant trees because I like them and I like to imagine them growing after I'm ash. Generating a simulation of life for no real reason doesn't make any logical sense. Maybe it would to an alien, but if you're going through the effort, why not be getting something out of it? I suppose it could simply be a 'fish tank', but if that's the case you'd at least want the end result to be as realistic or entertaining as possible. That would explain giraffes though.
Chatgpt4 confirming my knowledge with multiple examples:AFAIK you can't make actual non-deterministic programming outside of quantum computing. Even with quantum, I suspect it only appears non-deterministic to us because we don't fully understand it.
Hi, can you give me an example of a nondeterministic computer program? A real-life example I mean.
Sure! A real-life example of a nondeterministic computer program is a weather prediction model. Weather prediction models use various input data and complex algorithms to simulate and forecast future weather conditions. Due to the chaotic nature of the Earth's atmosphere and the limitations in initial data accuracy, the predictions are inherently uncertain.
In these models, multiple simulations are run with slightly different initial conditions to generate an ensemble of forecasts, and then a probabilistic forecast is provided based on these simulations. This process is nondeterministic, as the model doesn't produce a single, definitive outcome for a given set of initial conditions, but rather a range of possible outcomes with associated probabilities.
Here's a simple example of a weather prediction model in Python using random numbers to demonstrate the nondeterministic nature:
import random
def weather_prediction():
possible_conditions = ['sunny', 'cloudy', 'rainy', 'stormy', 'snowy']
return random.choice(possible_conditions)
for i in range(5):
print(f"Prediction {i + 1}: {weather_prediction()}")
This code snippet defines a simple weather prediction function that returns a random weather condition from the list of possible conditions. When the function is called multiple times, it demonstrates the nondeterministic nature of the prediction, as the same input (no input in this case) can lead to different outcomes.
are there any other real-life examples of nondeterministic programming?
Yes, there are several other real-life examples of nondeterministic programming. Some of these examples include:
- Genetic algorithms: These are optimization techniques that mimic the process of natural selection. They generate a population of candidate solutions and evolve them over time through selection, crossover, and mutation. The solutions' fitness determines their chance of survival, and the process is repeated until a satisfactory solution is found or a stopping condition is met. Due to the random nature of crossover and mutation operations, the outcome is nondeterministic.
- Monte Carlo simulations: These are computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to estimate numerical results. Monte Carlo simulations are used in various fields, such as finance, physics, and engineering, to estimate the probability of specific outcomes and model uncertain systems. The random sampling introduces nondeterminism in the simulations.
- Cryptography and random number generation: Nondeterministic programming plays a significant role in cryptography, where generating unpredictable random numbers is crucial for secure encryption and decryption. Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNGs) use nondeterministic sources, such as hardware events, to generate random numbers that are difficult for attackers to predict.
- Machine learning model training: In some machine learning algorithms, especially those involving stochastic optimization like Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD), the training process involves random elements, such as random weight initialization and random sampling of training data. This introduces nondeterminism, as different runs of the same training process can result in different model parameters.
- Concurrent and distributed systems: In concurrent and distributed systems, multiple processes or threads run simultaneously and interact with shared resources or communicate with each other. Due to the unpredictable nature of process scheduling and communication delays, the order of events and final outcomes can be nondeterministic, as they can vary across different runs of the same program.
As we all know, the call to random is not actually random. In fact, all of your other examples say "random" except the last one. And the last one, while it seems genuinely random in that we aren't using a random generator, the results vary based on very physical variables within the hardware.Chatgpt4 confirming my knowledge with multiple examples: