This leads us again to “freedom” losing meaning. How do you differentiate a free choice from a choice that is not free? “free will” vs “non-free will”.
Optimizing choices is a mathematical operation… a rock, when thrown, moves in such a way that it optimizes the potential energy and does not stop moving until it reaches the minimum energy state, optimizing for minimal entropy. A slime mold optimizes the nutrient intake by having its cells expand and reproduce where they connect with food and progressively die where they don’t.
All the things you mentioned are not incompatible with free will not existing. Two non-free people in the same non-free situations make different non-free choices because of who they are. The impossibility of truly knowing someone is something that’s consistent with a non-free world were nobody has full knowledge of all factors that determine them. If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand we would be too stupid to understand it. It’s a recursive problem. We can analyze simpler mechanisms, but the simpler they get, the better we understand them, and the more clear the lack of “agency” in them becomes.
Yeah and to me its basically getting down to a definition of free will. If free will is no factors internal or external can effect the choice it must be free of any influence. Well its just silly. To me its demanding that no mechanism of free choice (will) be present. To me you can’t really include the individual and their molecules and such as they are the individual that has the agency. They make the choices based on who they are and in that sense they are free and why one individual makes different choices than another in the exact same circumstances. To me its a bit of going to down in a definition and losing the forest for the trees kinda of thing (or maybe vice versa). Alls I meant with the optimizing was actually that people choose not to. Even though theoretically its considered the best way to go and even if the individual knows the optimized choice they may choose to not go that way. So I was more saying us not making the optimized choice because of what I would see as free will.
Well its just silly. To me its demanding that no mechanism of free choice (will) be present.
Well… yes, if that is the implication, then well… that’s the implication. But changing the definition of freedom just because one does not like the implications would not make much sense to me.
To me you can’t really include the individual and their molecules and such as they are the individual that has the agency.
The whole point is to find out if the individual has freedom or not… and for that you need to find out if each and every of the molecules that make up that individual has been influenced by external factors past and present. Emphasis in past, given that there are way more external factors in our past than there are in our present. The external factors go even beyond our own lifetimes… you are influenced by factors that happened before you were born… and before your parents were born… we have external factors even encoded in our DNA. The reason why you even feel the impulse to eat that donut is an external factor… the reason why you feel the impulse to NOT eat that donut is another external factor. Our individual wishes and wants are just the expression of external factors… our molecules are built through external factors, external factors make us grow… external factors are what we are made out from. And since we all are modeled in different circumstances, we are different, every last one of us, with different combinations of different external factors, each influencing each other, in a harmonious soup of relationships with one another and with our environment. Even 2 identical twins become more and more different the more they experience the world, since they will inevitably have different experiences in life (even from the womb, before they are even born!)… even the smallest of things can snowball into experiences we will unconsciously internalize and alter our personality and the way we see ourselves and others.
Even though theoretically its considered the best way to go and even if the individual knows the optimized choice they may choose to not go that way.
I disagree. People always take the optimal choice for them. It’s just that what’s “optimal” depends on the dataset one uses. Eating that donut has a lot of pros, and not eating it has a lot of pros too… it’s all about what action is optimal given the influence of the external factors that model one’s behavior. In some models, eating the donut and getting the gratification is the optimal path, so they do that (whether it’s good for the individual or not), other neural models might see more value in not eating it so they don’t do that.
So yeah I think we are getting into fundamental disagreement territory. Which in all honestly I have with sabine as well on this. Even though I generally like her stuff. Its not the only one. Even when I otherwise agree with her I definately often have a different perspective on the particulars.
This leads us again to “freedom” losing meaning. How do you differentiate a free choice from a choice that is not free? “free will” vs “non-free will”.
Optimizing choices is a mathematical operation… a rock, when thrown, moves in such a way that it optimizes the potential energy and does not stop moving until it reaches the minimum energy state, optimizing for minimal entropy. A slime mold optimizes the nutrient intake by having its cells expand and reproduce where they connect with food and progressively die where they don’t.
All the things you mentioned are not incompatible with free will not existing. Two non-free people in the same non-free situations make different non-free choices because of who they are. The impossibility of truly knowing someone is something that’s consistent with a non-free world were nobody has full knowledge of all factors that determine them. If the human brain was simple enough for us to understand we would be too stupid to understand it. It’s a recursive problem. We can analyze simpler mechanisms, but the simpler they get, the better we understand them, and the more clear the lack of “agency” in them becomes.
Yeah and to me its basically getting down to a definition of free will. If free will is no factors internal or external can effect the choice it must be free of any influence. Well its just silly. To me its demanding that no mechanism of free choice (will) be present. To me you can’t really include the individual and their molecules and such as they are the individual that has the agency. They make the choices based on who they are and in that sense they are free and why one individual makes different choices than another in the exact same circumstances. To me its a bit of going to down in a definition and losing the forest for the trees kinda of thing (or maybe vice versa). Alls I meant with the optimizing was actually that people choose not to. Even though theoretically its considered the best way to go and even if the individual knows the optimized choice they may choose to not go that way. So I was more saying us not making the optimized choice because of what I would see as free will.
Well… yes, if that is the implication, then well… that’s the implication. But changing the definition of freedom just because one does not like the implications would not make much sense to me.
The whole point is to find out if the individual has freedom or not… and for that you need to find out if each and every of the molecules that make up that individual has been influenced by external factors past and present. Emphasis in past, given that there are way more external factors in our past than there are in our present. The external factors go even beyond our own lifetimes… you are influenced by factors that happened before you were born… and before your parents were born… we have external factors even encoded in our DNA. The reason why you even feel the impulse to eat that donut is an external factor… the reason why you feel the impulse to NOT eat that donut is another external factor. Our individual wishes and wants are just the expression of external factors… our molecules are built through external factors, external factors make us grow… external factors are what we are made out from. And since we all are modeled in different circumstances, we are different, every last one of us, with different combinations of different external factors, each influencing each other, in a harmonious soup of relationships with one another and with our environment. Even 2 identical twins become more and more different the more they experience the world, since they will inevitably have different experiences in life (even from the womb, before they are even born!)… even the smallest of things can snowball into experiences we will unconsciously internalize and alter our personality and the way we see ourselves and others.
I disagree. People always take the optimal choice for them. It’s just that what’s “optimal” depends on the dataset one uses. Eating that donut has a lot of pros, and not eating it has a lot of pros too… it’s all about what action is optimal given the influence of the external factors that model one’s behavior. In some models, eating the donut and getting the gratification is the optimal path, so they do that (whether it’s good for the individual or not), other neural models might see more value in not eating it so they don’t do that.
So yeah I think we are getting into fundamental disagreement territory. Which in all honestly I have with sabine as well on this. Even though I generally like her stuff. Its not the only one. Even when I otherwise agree with her I definately often have a different perspective on the particulars.