Nobody will ever be able to give you an example of a computer having free will. You'll just assert that it doesn't every time. The fact of the matter still remains that the human brain IS a computer.

You might want to look deeper into my statement about an ape playing chess. If you saw a human getting ice cream from the freezer, you'd say "Look, he exercised free will and chose to get ice cream." If you saw an ape doing the same thing, you'd say "Look, he's using animal instinct to feed himself." or "He was conditioned to learn how to get ice cream out of the freezer."

To go a step further, imagine that we were able to take out the brain of that human and put it into that ape. If you weren't told about the brain transplant, you'd STILL say the ape wasn't exercising free will.

You are applying different standards to humans based on, well, nothing really. This is special pleading at its finest.

no, you are not. you are failing to understand the issue at hand. when it comes to free will when we say "the ability to choose otherwise" in any given scenario, we are not talking about a new scenario that on the surface the same, but the exact same scenario. meaning the scenario that just happened. NOT A NEW ONE.

like i said before, i did not clarify earlier as i did not think that i had to. i thought that you understood the issues when discussing free will.

when i say "could have been" that is exactly what I mean. Not could be different in the future. you are describing a computer that adapts and changes. that is something completely different then what we are talking about.

there is no computer that exists that exhibits free will. if there was this would be huge! but that does not mean that we cannot create AI that has free will, just that we have not.

jib,

how could we possibly know that?

at this point, i believe you should just say what you're really saying - AI cannot have free will.

you've been given an example of AI, whether you choose to admit or not, that fits your previous criteria as to what free-willed AI would look like.

i seriously can't believe you're saying that the scenario is different because it's at a different time!

somehow you let this slide for us, but not for the AI. it's very dishonest, IMHO.

another way to look at this...

you believe we have free will.

you've admitted (don't mean this negatively because it's not like you ever said otherwise) we cannot prove we have free will.

if we cannot even prove that you have free will, how in the hell would we ever prove that AI has free will?

you'll still be able to revert back the "it's a different scenario" line no matter what you're presented with.

which goes back to why i said the only reason you won't accept that AI has just as much appearance of free will as humans do is because of how special you view us. and you get that from the bible.

lol, look, just because we cannot or have not done something right now does in no way mean that we cannot do it in the future. Would you agree with that? I mean, we have not even created AI yet and you want me to admit that we could not create AI with free will. Why on earth would I say that?

this is a very good question. I have no idea. BUT, that does not mean that we cannot.

lol again. AI does not exist. So how on earth am I "not letting it slide for AI?"

i do agree.

sorry. replace AI with the chess program nitty is referring to.

my point is i think you're be unfair in your assessment of the situation. i think you're making allowances for human free will that you won't also allow for the chess program, and i think it's rather clear you're doing it.

you first ask for the chess program to be able to make a different, non-random choice in the same exact situation. when presented with evidence that it can do this, you then say, "well, the chess program can't actually ever be in the same situation..."

well guess what? neither can we.

yet you claim that we could have made a different decision even though, just like the chess program, we cannot ever be in the same exact situation!

can you perhaps clear this up a bit to show me why you aren't contradicting yourself?

Maybe I'm just confused about the definition of AI that we're using here (though as a comp. sci. major, I'd hope not), but we have created AI. Every chess engine is a form of AI. ASIMO is AI. And there's more.

Jib, through all that he has said here, has now made it impossible to create "the exact same scenario" when it comes to the chess example given. Based on your terms, you can NEVER have the exact same scenario.

You've neutered your own question: "If at some point during the game the computer moves Knight to Queen 9, is it possible that given the exact same scenario could the computer have chosen to move differently?"

Please explain how we can reach the exact same scenario on your terms. FTR "rewinding time to time T, or (which is what I prefer) talking about another possible world at time T where the computer would choose otherwise" is not an acceptable way to obtain the exact same scenario.

Just think "chess engine" when "AI" is used... somehow it was inserted into the conversation.

Pretty cool article that sort of touches on this and free will vs determinism

Start at "COMPATIBILIST FREE WILL IN A DETERMINISTIC REALITY" for the chess analogy

http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_83.html

Like someone else posted here I never really understood what free will means. To my understanding there is only two imaginable ways how anything could happen: as a consequence of another event or by pure random chance. Obviously determinism doesn't fit with free will, but neither does randomness imo. If an exactly same scenario is repeated twice (no memory, no difference at all) and you made a different choises, what triggered the change of mind other than pure chance? I would hardly think that completly random coin flipping is free will.

Our minds make choises based on the events of the surrounding world. How would free will with into this? Would our choises be based on something that has no relevance to anything?

You didn't have a point, other than unprovoked personal attacks cuz your feelings got hurt in other threads. You never would have made that post if somebody other than me had said the exact same thing.

lol

Not really in the mood for a troll off with you, if Stupidasso comes back I will explain in detail why his view doesn't make much sense and you can try to follow along.

I hope he's back soon cause I'm sure I won't be able to sleep waiting to hear more of your infinite wisdom.

It's really funny to hear you say "my unfalsifiable beliefs could actually be falsified if something equally unfalsifiable happened."

jib, i know it's only been a day but i just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this...

I am not being unfair to the chess assessment. You guys have just failed to give an example of the chess program exhibiting free will. It is very clear given the definition of free will the the program does not have it. If you want to argue that humans don't have free will either, then fine. get in line behind Madnak. But you cannot argue that I should change the definition as to "be fair" to the chess program.

I am really getting tired of repeating myself. Maybe I am not making myself clear, if that is the case I apologist. As I said in previous posts there was a misunderstand as I assumed that when discussing free will the true issues were understood. So when I spoke of "the exact same scenario" I did not think to clarify that further. But you can ask Madnak who I have had one 2 years ongoing conversation about free will that when i talk about "choosing otherwise" in situation A, I literally mean the ability to choose otherwise in situation A, not the ability to choose otherwise in situation B that happens to be extremely similar.

But we know for a fact that the computer cannot.

okie-dokie

thanks for the convo but clearly we're done here lol

Question begging.

Why do we know for a fact that the computer cannot, but we don't know for a fact that the human cannot? Just because you say so? It's still special pleading, assuming your conclusion, etc.

I'm under the assumption that you're referring to rewinding time to get the exact same situation two (or more) times. If that's the case...

Assume a computer is 70/30 (or 50/50 or whatever) on a decision.
Assume a human is 70/30 (or 50/50 or whatever) on a decision.
Let's make the decision and rewind time.

If it's possible to get a different result for the computer, then that also applies to the human. If it's not possible for the computer, then that also applies to the human. I personally think it's possible to get different results for both, simply because of probability kicking in with every rewind. My philosophy also renders the concept of human-only free will meaningless (because the computer with an RNG also possesses it).

If you feel the results will be inconsistent for different agents, you really need to explain WHY you feel that way.

Christ on a stick! We have given you an example but you changed your footing so many times on what "the exact same scenario" is that, based on your own criteria, we cannot EVER create an exact same scenario. You said that a requirement for a chess engine or AI to have free will "would take a mechanism that was intentional (non-random) and could choose otherwise." We showed you this with numerous examples concerning a chess engine. The program considers options and evaluates consequences all on its own. The program has options and chooses one of many options.

"The chess program examines the chessboard, identifies some possible moves, and evaluates their desirability against its knowledge of chess strategy, and its projections of how its opponent will respond. The program chooses a move, and (say) moves its knight. Did the computer program not freely choose to make that particular knight move? There was nothing in the situation that would render that particular move forced. It was not coerced. The move was not the result of random quantum events, or the flip of a coin, because a computer is specifically designed to preclude such things. It has clear strategic reasons for the move. There were a number of attractive looking legal moves available to it. It could have chosen otherwise. Doesn't this choice also have all of the characteristics of a "free will" decision?"


I requested this above and you didn't answer. Please explain how we can reach "the exact same scenario" based on your terms so that we can continue the conversation.

lol


anywho.,..has anyone tried getting hold of madnak to try and perhaps clear up what jib's trying to say?

right now i have no clue how he doesn't just say he needs more time to think this through or whatever, because it seems he's clearly contradicted himself. but i'm hoping madnak can maybe fill in the gaps here if it is just a case of something getting lost in translation.