shirgall Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/1e223b77e60 Turing Test for free will: Q1: Am I a decider? Q2: Do I make my decisions using recursive reasoning (ie using a process that can be simulated on a digital computer)? Q3: Can I model and simulate — at least partially — my own behaviour and that of other deciders? Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 I have no idea how to respond to this.
luminescent Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I have no idea how to respond to this. Unable to predict your own decisions beforehand, eh? :D :D
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Unable to predict your own decisions beforehand, eh? :D :D I have no idea how to respond to this either. Is there some joke I'm missing?
wdiaz03 Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 I have no idea how to respond to this either. Is there some joke I'm missing? I wasn't going to reply to this...so failed on my prediction!
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMnM_cQu6Fo
ribuck Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand? I don't get why it would have to be "beforehand". Simulating a process is always slower than doing the process directly. I can simulate a computer, using only a pen and paper, and I will be able to predict what the computer would do for any set of initial conditions. But of course the computer can do it faster. I would re-phrase the fourth question as: Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand, or can someone else predict my own decisions (at any speed) when they know nothing more than the initial conditions?
steve_ Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand? I had a discussion with a friend about this and we concluded that we couldn't as we'd cause a sort of infinite loop which would never finish. If you were outside of the universe, then yes, but any interference within the universe would possibly make our prediction false because variables would have been changed.
wdiaz03 Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 I don't get why it would have to be "beforehand". Simulating a process is always slower than doing the process directly. I can simulate a computer, using only a pen and paper, and I will be able to predict what the computer would do for any set of initial conditions. But of course the computer can do it faster. I would re-phrase the fourth question as: Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand, or can someone else predict my own decisions (at any speed) when they know nothing more than the initial conditions? I think that question 4 has to do with the way people store information about the world. take the question "Where should we go for lunch?" If you know beforehand it most be because you know the value of every single variable applicable to the conclusion. But a person might think "I feel like fish", but might or might not remember that they have a coupon for an italian restaurant, or might or might not remember having a good time at a pizza place nearby etc. Add to that the infinite many inputs we preseive about the world around us, a smell triggering memories, a attractive person reminding us of the cute waitress. etc. Therefore it might be related with the way our brain retrieve information that free will is possible.
Guest darkskyabove Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 There is a fundamental problem with the idea presented in this article. According to the "expert", Seth Lloyd: "...quantum mechanics does not provide any mechanism that helps us understand free will." How can he claim this? Is our understanding of the human brain, and its operation on a quantum level, now so well understood that he can make this dismissal. Sounds to me like hubris.
ribuck Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 According to the "expert", Seth Lloyd: "...quantum mechanics does not provide any mechanism that helps us understand free will." How can he claim this? Because that's how science works. In the absence of any known quantum mechanism that helps us understand free will, we say exactly that. We don't need to say "There might be an as-yet-unobserved quantum phenomenon that helps us understand free will". If such a mechanism is discovered, we will add it to our knowledge when it is discovered. Otherwise, we might equally speculate that an as-yet-unobserved orbiting teapot dispenses free will.
LovePrevails Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 hey any responses to this argument I hadn't heard before? I have an idea but I'm interested in other peoples response
fridolutin Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Yes it is possible to predict our own decisions to be able to do it would imply to see our subconscious conditioning and the knowledge of it could ultimately be included in a software that could predict our choices in specific situations. In a more simple way, introspection used along with remembering of childhood conditions and influences can open our conscious to unconscieus patterns in our behavior
Guest darkskyabove Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Because that's how science works. In the absence of any known quantum mechanism that helps us understand free will, we say exactly that. We don't need to say "There might be an as-yet-unobserved quantum phenomenon that helps us understand free will". If such a mechanism is discovered, we will add it to our knowledge when it is discovered. Otherwise, we might equally speculate that an as-yet-unobserved orbiting teapot dispenses free will. Actually, relying on one person's claim about a subject that is unresolved and has multiple opinions from differing sides is not how science works. There also appears to be a lack of a known computational theory to explain free will, so Lloyd's claim, as yet, is speculation. After reading Lloyd's paper, A Turing test for free will, I found another paper from the same site, The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine, which takes away some of the finality of Lloyd's dismissal. There is quite a bit of research into this issue, and my claim is that the matter remains undecided. Lloyd does make a solid argument, but I don't see it as the final say. Some key points to consider: Does quantum mechanics introduce true randomness? Does randomness have anything to do with how the brain makes decisions?
luminescent Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 @LovePrevails regarding the Futurama video:I think it's in the definition of identical. If there are two "identical" universes, and then something happens differently in one of them, then, they are no longer identical. "Identical" is just a word that describes the property of identicalness. In two identical universes, everything would happen identically -- by definition. Once something happens differently in one of them, they can no longer be described as identical. And therefore they no longer fit a question starting with a premise of "two identical universes."In other words, I think it's a fake question.So, to the original question, is it possible to predict my own decision? If I predict my own decision in advance, then I'm actually just making the decision earlier, which means I'm not "predicting" anything. I'm just deciding faster. So again it's in the definition of the word. My act of predicting ends up being negated by my prediction. Or something like that.Therefore, it's determinism UNTIL freewill. Looking back it's determinisim, looking forward it's freewill. Looking backward in time, you can compare two universes and decide whether they're identical or not, but looking forward... who knows? We can't know for sure until the future becomes the past and then we can look back and find out. Similarly, looking backward in time, it can be obvious what decision I was going to make. Looking forward, not so much. Not until the future becomes the past and I can look backward at it, can it again seem obvious.
steve_ Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Similarly, looking backward in time, it can be obvious what decision I was going to make. Why's this?
wdiaz03 Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Yes it is possible to predict our own decisions to be able to do it would imply to see our subconscious conditioning and the knowledge of it could ultimately be included in a software that could predict our choices in specific situations. In a more simple way, introspection used along with remembering of childhood conditions and influences can open our conscious to unconscieus patterns in our behavior Perhaps, but I find it highly improbable. Looking at the question from the video: "what am I going to eat Jan 1?" If I never ponder this question Jan 1 arrives and I eat X. But the fact that I now ponder this question and analyze all possible variables that might affect my decision It might trigger other variables to be accounted for that otherwise would not have been analyzed in the original time-line where I never pondered the question. Because our memory is fuzzy, we might or might not take into account things that affect our decisions. If I act on inpulse I might do something that otherwise I would not do If I stop to think about it beforehand. To give an analogy. If I fall down a cliff it is possible to predict where I will land and how. But the task is enormous. Each pebble, branch and conditions that affect my trajectory would have to be know. How each of my body parts will react with each blow etc. Now if I'm asked to analyze this data before hand, I introduced a variable called "You are going to fall down this cliff". and since the first thing in front of me is a tree I know I'll hit that...but I'll flinch differently now. because memories of being hurt throughout my life will surface in my brain where as before I had no idea until it happened....So I will likely end up in a different location and in a different position. We might not have free will in a sense that knowing all possible variables will predict the outcome...but the sheer number of variables is so vast that we might as well call it free will.
steve_ Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 Yes it is possible to predict our own decisions I'm not so sure it is: I had a discussion with a friend about this and we concluded that we couldn't as we'd cause a sort of infinite loop which would never finish. If you were outside of the universe, then yes, but any interference within the universe would possibly make our prediction false because variables would have been changed. We might not have free will in a sense that knowing all possible variables will predict the outcome...but the sheer number of variables is so vast that we might as well call it free will. Even if we have absolutely no ability to deviate from our fate?
wdiaz03 Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 ...Even if we have absolutely no ability to deviate from our fate? Not sure what you mean...you don't know what your fate is before hand. If I am going somewhere but don't know where I am going to end up, it is pointless to say That I had no choice where I ended up, that regardless of what I did This is the place i would be. Fate is a form of paralysis, because I can now stay in bed all day and the universe will do what it has to do to make my fate come true. because if I fail or not try hard enough it was fate and if it were meant to be it would be....blagh.
steve_ Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Not sure what you mean...you don't know what your fate is before hand. If I am going somewhere but don't know where I am going to end up, it is pointless to say That I had no choice where I ended up, that regardless of what I did This is the place i would be. But, if free will isn't real, you didn't have any choice where you ended up. You're literally a rock rolling down a hill, or a drop of water in a wave. Whatever you do, was just that, what you were always going to do - there was no other way it could have gone down even if you duplicated and replayed the universe an infinite amount of times. If free will isn't real then you might have the illusion of being able to freely choose whether to go left or right, but you were always going to go left. Fate is a form of paralysis, because I can now stay in bed all day and the universe will do what it has to do to make my fate come true. because if I fail or not try hard enough it was fate and if it were meant to be it would be....blagh. Yep, that's pretty much determinism as I understand it.
wdiaz03 Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 But, if free will isn't real, you didn't have any choice where you ended up. You're literally a rock rolling down a hill, or a drop of water in a wave. Whatever you do, was just that, what you were always going to do - there was no other way it could have gone down even if you duplicated and replayed the universe an infinite amount of times. If free will isn't real then you might have the illusion of being able to freely choose whether to go left or right, but you were always going to go left. Illusion or not, There's nothing to be done differently. so this is a mute point. Useless knowledge. Reminds me of the "What if reality is not real and you are really a brain an a vat".
steve_ Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 Illusion or not, There's nothing to be done differently. so this is a mute point. Useless knowledge. I think there's usefulness to be had from the position, but even if there weren't, useless knowledge can fun to learn, debate and ponder
RestoringGuy Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 It is all circular, because without choice to ponder or not, we already are committed to one way even if committed to saying it's all useless (and accepting that argument is suddenly useful for completing the discussion). The determinists should suck it up like the rest of us. The pure determinist cannot technically explain why an electron does not spiral into a hydrogen nucleus. We can say all fun and games, like some people say about buying into astrology. I think it's more because, brain or no brain, atoms do useful stuff within a known probabilistic distribution, and that random stuff is not automatically useless because it can be predicted within useful bounds. We all know brains are just atoms. Please enough rolling rocks. Deterministically a rock can't even exist, much less do exactly the same thing twice. Thinking dead matter is fully predictable is just as troubling as placing the brain in a new category of matter. These supposedly deterministic minerals and water eventually turned into a caveman. And if you freeze the caveman solid, he is deterministic again. It's not a good system.
SeanBissell Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 If free will doesn't exist, then how do you know what determinism is? If something doesn't have an opposite how can it be known?
Panoptic Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 I thought Stefan banned the discussion of determinism. I am assuming that also includes the discussion of free will since the polar opposite, determinism, always comes up.
RestoringGuy Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 I thought Stefan banned the discussion of determinism. I am assuming that also includes the discussion of free will since the polar opposite, determinism, always comes up. I had not heard of this before. It does not seem like strict prohibition, but it says it is a waste. I do not know how you can have philosophical discussion without some attention to determinism. Even Stef has taken a determinist position in some podcasts with regard to nonliving matter. That is a kind of determinism I find problematic and it indirectly feeds the determinists delusions. As I understand the problem, the wasteful discussion involves the kinds of determinism that negate free will, or describe it as a sort of an illusion. To avoid all determinism, you'd almost have to avoid science entirely.
Wesley Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 If you click the Guidelines tab (next to New Content) there is this wording: Off LimitsWhile we do entertain a wide array of topics, there are some areas which we have found do not foster debate.DeterminismAfter several years, and in consultation with a variety of listeners, we have decided to close down the topic of determinism. Thanks to those who participated over the years, and those who gave feedback more recently.For a debate on the subject, please visit Freedomain Radio: The Determinist/Free Will Debate on YouTube.Defending AbuseWhile an abusive individual may be able to make restitution for his or her behavior, defending abuse is not long tolerated.If you advance arguments which promote abuse (this includes, but is not limited to, emotional, verbal, physical, or sexual abuse), you will be asked to stop posting. If you do not stop posting, you will be banned.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 The interesting thing about the closing down of this topic is that in order for any determinist to criticize Stef doing it they have to accept he had the free-will to not do it. Otherwise they have to accept he did not close it but rather it was just the playing out of unconscious material forces over which he had no control and there was no possibility of it being any other way.
steve_ Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 The interesting thing about the closing down of this topic is that in order for any determinist to criticize Stef doing it they have to accept he had the free-will to not do it. Otherwise they have to accept he did not close it but rather it was just the playing out of unconscious material forces over which he had no control and there was no possibility of it being any other way. Yep. Otherwise they have to accept he did not close it but rather it was just the playing out of unconscious material forces over which he had no control and there was no possibility of it being any other way. What are you defining 'he' as? Stef definitely did still close it.
HasMat Posted December 18, 2013 Posted December 18, 2013 So, to the original question, is it possible to predict my own decision? If I predict my own decision in advance, then I'm actually just making the decision earlier, which means I'm not "predicting" anything. I'm just deciding faster. So again it's in the definition of the word. My act of predicting ends up being negated by my prediction. Or something like that. If it becomes negated then your prediction was wrong. This isnt about deciding earlier, its about predicting future behavior, and NOT making the choice now. I think the key here is to consider a simple device with clearly finite causality. For a thermostat the decision is to turn on heating. If you queried what it would do, in advance, with necessary variables, the answer would be accurate and sure. no doubts. free-will requires a property of self that is infinite and unknowable. you can discretely know all the factors in a thermostats choice pipeline. but you cant know the depth of a soul, and so can never predict its choice. if its property of choice was any less than infinity you COULD predict it. over time you could measure, grasp, model, and simulate. free-will means to be immune to predictable causality. it violates the known universe. as for the OP, i think 2 of the questions are completely meaningless. Are you a decider kinda answers itself if a response is detected. Recursive reasoning is a property of complexity, does that mean simpletons cant have free will? i think not. only questions that are relevent imo: Q3: Can I model and simulate — at least partially — my own behaviour and that of other deciders? Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand Q3 has nothing to do with actual free will, only with ability to PROVE your structure of causality and its adherence to prediction. The ability to model your own behavior is simply known as 'rationality', definitions comes in discrete rations. modeling others is irrelevent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) to whether you personally have choice, just whether you can produce your model for testing. The entire question boils down to Q4. Finite beings, with enough tech, will answer yes to Q4, with ATMOST as much impredictability as a quantum particle. IOW having as much 'free will' as a speck. if you wanna call that free will be my guest, but thats parity with microscopic inanimate matter. thats freewill in the nonmetaphysical universe for finite beings.
Recommended Posts