Using that phrase makes an inherent assumption of free will. Are calculators able to make choices about the output to a certain input? No. It seems as if we can, but we really cannot.
Not sure how much I can add to the discussion, but here is what I see it as:
Classical physics predicts determinism.
Quantum physics predicts randomness.
Determinism - choice was made at creation of universe, no wiggle room
Randomness - choice is random, not controlled by some “rationality”
Should we base our legal systems on no free will? No. We must act as though we have free will. Because saying “let’s cause chaos” is again assuming you have the free will to decide on a lawless living or a lawful one. The chaos you would have been causing is predetermined. But you don’t know which was pre-determined. So how do you choose? If you’ve been following the line of reasoning, the answer is “you don’t”. “Choice” = free will. Of course, this paradox could also be used to argue against “lawful” living too… hm…
Using that phrase makes an inherent assumption of free will.
It only means that there is pretty nice illusion of free will (being able to choose, to write or not to write, just like you did typing your post).
It’s so obvious, that no hardcore determinist can argue against it consistently, because by simple arguing he just proves the point.
Anyway, as I said, I don’t believe in “pure free will”, it’s religious idea and it is flawed. However, I use words free and will to express the ability of an individual to make choices. If you could program a very complex computer then it also would be able to make choice just like humans. Yes, I believe we are just complex natural computers that evolved naturally and weren’t programmed by some sentient being. And I am open to possibility that I am wrong. Heh
That’s why I said there are levels. Things have emergent properties.
And again, we can’t doubt something like randomness of everything. Or determinism of all things. There is nothing to compare it to. When we’re looking at randomness in quantum physics, we’re comparing it to regular physics at a higher level. So we can say that is random, and other things not. We don’t say all things are random, because of our observations of something that is random.
My model of looking at it is to have a scale, between greater and lesser will. With many things having no will. But no absolute will.
You start with randomness, then nothing, then lesser will, then medium will, then greater will.
Randomness emerges into something solid and non-random. Then these things can possibly emerge into something like life; a synchronicity rather than a cause and effect relationship. Then these can emerge into something like the mind over many years of evolution. And finally a will.
My understanding of quantum physics is such that the “randomness” it predicts is the inability to perfectly measure the outcome of a quantum-level experiment. That in no way means that things are non-deterministic at the quantum level. As Einstein famously said, God does not play dice with the universe.
“Anyway, as I said, I don’t believe in “pure free will”, it’s religious idea and it is flawed. However, I use words free and will to express the ability of an individual to make choices. If you could program a very complex computer then it also would be able to make choice just like humans. Yes, I believe we are just complex natural computers that evolved naturally and weren’t programmed by some sentient being.”
But why must it be a religious idea? If it can be approached wholly rationally, it need not be. And certainly many religions do not believe in free will.
And I also wonder why we must think of ourselves as a computer. But we don’t think of a rock as a computer.
How does a rock become a computer? What number of features is required to be a computer?
When I think about the mind, I think it is somewhat problematic to see the mind as a computer. It seems to be the same problem of putting something in a religious category. It is a limitation of our time. We see computers and religions, and so we put them in these categories.
It is also doubtful if a mind can be replicated into a computer, ala what Ray Kurzweil predicts. This requires a considerable number of feats, depending on the rigor of the definition of mind. Perhaps in another few decades people won’t talk about computers any longer. And will compare the mind to the technology in that period. But it will still beg the question of the actual mind and its nature.
Many people’s minds work like computers, if that is what we mean. They live in the past and make calculations that way, almost exclusively. While others respond in the moment. We can at least differentiate between two types of activities of the mind. A computer-like capability and one which is responsible. We can call them intellect vs. intelligence. Where computers lack intelligence. This seems to make the computer metaphor problematic.
Forgive me, John, if I only say this because I myself don’t understand your argument, but to me it seems you are glossing over the topic and making apparently interesting conclusions because you only skim the surface for a few romanticized facts.
As I said, maybe I just misunderstood your words.
While others respond in the moment
The distinction between the two people again seems romanticized (again, it might just be me). People act in a way that is very much replicable by a computer, especially if you look at the cellular/molecular level of neurons firing neurotransmitters. I am working with AI and we use such models and are successful at some expanding amount of tasks. Of course, just becuase some model is good, it doesn’t mean it’s how it actually works, but it provides some evidence.
About randomness being quantum only. Not true - there are machiens which take quantum rnadomness of radiation and provide it to us to use for different things, which shows that randomness can propagate on the macro level.