Can a Computer Truly Exhibit Free Will?

[RVBuckeye]

Are you saying that the randomness is lost because the geiger counter has a high failure rate or that failure is due to radioactive decay of the "seed" number or "timed event"? If it's the latter, couldn't you get around this by having each instance a choice is made, the geiger counter gets its' information from a different source? That seems plausible to me since humans are mobile.

To some up my rationalle thus far...The world shows both deteministic and indeterministic properties as we see things now. (maybe it seems indeterministic because we don't have theory of everything, but when we do we might see everything as deterministic). Now, assuming that our brains might have some way of detecting random (or seemingly random due to lack of TOE) quantum events. Could we, by our mobility, have another feature which draws our "seed" number from a different quantum source each time a "free-wil" decision is made? (to maintan randomness). Or is this second feature not necessay because it still wouldn't make it truley random or indeterministic? (due to the probablility that we would also be able to predict what the source is as well)

OK, one more question. What feature would our brains have to posess to create a truly random, indeterministic choice?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Are you saying that the randomness is lost because the geiger counter has a high failure rate or that failure is due to radioactive decay of the "seed" number or "timed event"? If it's the latter, couldn't you get around this by having each instance a choice is made, the geiger counter gets its' information from a different source? That seems plausible to me since humans are mobile.

To some up my rationalle thus far...The world shows both deteministic and indeterministic properties as we see things now. (maybe it seems indeterministic because we don't have theory of everything, but when we do we might see everything as deterministic). Now, assuming that our brains might have some way of detecting random (or seemingly random due to lack of TOE) quantum events. Could we, by our mobility, have another feature which draws our "seed" number from a different quantum source each time a "free-wil" decision is made? (to maintan randomness). Or is this second feature not necessay because it still wouldn't make it truley random or indeterministic? (due to the probablility that we would also be able to predict what the source is as well)

OK, one more question. What feature would our brains have to posess to create a truly random, indeterministic choice?

'Ramdomly' (mispel left for effect) swinging our hammer is not an effectively efficient means for striking the nail on the head; we need to take aim to develop this skill.

‘Randomness’ like ‘god’ is a term we use to describe events for which we have not yet determined all of the cause and effect relationships leading to it; in short it does not exist in reality.

What really matters is not where or who we come from or that as humans we have a great potential for affecting change. It is what we do which is determined by the choices we make which are in turn determined by what we believe. We may never be able to ground all that we believe in reality but our success in basing our knowledge on what is real is how we diminish the ‘random’ events which determine our individual outcomes.

To answer your question, ignorance.

 

[RVBuckeye]

To answer your question, ignorance.

We got plenty of that.

Let me state first that my interest in the subject is in no way to foster a belief in a god. I'm perfectly happy with the universes deterministic nature validating the opposite. (and it is doing a good job). I still entertain the notion that there might still be an indetrministic (randomness) nature allowed, to a dramatically lesser extent, without causing the universe to become chaotic. How it came about could be from deterministic means via some type of evolution. ( I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to prove it. That's why I post questions.) But that could happen without a god's intervention, imo. I guess I have a hard time accepting as a fact that everything is deterministic, because I don't want to believe what that means if it is true. (in regards to my ego).

I guess ignorance is bliss.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

We got plenty of that.

Let me state first that my interest in the subject is in no way to foster a belief in a god. I'm perfectly happy with the universes deterministic nature validating the opposite. (and it is doing a good job). I still entertain the notion that there might still be an indetrministic (randomness) nature allowed, to a dramatically lesser extent, without causing the universe to become chaotic. How it came about could be from deterministic means via some type of evolution. ( I don't know, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to prove it. That's why I post questions.) But that could happen without a god's intervention, imo. I guess I have a hard time accepting as a fact that everything is deterministic, because I don't want to believe what that means if it is true. (in regards to my ego).

I guess ignorance is bliss.

I bet you've heard this one too:
Love is blind but marriage is a real eye opener.

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, or wallowed in. It is what we as humans have to put up with until we learn otherwise. We should take pride in what we do know and enjoy learning more because it is something we can certainly say is ours and we have earned it, no less thanks to those before us who have paved the way.

 

[RVBuckeye]

serendipity

We should take pride in what we do know and enjoy learning more because it is something we can certainly say is ours and we have earned it, no less thanks to those before us who have paved the way.

But have "we" earned it? Being that you and I are just mental constructs of our brain having no control over our actions. (as I would see as true in a 100% deterministic universe). Wouldn't things have happened exactly as they have happened since the beginning of time, if the tape was re-played from the beginning? That means you and I would have happened, reguardless of your or my "ego self" being involved. Which also means that the future is already pre-determined as-well.

So I guess I still maintain "hope" that there can arise a being with true free-will from a deterministic universe. That being doesn't neccessarily, automatically assume there is a "universal God". I'd be much happier if you and I were each thought of as "God's of our bodies" (so to speak). At least, for once, it would make people realize that they have control and are ultimately responsible for their own actions. It might be the thing that connects us all in the quest to affect change on the world for the better.

I have "no hope" that a better world would arise in a 100% deterministic universe. Humanity is capable of great things, no doubt, but I see the balance shifting to ultimate destruction. If humanity was destined to tip the balance and survive on, what would it really matter in the eventual outcome of the physical universe? Human kind and our consciousness are as insignificant as two asteroids bumping into each other in a distant galaxie. Just a blip in the evolution of the universe. Even if your "hope" is that humanity will turn it around and is destined for greater things...arent we hoping for the same thing? What's the use of hope in a deterministic universe?

Disclaimer: These are only my thoughts at the time I typed them, and are subject to change based on additional knowledge.

 

[Tournesol]

Even the hardware random number generator isn't, well, random. It's just improbable based on what we can measure (or want to measure), and possibly improbable beyond our realm of understanding. The former is more practical to most because the latter suggests that we have a warped understanding of what is real and what isn't.

The hadware RNG is really, really random according to current physics and is sold as such.
Current physics might be wrong about that, but your opiniing that everything is
really detemined does not establish that as fact.

 

[kungfool]

computers

In regard to the original question, and the context with which it was presented, I think that the insights of folks such as Chrilly Donninger, who wrote Hydra, Vincent Diepeveen, the author of Diep, Meyer-Kahlen, the inventor of Shredder, as well as many others who write chess playing programs prove themselves most fascinating and relevant.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

But have "we" earned it? Being that you and I are just mental constructs of our brain having no control over our actions. (as I would see as true in a 100% deterministic universe). Wouldn't things have happened exactly as they have happened since the beginning of time, if the tape was re-played from the beginning? That means you and I would have happened, reguardless of your or my "ego self" being involved. Which also means that the future is already pre-determined as-well.

So I guess I still maintain "hope" that there can arise a being with true free-will from a deterministic universe. That being doesn't neccessarily, automatically assume there is a "universal God". I'd be much happier if you and I were each thought of as "God's of our bodies" (so to speak). At least, for once, it would make people realize that they have control and are ultimately responsible for their own actions. It might be the thing that connects us all in the quest to affect change on the world for the better.

I have "no hope" that a better world would arise in a 100% deterministic universe. Humanity is capable of great things, no doubt, but I see the balance shifting to ultimate destruction. If humanity was destined to tip the balance and survive on, what would it really matter in the eventual outcome of the physical universe? Human kind and our consciousness are as insignificant as two asteroids bumping into each other in a distant galaxie. Just a blip in the evolution of the universe. Even if your "hope" is that humanity will turn it around and is destined for greater things...arent we hoping for the same thing? What's the use of hope in a deterministic universe?

Disclaimer: These are only my thoughts at the time I typed them, and are subject to change based on additional knowledge.

I do not see how or why the universe would, should, could, be determined to be, do anything. The ascription of determination to the universe is due to the fallacy of attributing distinctly human attributes to other entities with no capacity for thought and choice from which freewill arises.

 

[Serpo]

Define "free will", and define a "computer".. if free will is what I think it is that you are pertaining to... then no... because it would no longer be a computer once it attained free will... unless you classify the human species as a computer? If you say a human has free will... but say it is not a compuer... then no... anything with "free will" is no longer a computer. So computers are restricted to not having free will. Free will "species" are restricted to having free will.

Or, if you say a human CAN be classified as a computer... then there is your answer right there.

Answer those questions, and you will have the truth you seek. It's not about winning the discussion... it's about finding a truth in the questions posed :)

Basically you have to make up your mind... can one be the other without having free will? On a topic so vague, and lacking definite definitions... can we really come an absolute conclusion?

 

[clouded.perception]

I don't understand how having an element of 'randomness' give us MORE free will. Wouldn't this put us at the mercy of chance, as opposed to decisions reasoned out to the best of our ability?
I'll stick to the product-of-the-laws-of-the-universe opinion.

 

[sid1138]

Free Will, Computers, Etc.

The original question is an interesting one, and goes to determinism. The computer algorithm used to write the game is completely deterministic. While it may take some analysis to determine the current and future states, that analysis is, at least, possible. The random number generator that gives some appearance of “free will” is in fact totally deterministic and not random at all.

Therefore, the computer can be fully predictable, and would not pass the “free will” test.

Note that I am not saying that any given user sitting at a given program – or any programmer for that matter – could actually predict everything the program would do. If that was possible, we would never have bugs in the programs, and we all know that bugs happen. What I am saying is that the program is fully deterministic, and therefore could be fully analyzed and all actions could be predicted. While it would be possible to add truly random input to the program (for example rolling dice and entering the results, or taking samples of thermal noise), the program is still deterministic. Every possible inputs would generate deterministic results.

Other systems are not so deterministic. For example, the decay of radioactive material is probabilistic, not deterministic. It has a truly random component. Also, brains and nervous response to external stimuli function in many ways similar to how computers function; they are not, in fact, deterministic. That is because it is impossible to determine the current state of the biological “computer”. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (in which it was determined that it was impossible to know an electron’s position and speed exactly) states that there would always be aspects of elementary particles that would be indeterminant.

How does that apply to the brain and free will? There are random events that happen at the quantum level that affect the way the brain behaves. Neurons may or may not fire due to random fluctuations in ionic buildup. This results in a degree of unpredictability in the stimulus/reaction cycle. These values can cascade quickly, resulting in entirely unpredictable outcomes to a given stimulus.

One of the side affects can be seen all the time – creativity. Every invention, every poem, every musical score is the result of unpredictable responses to environmental stimuli. Therefore, I would argue that since there is no way to predict the current and future state of the brain, there is no way to fully predict reactions to events. Therefore, the person is not only free (of prediction) to choose between several choices or create new choices on their own. However, there is a probabilistic level to the outcome of that choice. It is possible to predict with a degree of probability to a set of outcomes, but that probability can never hit 100% - only come close to it – maybe.

 

[whatta]

I can only imagine being able to narrow down the possible set of choices to either A or B. But I don't see how it would be possible to predict which of the 2 will be chosen.

If I stand next to you with the sign saying "do A and I will blow your brains out", is it really hard to predict your choise? Many real-life situations are just as extreme. Would you tell your boss to gtfo when he's yelling on ya? Would you steal something not worth a dollar in a shop full of security cams? Would you cross high traffic road on red light? etc, etc.

 

[sid1138]

If I stand next to you with the sign saying "do A and I will blow your brains out", is it really hard to predict your choise? Many real-life situations are just as extreme. Would you tell your boss to gtfo when he's yelling on ya? Would you steal something not worth a dollar in a shop full of security cams? Would you cross high traffic road on red light? etc, etc.

So, while you could predict human outcomes with a high-degree of probability, that is not the same as being able to deterministically know the outcome. While the threat of blowing some brains across the room is real, maybe the person you are threatening is feeling suicidal and would love you to pull the trigger.

And that is the thing - you do not know, nor can you know for sure what will happen with a person given certain stimuli. You can only predict with a degree of probability. For example, you may be able to predict that since I have a gun in my hand, 99.95% of the time the person would not do A. But that is not the same as being 100% sure of the choice.

At any time, given a choice between X and X, it is possible to fully determine what a program will do - no free will. On the other hand, not only is it not possible to fully determine whether a person would pick X or X, but a person may come up with an entirely new choice Z and pick that.

Free will.

- Sid

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

The Human brain can never choose to follow a decision it believes in inferior or incorrect or wrong etc.

Assuming free will in humans even exists :-/.

 

[whatta]

While the threat of blowing some brains across the room is real, maybe the person you are threatening is feeling suicidal and would love you to pull the trigger.

What you are really saying here is that there are unaccounted factors in decision making.

 

[HeavenTornApart]

i would say that no a computer does not have free will, as its actions are confined to the parameters of its programming. the programming may allow the computer to make its own apperently free/random choices, but the computer will be following a logic set when it makes those choices a computer as far as i am aware does not do anything randomly and therefore has no freewill, humans on the other hand are not computers we do things randomly, unpredictable sometimes stupid and impractical things, a lot of the time what we do can be fairly accuratly guessed at but never can a human beings actions be 100% predicted therefore we have freewill

 

[whatta]

...but never can <some subject> actions be 100% predicted therefore <those subjects> have freewill

I just don't follow...

 

[HeavenTornApart]

its easy to follow, becuase a human beings actions can never be predicited 100% accuratley, that means that our actions are not pre-set and therefore we have a small degree o free-will, obviously we follow some basic behavourial patterns such as self prservation but we can over-ride these behavourial patterns if we wish therefore we have freewill

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So because I can't predict the motion of a particle with EXACT and PERFECT accuracy it has free-will?

 

[whatta]

its easy to follow, becuase a human beings actions can never be predicited 100% accuratley, that means that our actions are not pre-set...

I could agree that freewill -> unpredictability, but unpredictability -> freewill is a stretch. "Because a human beings actions can never be predicited 100% accuratley" only means our predictor lacks something.

 

[HeavenTornApart]

no it means we havnt perfected our understanding of particle motion yet, particles move according to a predetermined set of rules, we just haven't worked out the rules yet therefore we can't predict the movements.
humans however can not only the rules that determine their actions, we can also over-rule them therefore we have free will. i would also bring into the equation that freewill means that a choice between different actions is made, i didnt know particles could make choices?

 

[whatta]

no it means we havnt perfected our understanding of particle motion yet, particles move according to a predetermined set of rules, we just haven't worked out the rules yet therefore we can't predict the movements.

Why the same can't be said about consciousness? It seems this is simply your dogma.

 

[HeavenTornApart]

unpredicability = freewill in humans, in the sense that our unprictability comes from our ability to over-rule the common factors that normally shape what choices we make, such as logic, self preservation, selfishness or altuism.

we don't have to follow any set rules about what action we take.

even though we all know its wrong and a stupid thing to do, any of us could simple pick up a knife and go on a slashing spree, it doesn't do us any good or anyone else any good and its unpredictable, but we could still choose to do it if we wanted, therefore we have freewill because we can make these choices for ourself

 

[whatta]

so you base your proof on your gut feeling that your personal choises are not bound to any rules?

 

[HeavenTornApart]

yup essentially that would be the case, we can choose to do whatever we want. most of us choose to live our lives following certain rules such as logic self preservation and morals, some people choose not to follow those rulres.

 

[whatta]

why do you reject the possibility that the rules exists that govern your choises but you are simply unaware of them?

 

[neurocomp2003]

what is everyone's definition of a computer?

 

[HeavenTornApart]

i accept that there are rules which govern how we make our choices, I've listed a veiw of them in my replys, however i think that the evidence shows we are capable of over-riding these rules, therefore giving us freewill.

why do you reject the possibility that the rules can be broken?

 

[HeavenTornApart]

a computer is a piece of technology designed by, programmed by, and used by a sentient species.

 

[whatta]

i think that the evidence shows we are capable of over-riding these rules

what I mean is other sort of rules that govern your act of "breaking the rules".

why do you reject the possibility that the rules can be broken?

mainly because this leads to idealism.