Daniel Dennett - Freedom Evolves - a Dangerous Idea Part 5

Freedom Evolves - a dangerous idea. Indiana University 07.03.2006

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Daniel
• Dennett
• Atheism
• Philosophy
• Morality
• Freewill

[mowgli123456789]

yes, thank you. exactly my point.

yes, we avoid harm and go after the good. so?

the fact that we act like this now is determined, which of 2 different 'harms' we avoid is determined. which 'good' we go after is determined. its just more complex now.

if you ask me compatibilists need to find a different word then 'free will' because in most people already have a definition for the word 'free' in their minds and it doesnt line up with it being constrained by anything.

[39knights]

@mowgli123456789 I don't either. It's as if he is using the argument of complexity to say when the software program gets complex enough we can switch magically from causal to free will. You can make 'Deep Blue' or the Cray computer a million times bigger and faster; but at it's heart it is totally predictable (even if you try to program in unpredictability). So I still think his idea of free will has not escaped classical determinism. It just says accept it.

[82abhilash]

In the case of the robot, the initial choice to punch back or not is not free will. It is not a case of the decision not being constrained. It is not making a decision at all. The decision was made by the programmer. Free-will in decision making does not mean making decisions free-from constraints. It means making our own decisions rather than having someone else decide for us.

[82abhilash]

..semblance of free will. Free will requires an entity to be able to move to a more preferable state from the currently less preferable state that it is in. The chess program has this sense of preference. It recognizes the state it is in as a game not won and tries to move the game to a more preferred situation, either a win or at least a draw. A program for free will is a program biased for preference.

[82abhilash]

I do not understand this question. There are tow programs running on the robot at the same time? I do not think that is what you are referring to. You are talking about a simple program, in which the robot punched back every 10th person. That is definitely not free will. Assuming that punching is all that the robot could do, the robot must have a preferable state it aspires to reach by punching (win a boxing match?) and its decision to punch or not, must be driven by this. Now it has some..

[mowgli123456789]

if the initial choice is to punch back or not. surely its only a free choice if the decision isnt constrained by anything.

as people we can make decisions but there always constrained by something else.

everything in my life up till this morning would inform my decision to skip breakfast today rather be late for work!

i cant see how that decision to skip breakfast was 'freely' made by me?

[mowgli123456789]

say i punch a robot. the robot is programed to punch back. the robot here is not showing free will.

now say the robot is programmed to punch back or not, and the choice is left up to the robot, whatever he decides to do he has used free will.

but now...

what if the robot had another program built in that he would not punch the first 9 people to punch him but every 10th person to punch him he must punch back. could you say he has a free choice? .......

[82abhilash]

You don't? Is it not obvious? Having your choices determined for you like being a robot that is pre-programmed to do certain actions. It looks intelligent, but that is an illusion, the real intelligence is elsewhere. The example Dennet uses is the digger wasp.

Having your own choices determined by you, is like being programmed to be thoughtful and reflective, thus the capacity for choice. That is we.

[mowgli123456789]

i dont really see the difference, and thats the problem.

[82abhilash]

In a deterministic world, our free choices are determined by us not determined for us.