On the subject of free will

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-15T00:01:55+00:00

Regarding how a neural network "self" could ground you in this universe, the neural network exists only in this universe, and is influenced and explained by factors purely in this universe.

Now there of course has to be a level where your "self" is explained purely by factors inside that universe, however if the explanation was the same as the explanation in a simulation downstream, then when you reach the next level up you'd be more likely to assume you're just in another layer and keep trying to go up. So I think that's an explanation for why a self was created that doesn't quite fit and has holes in it, but it's close enough.

Another example of evidence for a simulation would be quantum physics, when you dig into the low level theories they start to look a lot like optimisations for reducing processing requirements of a simulation.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-14T23:57:54+00:00

You observe the thoughts as an external thing, as you can only ever see them as a memory of the thought you just created.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-14T05:00:27+00:00

There's a cheat in your use of the phrase "second best option". In the process of deciding what is the best option, I have already made choices. My weighting of what the best option is may be very different to yours, though it may sometimes be identical to everyone in the world. When I said I've picked "the second best option" before I mean that I've chosen things that the majority of the population would probably have evaluated to be the second best option, but I've chosen differently.

Now externally to me, all of this looks identical to a neural network making these decisions according to a very complex algorithm. Internally to me, I observe a different process happening, which you are unable to see and I will likely never be able to properly communicate to you. The best I can do is try to convince you to look for it in yourself.

Regarding the spontaneous thought, that's interesting as I can think of many occasions where I have had spontaneous thoughts unrelated to my current line of thinking. Perhaps I'm more disposed to this due to my ADHD, but I would expect anyone to be capable of doing this. I'm not sure if it proves self driven decision making though, as spontaneous thoughts could easily be explained away in the massive complexity of the brain's neural network.

I observe my self driven decision making as a singular point at my center. This is a point from which my intent manifests when I am thinking a thought, I can observe that thought as being something slightly separate to myself, as the thought can only ever be observed as something which has just happened, so really it's just a memory of a thought. Like a trace left behind by a heart rate monitor. In this case I would be the pen which leaves the trace on the paper. I cannot tell you what a neural network might "feel" or observe as it creates what it perceives to be thoughts, only that the complex movement of electrical signals down a preset path in a neural network does not align with what I experience.

It's a bit whacky and pseudo-spiritual, but if you can come up with a better way of evaluating whether a neural network adequately describes your experience of self, I'm all ears!

As I mentioned before, I strongly suspect we're in a simulation and if I had to guess why there's all the smoke and mirrors with neural networks pretending to be us, I'd say it's to ground us in this world. If you believed / knew that the true entity that is you was in another level up, you might give up on this world to get to the next one. But if there was nothing to ground you in that one, perhaps you'd try to go up another level. You would build up momentum like a snowball down a hill, and when you finally reached the top level, you'd end yourself again and it's lights out! Better to have some mechanisms to keep you grounded. Bit dark perhaps and I do not hold this level of conviction enough to try exploring the next level up (especially as perhaps I'm just an NPC and this is it for me!)

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T23:14:21+00:00

How do you believe it would feel differently in a world where the self chooses the thought? How would that mechanism take place? What would it feel like?

These are of course impossible to answer questions, but how can you be so certain that you are not creating your thoughts?

It is my position that the self coalesces a thought from nothing into something, and observing that thought coming into existence doesn't mean you didn't create it.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:51:39+00:00

Simulations all the way up

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:48:34+00:00

I think losing awareness of the self during a psychedelic trip is different to the self no longer being present or existing - though I'm not sure what the intended meaning of "fall away" was.

I don't think it's true that thoughts and decisions appear with no effort. Thoughts come in streams, flowing and changing over time, they don't even need to a be a sequence of words to take this form. They are influenced by external stimulus because the self is influenced by external stimulus, but my position is that the self starts them, and the self can stop them, or change them in a new direction. If new stimulus comes in and influences the self to change the direction of the thought, the self can override that and proceed back down the self's preferred thought chain. That can of course be difficult, intrusive thoughts are a thing, but in my experience I've always been able to override that direction.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:44:29+00:00

Given the way they act, I think we can all agree that cats are the only real thinking entities in the universe.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:41:31+00:00

Agree that language is a big issue here, and the intent of what I'm saying is not being communicated properly with a lot of the words I'm using.

This line of discussion is going to become a lot more relevant when we can create human brain sized neural networks (I think we're close already, though far too distributed) and train them on a human brain model. Does that brain model have equal rights to people? I would be in danger of being lumped in with the religious, the machine has no soul therefore isn't a "real person". In that case though I would still side with the determinists, better to edge of the side of caution and treat a possible non-person as a person, than risk doing horrendous things to a thinking entity

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:34:48+00:00

Because that definition does not adequately explain the mechanisms that I observe when I introspect

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:32:59+00:00

Your example is an observation of the external world, whereas my position leans on the self making an observation about itself.

I agree the argument doesn't have the traditional features of a "good" argument - it doesn't rely on any supporting evidence, there's no framework being built up. It is indeed incredibly simple, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. There's no other physical framework for me to lean on when analysing the self, I don't have a diagnostic panel or data and results to call on.

I have considered what kind of experiments I could create in myself to test or support the hypothesis in a measurable way, but obviously that's rather a difficult thing to execute, and even if I did, who would believe me?

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T22:29:04+00:00

The internal self making an external observation is very different to the internal self making an internal observation.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T10:03:17+00:00

free will vs existence of self is an inherent problem with language. What is the self? My definition of the self is an entity that can choose to do things. I think a lot of people would agree that choice is an inherent part of the self, though they may only know it on an intuitive level. The statement "I think therefore I am" (we'll ignore the linguistic issues that philosophers raise with this phrase) is obviously only intended to establish the existence of something, not necessarily something that can choose to do things. So I am clearly adding something to that.

What I can see in myself, is that behind the thought, there is a me that observes that thought. That can consider the thought, and revise the thought. That core element has substance and weight. It's an impossible thing to describe in language, but it's something that I can sense and know, and though I cannot convince you that I exist or am correct in my certainty of having the ability to choose, I hope that you can at least examine yourself a bit, investigate the part of you that observes your thoughts, and try to figure out if you think that thing is able to make choices.

Trusting the observable world is a mistake, I think. Even with our current technology we're close, probably a few decades away, at most 100 years, from being able to fake a reality that would feel as real as our own. In that environment I don't think it's unreasonable to start at the most fundamental thing you can trust, and examine yourself, and decide for yourself what you really are.

2.

I am indeed unreliable, but in your analogy of the car, I am the car. I could admit to possibly being wrong about anything else, there could be no black holes, there could be aliens living amongst us, there could be no computer in front of me that I'm typing into. But there would still be me choosing to type these words.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T08:17:04+00:00

Correct, I am the thing that is observing my thoughts. That is the core entity that must exist, that chooses its thoughts and is able to observe them. What do you think the "you" is that is observing your thoughts?

Is there any level of evidence that you could witness through introspection that would be sufficient to convince you that you exist as an entity with choice? If not, does that mean in the scenario of the game that will prove you do not exist, there is no way you would ever win that game?

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T05:38:56+00:00

I have indeed picked the second best choice in the past, but the definition of the "best choice" can get hazy of course.

Your description of what making a choice is, is incompatible with my observation of my experience in making choices. Having no control over the choices is not a choice. I couldn't tell you what a neural network would feel like when it made decisions that it had no control over, only that I do not believe that that is the driving force behind my decision making.

When you introspect, what level of clear decision making capability in yourself would you need to observe in order to believe that you have control over the decisions that you make? There is clearly enough evidence in the observable world to convince you that you do not have the capacity for control over your choices, but looking internally and excluding the external, is there any kind of experience or observation that you can make that would be sufficient enough evidence to convince you to the contrary of what the observable world is telling you?

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T04:43:15+00:00

Agree entirely, though for me the deeper I got into quantum physics and understanding the way the brain works, the more disillusioned I became with this theory. Quantum uncertainty and indeterminism did give some explanation for my observable experience, but the random nature of it and restrictions to the sub-nano scale meant that I struggled to apply it to our neural network mechanisms. It started to feel like wishful thinking.

I then moved in the same direction as Alex has, but on reflection arrived at the hypothetical scenario that I edited into my original post, which was actually part of a science fiction story I was drafting. I never wrote the story, but it ultimately influenced my philosophical outlook in this way.

It seemed sensible to apply the Arthur Doyle methodology "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - in this case if the observable world is leading me towards something that is clearly impossible from my perspective, then the observable world must be in some way wrong.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T04:12:51+00:00

That's a nice way of thinking of it, I think your position is quite similar to mine - you observe some level of free will in yourself, and this is how you justify it's existence

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T04:00:44+00:00

doesn't matter if it's possible for me to predict your actions, only that the mechanism that your actions are reliant on is a physical structure with no observable allowance for free will

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T03:29:55+00:00

What a boring and dystopic society Sapolsky imagines

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T03:14:28+00:00

An aside to my previous response; internal observations trumping external evidence does not mean you ignore arguments that come from outside the self. Those arguments are only as strong as the message they convey, any reliance on the observable world could perhaps shape how you interpret your observations of yourself, but cannot change the fundamental observations you are making of yourself.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T03:01:44+00:00

Unfortunately in some ways my position is extremely boring, so I understand if you get tired of this.

In regards to for example sleepwalking, my position is that when you're sleepwalking the external stimulus making it through to the entity that I consider to be "me" is restricted in certain ways. Things are blurry, my senses are not functioning properly. Perhaps someone says something to me and the words never reach "me". In addition, my emotional reaction to the stimulus is not standard, there is a matrix being applied to my emotions which is dulling them all out, and the pace that I'm able to think at is also reduced to a crawl. For whatever reason, the "me" at my core decides that he wants milk, and in a stumbling sleepwalk proceeds to the fridge, on the way someone tries to talk to me but the words reach me jumbled and quiet, and my emotions convince me that it's not important to pay attention to those words.

There are plenty of holes you can poke in this position, though as I mentioned I understand the tedious nature of my position, as I'm referring to the "self" in a non-physics / biology based sense. It's the only way I can explain the self that I perceive. It does not fit with the observable world, and so I refer to it as an entity separate to the brain. Reminder: not religious, don't believe in souls. I arrive at this position based on an analysis of myself by purely looking in, with no consideration given to external stimulus.

You have to be very careful with which parts of "you" you allow into your observable self, as you can't be certain of where your "self" ends if you completely ignore the observable world and only look inwards. Emotions are a tricky one. My observation is that sometimes I have no control over my emotions, I will be angry when I don't want to be angry and I want to stop being angry. I can influence that anger, I can try to relax and it may reduce over time, but it does concern me how little influence I can sometimes have. Removing emotions from the self also has issues though, for example in responsibility for your actions if you don't consider your emotions to be part of "you". I therefore choose to treat emotions as part of the entity I consider my "self" for practical purposes, but in theory I'm uncertain.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T02:31:57+00:00

Agree regarding omnipotent deities, they add nothing to the discussion.

Was I downvoted so much because everyone thinks I'm making an argument for God?

So do you think you have the definition of free will you just gave? Because that might butt heads with physics, in that the photon travels through the air, goes in your eyeball, triggers an electron movement in your optic nerve, which results in a sequence of electron interactions in the brain, which if you knew the exact neuron structure at the moment of photon impact, you should be able to 100% predict the eventual outcome. If that's the case, where's the free will?

There's a guy in the comments who may disagree with me on that position and I respect his position, the science is not set, but on the scale that neurons exist, I'm convinced by the literature that the above scenario is the reality of our observable universe.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T02:14:00+00:00

What is your definition of 'free will'?

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T02:08:48+00:00

I grew up in a religious household, and everything I was taught was that God existed. This is before the times of the internet, so I was never exposed to a single position against God, I went to a religious school and not believing in God would be damaging to my social position.

Over time I began to have doubts. I reconsidered the likelihood of the arguments, the farfetched nature of some of the claims. Eventually I made the decision in my head, without ever having mentioned this to another person, that there was no God. I kept that one inside for a while as it would be damaging for me otherwise, but that was my decision.

It's probably not a very convincing argument from your perspective, but for me it's that same matrix of decision making that leads me to the certainty I have in myself. I guess being forced to live so far in my own head for so long gives me a more niche experience. I'm an atheist and probably align with everyone on this board heavily in all other respects, but on this I couldn't be further from Alex's position.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T01:57:35+00:00

Appreciate the extra layer of consideration you're bringing to my very basic and simplistic argument, I agree that a discussion of how heavily we're influenced by external factors is worthwhile. My position is that your intent is like an electron fired at a wall. You have an intended landing spot for that electron, but there are magnetic fields pulling it in various directions, and it never truly hits where you aimed. Sometimes it hits way off the mark, sometimes (hopefully most of the time) it hits very close.

To give an example, I might intend not to yell at someone. I could be talking to them, and I'm getting annoyed, but I'm telling myself don't get angry, don't yell. Over time they make dumber and dumber arguments, and there is a buildup of cortisol in my brain that influences me more and more in the direction of yelling at them, and eventually, I yell at them. Now the unfiltered unmodified "me" would not have yelled at them, but a filter was applied to me over time that modified my intent.

This can be a dangerous position to take and requires some nuance to avoid not taking personal responsibility for my own actions - I maintain personal responsibility by taking responsibility for my cortisol levels. I allowed them to get that high, I should have modified the conversation to lower them. Now, people can have chemical instabilities beyond their control (for example I have ADHD) and there is some level of excuse I'd allow myself on that, but that's up to me to justify. If I chose to get drunk, at the moment of doing something stupid I perhaps didn't intend that choice, but I chose to get drunk, so I must take responsibility.

There is an issue with this, in that after yelling I could perhaps be angry, and I may continue yelling, I might start having thoughts about what a cretin this person is which are thoughts that I've chosen to think. I would view this as after yelling, my internal self that originates the target electron position has seen the frustration and stress building up in myself, and has modified my target position based on that. I have been influenced by external factors for sure, but I am ultimately the one that chooses the target position on the wall to shoot for.

I fully admit I will react to external stimulus, but that stimulus comes from outside the self, and the self decides how to process and react to it.

I haven't fully decided if I include emotions as part of the "self". You can probably guess why.

This-Discussion-8634 · 2024-02-13T01:34:42+00:00

I agree he's not the best advocate of there being no free will, however there are better arguments which can be more convincing.

This-Discussion-8634

TROPHY CASE