Free will and humans

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Beautiful.
I had that same thought,now I know it's called libertarian free will but I don't understand why you think it's false.

Say your brain has an algorithm for choosing the best amongst alternatives. And it always chooses what it thinks is best after examining the alternatives. Now suppose you are shopping for a car. You have, already in place, a set of values or things that you desire in a car. And the facts about what cars offer which things suitable to your already existing values doesn't change. So this algorithm, by combining the values with the facts can only come to one conclusion about which car is 'best'. Given that you always choose what you think is best for you (including times when you think it's best to do the wrong thing), then you can only choose that one car.

Now saying that we have the freedom to choose amongst alternatives is a way of saying that if we went back to a decision which we had made, under those same circumstances, we could have chosen to do otherwise. That in the case of our car example, even though the inputs into our brain in terms of our values and the facts about cars, the algorithm in our brain for calculating what is the best fit for us could have had a different conclusion, and thus we could have had a different choice. But what has changed to account for this possibility "to do otherwise" that would be required for free will to be real? The algorithm is deterministic, it hasn't changed. And our values and the facts about cars haven't changed. So how could we come to a different decision?

Lol.
You're using time traveling to disprove free will, you can't ' suppose we.. ' with time traveling, a concept that has never been practically implemented.
But I'll play your game anyway,

The algorithm is deterministic, it hasn't changed. And our values and the facts about cars haven't changed. So how could we come to a different decision?

You missed a serious variable in that equitation of yours - emotions of the human mind.
Because I could look at the best car there which is black in color then look at the second best there which is red in color and then choose the red car because my grandfather had a red car too, ie, I could overload the logical analysis with emotional interference and then arrive at different conclusions.

BTW, I hope, in your time travel example you aren't giving this example out under the impression that the future is set. In which case you'd be setting me up for failure. Because basically you would be saying ' only this can happen' beforehand and then asking me how anything else can happen.

In which case you would be making a baseless assertion that the future is set(not to mention time traveling is practically implemented) , then I'd want to see evidence for that claim.

[Angrboda]

Lol.
You're using time traveling to disprove free will, you can't ' suppose we.. ' with time traveling, a concept that has never been practically implemented.

No, I'm using counterfactuals a la David Lewis to illustrate a hypothetical. No time traveling involved. But even if I were suggesting time travel, that aspect of the hypothetical would be irrelevant as the actual time travel involved doesn't affect the outcome of the thought experiment.

But I'll play your game anyway,

The algorithm is deterministic, it hasn't changed.  And our values and the facts about cars haven't changed.  So how could we come to a different decision?

You missed a serious variable in that equitation of yours - emotions of the human mind.

Are our emotions determined by our experiences, or are they an unconstrained element? Unless they are not likewise constrained by the past, then they would change nothing if you were to replay your past. Your emotions would be the same as they were the first time through, and indeed on the hundred thousandth time through, as nothing in your experience has changed and so nothing in your emotions would have changed.

Because I could look at the best car there which is black in color then look at the second best there which is red in color and then choose the red car because my grandfather had a red car too, ie, I could overload the logical analysis with emotional interference and then arrive at different conclusions.

You could "overload the logical analysis" -- is that geek speak for "I could magically have different emotions each time the scenario is replayed"? Whatever, let's assume your emotions are part of the analysis; I did say 'values' did I not? How would replaying the scenario from the start result in a change in our emotional response?

BTW, I hope, in your time travel example you aren't giving this example out under the impression that the future is set. In which case you'd be setting me up for failure. Because basically you would be saying ' only this can happen' beforehand and then asking me how anything else can happen.

Determinism states that the future is a consequence of the past. You're telling me that from the same past, at the classical level, you could have a different future. That is contrary to the postulate of determinism. If you have "some way other that the world could be" then I suggest you present it. Indications are that our brains are classically described physical systems. If you have an alternative to determinism, I suggest you present it, because by no other route will you avoid the conclusion of determinism as it applies to your brain and your thinking.

In which case you would be making a baseless assertion that the future is set(not to mention time traveling is practically implemented) , then I'd want to see evidence for that claim.

That classical mechanics leads to a determined outcome is not the matter of dispute here. The question is not "are our brain processes physically determined," but rather what is the alternative? Until you can provide an answer to that question, the hypothetical remains unchallenged by anything substantial. And bleating about time travel and shifting the burden of proof will avail you not. You proposed that you have free will, now you've been given a hypothetical in which you can show this freedom of will which you claim you have. Asking me to demonstrate determinism is true is not the route to that goal.

Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is denied.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Dude your hypothetical isn't for shit. You're baselessly asserting that the future is set. Then you ask me to imagine a scenario in the past and then tell me that I'm wrong because the future is set. Essentially you begin with your conclusion.

Now in a future that is not set, of course there could arise scenarios in which I will change my mind about the car for example I will smell some piss and I'll think about all the good times I had camping so I'll get a truck,because humans aren't machines, they are emotional beings,so fuck logic. Your assumption that the scenario will always play out the same way assumes that the algorithm used to arrive at a result is static, which isn't the case with humans, the algorithm may change due to emotional or environmental factors,you would be right in the case of computers -that they have no free will, but terribly wrong in the case of humans,.?...

[The Grand Nudger]

Even if the future is -not- set, this still will not demonstrate that -you- have free will.  Does a stone have free will, regardless of whether or not the future is set?  If "fuck logic" is your starting point then what's left to say...how do you plan to show or convince anyone that you have free will, or even will? By repeated assertion? Did that work the first time?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Even if the future is -not- set, this still will not demonstrate that -you- have free will.  Does a stone have free will, regardless of whether or not the future is set?  If "fuck logic" is your starting point then what left is there to say...how do you plan to show or convince anyone that you have free will, or even will?

Your question about the ability of a rock holding free will can be answered by asking yourself the question "can rocks form an algorithm"

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't really answer my question, nor does reference to an algorithm answer my question.....and I think you might have forgotten that computers have, at their heart, silicon chips in asking this new, non-relevant question.

Again, in what way would the future being uncertain speak to your possession of a will or a free will...and how do you plan on convincing anyone of whatever position you hold on this subject?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Doesn't really answer my question, nor does reference to an algorithm answer my question.....and I think you might have forgotten that computers have, at their heart, silicon chips in asking this new, non-relevant question.

Again, in what way would the future being uncertain speak to your possession of a will or a free will...and how do you plan on convincing anyone of whatever position you hold?

The difference between humans and computers is that humans are capable of forming algorithms whereas computers aren't, that is the reason why humans form algorithms for computers.
Algorithm is a step by step process to a solution of a problem.

[Angrboda]

Doesn't really answer my question, nor does reference to an algorithm answer my question.....and I think you might have forgotten that computers have, at their heart, silicon chips in asking this new, non-relevant question.

Again, in what way would the future being uncertain speak to your possession of a will or a free will...and how do you plan on convincing anyone of whatever position you hold?

The difference between humans and computers is that humans are capable of forming algorithms whereas computers aren't, that is the reason why humans form algorithms for computers.
Algorithm is a step by step process to a solution of a problem.

Artificial intelligence is coming for everything you hold dear, and not even your beloved SAT scores are safe.

A new AI system can now tackle geometry questions on the SATs about as well as an average high school junior.

The system answered 49% of the geometry questions from the official SAT tests correctly, and was 61% accurate on practice test questions.

A new computer program does better at SAT geometry than the average high school student

There are programs that can construct formal proofs of geometric theorems. Computers can create algorithms. That you think they can't is just ignorance.

Still waiting on that demonstration of "could have done otherwise" which you've so far yet to provide.

[comet]

you are your brain. You are not free of it in anyway. But it can make some choices.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The difference between humans and computers is that humans are capable of forming algorithms whereas computers aren't, that is the reason why humans form algorithms for computers.
Algorithm is a step by step process to a solution of a problem.

Artificial intelligence is coming for everything you hold dear, and not even your beloved SAT scores are safe.

A new AI system can now tackle geometry questions on the SATs about as well as an average high school junior.

The system answered 49% of the geometry questions from the official SAT tests correctly, and was 61% accurate on practice test questions.

A new computer program does better at SAT geometry than the average high school student

There are programs that can construct formal proofs of geometric theorems. Computers can create algorithms. That you think they can't is just ignorance.

Still waiting on that demonstration of "could have done otherwise" which you've so far yet to provide.

You claim ignorance on me yet you remain ignorant of the fact that, that computer that solves these problems, solves these problems by using an algorithm -written and hard-coded by humans. It doesn't create an algorithm out of thin air.

Another example of "could have been otherwise":

I'm looking at the cars and suddenly I feel hungry, I look around and I don't see anything other than an ice-cream truck. So I get an ice-cream but then I realize I need a business, so I buy an ice cream truck instead of a car.