(May 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If free will is such an assumption, how is "not free will" any less of an assumption? As far as I see it, we have the evidence for free will, which is that we make choices (at least we think we do), and other people can observe us making choices.
To say "there is no free will" is tantamount to saying that all information in the universe has sprung from nothing, that because our choices are not choices, everything we have ever written, invented, etc is all predetermined from the moment we are born (and retrospectively the moment life emerged). It means that William Shakespeare was "destined" to become a writer and poet, and that his choices didn't make him what he became.
The view that others here seem to be presenting is not one of "no free will", but one of "limited free will", which is one I can understand. It is a compromise between the two, saying that because we are simply "gene machines" some of our actions are based solely on instinct and internal decisions, whilst the apparent presence of consciousness and self-awareness means that some decisions are made in the conscious mind.
There is a distinction between the two, but as I've already said, I think "not free will" leads to ridiculous conclusions when you take it back in time.
Just for the record, I said that I do not believe in free will. I did not say that I believe in no free will. Similarly, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in no God. However, I think you know what I think is most probable.
It seems to me that you are equating free will with "consciousness." So does that mean that you don't think a learning chess computer AI has free will? By consciousness, are we talking "sentience" or are we talking "awake" or "not a vegetable" or whatever.
From what I've studied, I think it likely that the only significant difference between a learning chess computer AI and us is just a degree of sophistication and specialization. Does it matter whether the game is to "play chess" or to "survive and procreate?" At what point do you draw that line where the degree of sophistication becomes sufficient to warrant the designation, "free will?" Is it the point at which we stop understanding it or exercising control over it? Seems to me that you're taking something on faith.
