Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 15:07:21 GMT
tpfkar
Karl Aksel said: Free will, in the philosophical sense, is juxtaposed determinism. The classic argument, to which Erjen subscribes, is that "if not for free will, we would be automatons". And indeed, we are like extremely sophisticated automatons, as it is all basically input-output. And now Erjen will object, "no no no, each man is a free agent". But the freedom he believes we have, which conforms to the classic argument of free will, does not and cannot exist. Even if we allow for quantum physics, which suggests that some things may indeed be completely random, it doesn't help the free will argument. Randomness does not make our wills any more free, we are still slaves to the process rather than masters of it.
"Slaves to the process" is a metaphor, not an analogy. Not sure how you made it out to be an analogy, much less a poor one. I am also not sure how you find that this metaphor doesn't say anything. You say so, but as far as I can see, I was quite clear. Your response leaves me with very little to say, ironically because you haven't said anything. You seem to be having issues with how I have defined "free will", and I think it would be helpful if you offered up what definition you are discussing. Unless you are simply baiting me - you keep disagreeing with me without actually offering any points of disagreement.
We don't understand consciousness, what "free will" is founded upon, or even really know what it is, so reasoning (and asserting as so) all of these things because we've observed that physical reactions in the macro always go the same way for as identical states/preconditions as we can manage to set up, is quite the overreach.
Yes, I thought you meant "understatement". But consciousness does not contradict automation. It has been postulated that if we were able to create artificial intelligence of sufficient capacity, it might become conscious and self-aware.