bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 12:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm
"Bias" means a
prejudicial judgment, not just a judgment. And all judgments are based on some kind of evidence, motive or warrant.
Well, then we have to agree on a word that shows desire, preference, or inclination toward something. Do you have something in mind? Biased seems that does not work.
I think we'd say "motivation." That would be a good word.
Now, then, the question arises, does having a "motivation" for doing something imply that the choice is not "free"? I would say, "Not at all: there are no such things as choices that do not have some motive behind them. But so long as the motive is
your own, and not something imposed externally on you, you're as free as free can be.
Another way of thinking about it is that choices are inevitably made among
a field of attractive reasons. For example, I could go to the restaurant (because my hunger is motivating me), or I could have a nap (because I also feel a bit sleepy), or I could go for a workout (because I notice I've been getting a little fat, and I don't like that), or I could surf the internet (because I like writing, or I enjoy the endorphin jolts it gives me).
All those choices have motives. But who gets to select among them, choosing which motive to accept, which to pay attention to, which to suppress or put off for a time, and what action to take first?
I do.
I'm the chooser, and I'm free to choose among all the possible motivations I could accept.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 7:32 pm
Have you ever gambled? The outcome of gambling is not clear yet your free and can choose to play or not to play.
Oh, I disagree about that. The goal the gambler has in mind is very, very clear: to win. He may be wrong about that, but that doesn't mean he is devoid of the belief that there is a probable outcome to his choices. Quite the contrary: if he doesn't think he'll ever get the outcome he's aiming at, he'll never gamble at all.
The outcome of gambling is different from your desire to win.
Of course. But that's different from arguing the gambler has no motive. He clearly does. And even if he's wrong about getting it, he certainly finds that motive appealing. That's why gambling is addictive, as well.
In the end, you have the ability to resist the final reason for no reason otherwise you are following a reason and you are not free.
That's the part I simply think is not believable. To have a reason doesn't imply you're not free. You can have many different reasons, but there's still somebody who has to choose among them. And he's free to do so.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:16 pm
Well, everything is predetermined if we either follow our feelings or thoughts. I think it is obvious.
Then there would be no such thing at all as "morality." There would only be what was determined to be. And there would be no "choice" either, since, by definition, one cannot have a "choice" of the only road there is.
Determinism has nothing against morality.
Oh, it certainly does.
If I have no choice but to do one particular thing, it doesn't even make sense to ask, "Is that moral?" You see, I can't choose to do anything else, anyway. So morality has no ability to change outcomes at all.
Moreover, in a Determinist world, there is not even a thing called "morality," apart from the fact that it designates an odd delusion that people are, for some unknown reason, preprogrammed and predetermined to have. It's not objective. It corresponds to nothing that exists in reality, other than this common delusion.
If a person follows this code then he is behaving deterministically.
Not at all.
If I read that it says in the code, "You must not steal," I'm still perfectly free to make the decision whether to believe that code or decide to steal anyway. If I choose to steal, that's my decision; but if I choose to take the code seriously and not steal, that is also a decision I have made. I'm still free. The code didn't "make" me do anything. It didn't even "motivate" me to do it. All it did was present an option to me, which I remained free to accept or reject.
You are mixing the existence of options with free will.
Actually, you were. You were arguing as if having options would change free will to determinism. I think they're totally different issues.
Of course, options must be available otherwise no one can make a decision.
Right. And not just options, but motives as well. For one has to have reasons to choose one or another among many options. That doesn't imply the reasons "make" you choose one option or the other, as I suggested above. All it means is that you get to choose among the options, based on the motives you choose to pay attention to.
A machine can work based on reason, purpose, and judgment.
It cannot, actually. A machine only operates according to programming. It does not actually "reason," does not have any "purpose" the programmer didn't assign to it, and has no power of "judgment." What it can do is perform only those functions it's been given to perform.
What fools us is our own metaphors. We speak of "artificial intelligence," as if it were human "intelligence," and completely overlook the word "artificial," which designates "only an appearance," or "not authentic." An interesting philosophy experiment demonstrating this is the famous "Chinese Room" experiment by John Searle, which I commend to your careful attention and thought.
We're not machines. We're biological, organic, and alive. We choose. Computers only seem to "select" according to "selection criteria" among which there is no "they" to choose. There is only programming.
