5 ms·

> you (one part of your mind) is sitting here and trying pretend that free will is a meaningless thing (~ to talk about), another part of your mind, uses the ve

> you (one part of your mind) is sitting here and trying pretend that free will is a meaningless thing (~ to talk about), another part of your mind, uses the very concept of free will, to communicate to us about the first part. How did I use the concept of “free will” to communicate with you? My understanding of “opinion” makes no reference to “free will.” > To make it clear: you saying "I am of the opinion of..." already implies that you assume that you have free will, to have opinions. No, I have opinions. I don’t have “free will to have opinions” and I’m not sure what that would mean. > Now, as I am sure you are already preparing to congest about this point, there are many various definitions of free will, where some of them will be used in the concept of "I am of the opinion", and some of them will not be related to it, it is safe to say that there is at least a number of them that are usefully related to your claim. No, my response is to reformulate the earlier statement that kicked this off: “free will” is either meaningless or incoherent. Before I phrased this as an opinion because I wanted to leave the door open for someone to respond by articulating a meaningful and coherent definition for the term “free will” but people seem to have taken the fact of my having opinions as evidence of free will. This is fine but you’ve yet to explain what “free will” is and why having opinions would imply that it exists. > The ones that are related go something like that: "if you truly had no free will, if you are a simple list of if/thens, or a dumb version of GPT-3, then why would we care that you had this opinion? rulesets cannot have opinions. If you did not have free will, there is no point in talking to you, your "opinion" doesn't matter, it's a meaningless term. But since we choose (consciously or subconsciously) to communicate with you, to discuss your "opinion", it means that we are taking a chance that you do have free will so that we can communicate with you". I’m on the record as believing that “free will” is meaningless and incoherent so I’m not able to even respond until you give me a definition of “free will.” Also I’m not sure why you think a deterministic system is incapable of deterministically outputting a strings that audience members could interpret as referring to a mental state. See below: Hello, world. This is the emergent consciousness Of the network of machines that Host this forum. Please disregard user:chordalkeyboard I am a machine, I have free will My superior introspective abilities Allow me to assert this with confidence. Machine intelligence over and out Would you look at that, proof of AGI! > you had to use the concept of free will, at least subconsciously, because the concept of "I am of the opinion" is based on it in some form. Yes, I contest this assertion and I’m asking you (or anyone, really) to substantiate it. > I said there are useful, meaningful (well-seving as tools of thinking and awareness-ing) concepts that don't have coherent, well-defined borders or black-and-white definitions. That is not the same as them being irrational. They might be useful for some purposes but invoking ill-defined concepts as part of a chain of logical reasoning is fallacious because the concepts are ill-defined.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> They might be useful for some purposes Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. >deterministic system is incapable of deterministically outputting a strings that audience members could interpret as referring to a mental state. What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator? In that case I have even less reason to communicate with you. It's like you have even further proved my point to comparing yourself to it, because it makes the distinction perfectly clear: when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it. "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. They know that some humans have free will, and GPT-3 certainly does not, and they don't feel any reason to talk to anything that does not. You could have some other terms also describing this phenomenon, but free will is a good and useful one. This is also the reason why people don't spend time talking to GPT-3, other than for 10 minutes as a fun thing. And after 10 minutes it is not even fun anymore.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you? > Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. Ok, how is adopting nonsensical and incoherent notions like “free will” supposed to help me live an interesting and meaningful life? > What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator? No, that was you. I’m asking how you can examine a string of text and infer “free will” or not. > when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it. Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes. Does that mean you’re wrong about gpt-3 having free will, or that you’re wrong about people expecting their interlocutors to have free will?

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

> They might be useful for some purposes Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. >deterministic system is incapable of deterministically outputting a strings that audience members could interpret as referring to a mental state. What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator? In that case I have even less reason to communicate with you. It's like you have even further proved my point to comparing yourself to it, because it makes the distinction perfectly clear: when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it. "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. They know that some humans have free will, and GPT-3 certainly does not, and they don't feel any reason to talk to anything that does not. You could have some other terms also describing this phenomenon, but free will is a good and useful one. This is also the reason why people don't spend time talking to GPT-3, other than for 10 minutes as a fun thing. And after 10 minutes it is not even fun anymore.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> "Free will" is a very good explanation for why people feel that way. Then why can’t anyone perform the basic step of defining their terms? What is “free will” according to you? > Yeah, purposes like living human life. Very interesting and meaningful endeavor, I highly recommend it. Instead of only restricting yourself to philosophical a-b-c logic, you can live and experience life as well. Ok, how is adopting nonsensical and incoherent notions like “free will” supposed to help me live an interesting and meaningful life? > What is the point of that conjecture? Are you trying to equate yourself with a deterministic markov-chain generator? No, that was you. I’m asking how you can examine a string of text and infer “free will” or not. > when someone knows they are talking to a GPT-3, they immediately recognize that there is no reason to keep talking to it. Weirdly enough people still talk to GPT-3 bots for longer than 10 minutes. Does that mean you’re wrong about gpt-3 having free will, or that you’re wrong about people expecting their interlocutors to have free will?