3 ms·

> I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free will. You assert otherwise? Why? Why don't you? If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, th

> I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free will. You assert otherwise? Why? Why don't you? If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, than a virus can have free will. bovines don't lack self narrative, they lack the ability to create complex communication systems. > Watch them demonstrate a learned skill and how do you know it's not merely imitation? btw, insects can learn too > The experiment which showed a human brain reaches a decision before conscious awareness of that decision? the experiment that showed a lag between cerebral activity and actual action that was labeled as "brain takes a decision before we do" even though Libet never said it, but has been disproved 40 years later (the effect exists, but it doesn't show lack of free will at all) > we agree humans and non human animals pass and fail the same tests? not until their mentoring will include notions of ancient past civilazations that are long dead but transmitted their knowledge also, not until they will be able to reconstruct their past history and of the entire universe by observing and studying remains, without any prior knowledge of what they are see, if you look from afar a soapbox car and a real car look very similar but if you look them closer, they are nothing alike > You can do that with any positive-negative reinforcement mechanism, doesn’t need morality etc. where's the freedom if the reactions have been engineered through training?

ben_w 6y ago
None of this is refuting to my core claim, that the concept of free will is always either (1) too poorly defined to be arguable, or (2) that humans are indistinguishable from other animals. You are alternating between both of these problems, sometimes with references to higher cognitive function (itself poorly defined) other times by suggesting things where human and non human animals are passing and failing the same tests. In particular: > Why don't you? Language seems neither necessary nor sufficient. If it was sufficient, computers would have it. If it was necessary, it would be denied to anyone who grew up alone in the wild, which happens occasionally. For extra weirdness, given that language is notoriously difficult to pick up as an adult (both for such Wildermensch and for everyone else) if language learning structures was the test of free will, adults would necessarily have less free will than children. > If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, than a virus can have free will. There are many layers of cognition between these two things. Cognition is not Boolean. > and how do you know it's not merely imitation? btw, insects can learn too This demonstrates my point. All learned behaviour does. In fact, I would go further and say that the ability to copy another entity implies a mind has a model of itself as a separate entity within the world, and of the same category of entity as whatever it is copying. Certainly a limited model, and yet, again, this is no different from humans as we do not have perfect models of each other or ourselves. > (the effect exists, but it doesn't show lack of free will at all) Because the concept is too poorly defined to be testable, perchance? Because people keep trying to go “Well actually humans are special so that’s not what I meant” after the tests are done? > also, not until they will be able to reconstruct their past history and of the entire universe by observing and studying remains, without any prior knowledge of what they are Any single human would fail this test. Humanity collectively only just about passes, except for all the gaps in our history and the fact QM and GR are inconsistent with each other. > where's the freedom if the reactions have been engineered through training? Identical to humans. We have demonstrable biases towards the society — nation, religion, sports teams, languages, political parties, laws, cultural norms — that we grow up with. We have school precisely because we don’t spontaneously invent everything from scratch, and our instincts can be bad and need to be trained out. We are incapable of overriding other things, e.g. sexuality, and we don’t really even understand when and how sexuality becomes concrete.

ben_w 6y ago

None of this is refuting to my core claim, that the concept of free will is always either (1) too poorly defined to be arguable, or (2) that humans are indistinguishable from other animals. You are alternating between both of these problems, sometimes with references to higher cognitive function (itself poorly defined) other times by suggesting things where human and non human animals are passing and failing the same tests. In particular: > Why don't you? Language seems neither necessary nor sufficient. If it was sufficient, computers would have it. If it was necessary, it would be denied to anyone who grew up alone in the wild, which happens occasionally. For extra weirdness, given that language is notoriously difficult to pick up as an adult (both for such Wildermensch and for everyone else) if language learning structures was the test of free will, adults would necessarily have less free will than children. > If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, than a virus can have free will. There are many layers of cognition between these two things. Cognition is not Boolean. > and how do you know it's not merely imitation? btw, insects can learn too This demonstrates my point. All learned behaviour does. In fact, I would go further and say that the ability to copy another entity implies a mind has a model of itself as a separate entity within the world, and of the same category of entity as whatever it is copying. Certainly a limited model, and yet, again, this is no different from humans as we do not have perfect models of each other or ourselves. > (the effect exists, but it doesn't show lack of free will at all) Because the concept is too poorly defined to be testable, perchance? Because people keep trying to go “Well actually humans are special so that’s not what I meant” after the tests are done? > also, not until they will be able to reconstruct their past history and of the entire universe by observing and studying remains, without any prior knowledge of what they are Any single human would fail this test. Humanity collectively only just about passes, except for all the gaps in our history and the fact QM and GR are inconsistent with each other. > where's the freedom if the reactions have been engineered through training? Identical to humans. We have demonstrable biases towards the society — nation, religion, sports teams, languages, political parties, laws, cultural norms — that we grow up with. We have school precisely because we don’t spontaneously invent everything from scratch, and our instincts can be bad and need to be trained out. We are incapable of overriding other things, e.g. sexuality, and we don’t really even understand when and how sexuality becomes concrete.