Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)

quote:

---

Is this human level of understanding any different than an extremely complex code?

---

That's one of the big questions of AI. I can't give a definite answer - nobody can.

quote:

---

As far as conscious goes, it seems like that is a very subjective term, could a simple program have some level of consiousness?

---

It would not be plausible to say that your typical "hello world" program exhibited any level of consciousness. Some complex programs might have the same level of awareness as maybe an insect.

quote:

---

I guess the thrust of this line of questioning is how is hard determinism different than compatibilism except that you define something that is complex as free will?

---

So far as I can tell here the chief difference is that compatibilism doesn't take a stand on whether the universe as a whole is deterministic. In fact it doesn't even have to say that the human mind is entirely deterministic. Compatibilism simply argues that a deterministic mind can have free will in a meaningful sense.

And I'm answering that the difference is consciousness. And that is also where your "grey area" lies - does an insect have a limited consciousness or none at all ? Somewhere, there is a dividing line but it is very hard to say where it is. But it would be fair to say that a chimp at least has a less developed mind than an adult human, and that some animals at least have a less-developed consciousness than humans. But it really is hard to draw precise lines, because consciousness cannot be directly observed, only inferred.

A "freedom that is worth having" is a freedom that actually confers some benefit. THe freedom to do what you want is worth having (in general, I'm sure you can come up with pathological cases). "Freedom" from determinism - which means simply adding a random element to your decisions confers no real benefit.Even if a freedom not worth having is physically possible it's a moot point.

quote:

---

When something is done by a person (or indeed a salmon), it is being done because it has already been predetermined by the brain state.

---

To clarify that it is NOT done independantly of the actual process of deciding - it is the outcome of that process that is fixed - but it only happens because the process is followed. There is no way to shortcircuit that.

quote:

---

I thought of an analogy for all those people why say "ah well, if my life's all predetermined anyway, what's the point? I might as well not bother."

---

This is where Fatalism and Determinism part company. Under Fatalism the view expressed above is correct. Under Determinism it's just an arbitrary self-justification that could be applied to any decision. Because determinism is based on cause-and-effect your actions do matter (since they will be causes as well as effects). So you can't argue that your actions won't make a difference (as you could under Fatalism) - all you can say is that it was determined that you would act that way.

It may well be the case that consciousness is in part complexity, but there is more to it than that - a conscious system would need to have some awareness of its own internal states and the ability to project those states onto others.

quote:

---

Let me ask you this, do you think that it is possible to create an AI which can have a free will in a meaningful way.

---

In my opinion,it is possible in principle. That is we can't do it now, I can't show that it can be done, but I think that it could be done if our understanding of consciousness and intelligence continues to advance.