Another Free will vs determinism comment

      Free will vs determinism comment

Was listening to Molyneux's audio book:
Universally Preferable Behavior


Molyneux argues that if you're not responsible arguing with you is like arguing with a television set.   But that does not follow,  A TV normally has no way to causally interact with complex language in a meaningful way.    A language interaction, like a physical interaction with a bunch of rocks, can change the configuration and the responses of more complex matter in a causal manner.    Causality, and meaningful interaction, cares not about personal responsibility.

All that is required for arguing to be effective, is that the entity being argued with has the capacity to understand the language and arguments being made and be causally affected by these.    When you set a clock, it matters not whether the clock has free will, it only matters that the knobs are able to causally influence it.  Likewise,  an argument received upon the sensory organs interact with the nervous tissue, and causally influences it.

There are several lines of attack against free will, a few examples follow.

1. Relativity of simultaneity seems to imply block time, or the existence of a 4 dimensional chunk of space time where both future and past are identical in quality and immutable.

2.Postdiction, there is evidence to suggest that conscious sensation occurs after an event has taken place, if you're conscious of past events, we all know the past is proven immutable.   Thus any idea that you're changing what you're conscious of, if it refers to the past, is nothing more than an illusion.

3.It is believed there are mechanisms producing action selection.  If a bunch of components following rules create a mechanism that chooses action, it is the components and the mechanism that explain your choice, and cause your choice, your sensation of choice is but an illusion.

That said if  there is any basis to have preferable behavior, or preferable long term goals, determinism would ensure the optimal outcome if one or more entities increased in capacity and knowledge without bound.   If there is anything that allows deviation, in an infinite universe with potentially vast numbers of entities with unbound growth in capacity, optimal outcome might not be guaranteed.

PS
More on free will

free will molyneux youtube series link

Our capacity to reason and compare, does not mean we somehow transcend the mechanisms that should be explainable in a reductionist manner.  Mechanisms that result from the interaction of our components.  We can posit a computer program with similar capacity, yet it can't transcend the limits of computation.

That said, it still may be preferable to behave as if people are responsible and there is morality.   Eventually we may be able to rewire brain circuitry to behave more in accordance with our "moral standards".  We will be able to tell whether a criminal will behave "morally" or "immorally" with high probability, and detain them indefinitely if they do not rewire to behave "morally" with high probability, if there's high probability of "immoral" serious criminal behavior if they're released.

if you could rapidly put something in the way of the falling bolder, or fire a projectile at the bolder it may change its course. Nervous tissue can react and change in response to an argument that falls upon the sensory organs. 

If the TV had true ai, you could argue with it. But your exchange of information with a tv, is usually more meaningful through the buttons or knobs, it may respond to basic voice commands but not complex language interaction. A clock if you want meaningful change, you turn the knobs. A human, you can change through exposure to arguments. 

I think we can potentially have determinism and preferable behavior by some standard. And things can change but in a determined manner. Emotions can be elicited in a determined manner, and as said change too. That said determinism changes the perspective on "Moral" wrongdoing from punishment and blame to rehabilitation and help. 

____________________________________________
Humans have language, perhaps some other kind of animal has some kind of language, but it is unreasonable to use language with entities that lack the capacity for language.   Humans also have general intelligence.  It is expected artificial machines may eventually have general intelligence and the ability to use language.

A rock can't change its mind but its path can be changed if a gust of wind, a projectile or something gets in its path.   The mind can be changed in the same way, the underlying mechanisms behind it, can take a different turn upon exposure to external information.

The question with regards to changing mind, is whether given a set of information the outcome is determined or not.  Say you were planning to invest on X company, and you got information X company is a scam, from a very reliable source, your decision to still invest or not, is it determined?  Or is there any way the outcome regards your decision is not determined? Regards determinists and changing minds, they simply believe whether they'll succeed in changing someone's mind or fail is already predetermined, not that they can't change minds but that the outcome of the attempt is already set in stone..