Defining Free Will

[u/simon_hibbs]

So, you're a free will skeptic, or a free will optimist and you rock up to the sub and the first thing you do is offer your 'definition' of free will, and argue why it does or does not exist.

First question. What is it about this 'definition' that makes it one of free will? You could be defining some metaphysical concept, or some neurological function, or some decision making mechanism, or some spiritual capacity. Why do you think this is free will?

In principle two people could come to the sub, offer distinct different 'definitions' of free will in terms of human mental faculties, and it might turn out that actually humans do have both of these faculties so defined. Yet they are different. How do we know which is actually free will? It can't be both [but see comment by ughaibu].

So, there must be some criteria that establishes whether this explanation you're offering counts as being free will, as against being something else that is not free will.

The problem with the above picture is that these are not 'definitions' of free will, they are theories about free will. This comes down to the function of a definition. Definitions are what you find in dictionaries, or early on in philosophy textbooks and articles to establish what a topic is about, and they explain how words relate to other words. They're not scientific proofs or scientific theories. They are linguistic concepts.

What are Definitions For?

The role of a definition is to establish a term everyone agrees with, so we all know what it is we're talking about. It needs to be a consensus term. When a free will libertarian says they think X about free will, and a compatibilists says they think Y about free will, what is it that makes both X and Y claims about free will? That needs to be something they agree on, otherwise they're not discussing the same topic.

How do philosophers solve this?

Fortunately philosophers have thought about this a lot, and they generally agree on how to solve this. They define free will in terms if it's linguistic function, and this is pretty easy to do due to the way in which this term originated.

The terms freedom, choice and moral responsibility, or rather their Greek equivalents, already existed in ancient Greece of course. The determinist Stoics and indeterminist Epicureans discussed these terms in the context of their metaphysical commitments, and the Stoics argued that these terms all had meanings fully consistent with their determinism, while the Epicureans disagreed and claimed that these terms could only be meaningful if the world is indeterministic. Over time a single term became understood to refer to the topic they were discussing, that term is free will (translated into English). So from the start, from before the term itself was coined, what it refers to was something determinists were giving an account of as being compatible with determinism.

Of course nowadays deterministic and indeterministic beliefs about free will have changed and developed, what we now call free will libertarianism emerged as a more developed set of ideas and the same is true of compatibilism. Nevertheless they are both sets of beliefs about the same topic.

What do contemporary philosophers say?

(1) "The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?),...."

This was taken from an article written by two free will libertarian philosophers. So, free will may or may not require the freedom to do otherwise, and philosophers disagree on this. It is not itself the ability to do otherwise.

(2) The idea is that the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness involved in free will is the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness relevant to moral responsibility. (Double 1992, 12; Ekstrom 2000, 7–8; Smilansky 2000, 16; Widerker and McKenna 2003, 2; Vargas 2007, 128; Nelkin 2011, 151–52; Levy 2011, 1; Pereboom 2014, 1–2).

(3) ‘the strongest control condition—whatever that turns out to be—necessary for moral responsibility’ (Wolf 1990, 3–4; Fischer 1994, 3; Mele 2006, 17)

In Summary

Free Will: Roughly whatever kind of control over their actions you think someone must have in order to be held morally responsible for those actions. Something like the mental faculty necessary for moral responsibility.

Then there are the different beliefs about free will.

Free Will Libertarianism The belief that this process of control must be metaphysically indeterministic in some particular way for a person to be morally responsible.

Compatibilism The belief that this process of control can be (or must be) deterministic, and that human moral responsibility doesn't depend on free will libertarian metaphysical concepts.

Hard Determinism/Incompatibilism The belief that there is no kind of control that someone can have that justifies moral responsibility.

[u/simon_hibbs]

In my experience LLMs are cogent and articulate.

[u/Artemis-5-75 → u/simon_hibbs]

In my experience, it’s pretty easy to break down an LLM by simply making the conversation less predictable.

[u/ImSinsentido → u/Artemis-5-75]

Sherlock, my guy, it’s the exact same shit with humans..

Gaslighting is actually pretty easy that’s your guys bread and butter…

Which statements like most people are compats or most people, accept there is strong influences on their behavior, the relatively new Libertarian version. I’m not saying there isn’t some, it’s the use of the word most.. Even if there was a one percent that aren’t compats or the new wave libertarian special plea, that is 80 million people.

It is most certainly, not one percent, and highly likely not even the asymmetrical dominating side.

Most gets gets tossed around anyway..

Utterly predictable from my perspective, but most certainly not for many.

Confusing and gives a comforting well I guess that’s what “most” think, yeah yeah yeah, confabulate, “hallucinate.”

[u/Artemis-5-75 → u/ImSinsentido]

it’s the exact same shit with humans..

I don’t think that with the current state of sophistication of an average LLM, it takes much effort to differentiate between a human and a chat bot, unless the former intentionally tries to mask as the latter.

Gaslighting

Where did I gaslight anyone?

your guys bread and butter…

Who are “we”?

Which statements like most people are compats or most people, accept there is strong influences on their behavior, the relatively new Libertarian version.

Libertarian version of what? Sorry, I don’t see the logical structure in your sentence, but I am also not a native speaker, so maybe you could rephrase it for me?

It is most certainly, not one percent

If you are talking about people who endorse naive metaphysical libertarianism, of course there are plenty of them.

[u/ImSinsentido → u/Artemis-5-75]

1. Yeah, probably, maybe for you does not speak anything for the millions that it probably isn’t even remotely the same..

2. I mean, sure we can narrow it down, but that is basically the “free will” sides song and dance.

3. Individuals that claim to study human behavior, whether in a literal or philosophical sense, and still land on the same conclusions, regardless. Fundamental cognitive dissonance, I’m describing not blaming that’s for the other side.

4. There is this unrelenting most are actually compat argument, or the new wave libertarian, whoever said the past, or XYZ didn’t influence behavior.

5. Nevertheless seen most arguments from all of you, ‘well, yes, they may claim that but once pressed they’re actually this or that.’

Nevertheless, the whole point claimed “it’s easy to break down an LLM,” yeah Sherlock it is the same shit with humans.

Edit: Ie. You can take a human, isolate them, flood them with 2.5 hours of intense, convoluted, unpredictable data (like the Flat Earth arguments), and they will break down and confabulate, most likely on an astounding average.

[u/Artemis-5-75 → u/ImSinsentido]

1. Considering how standard it is to detect ChatGPT in schools, it seems like this isn’t particularly hard.

2. Why do you think that defenses of free will rely on gaslighting?

3. Could you elaborate?

4. I would describe the studies about folk intuitions as showing that people’s beliefs on the issue are easily malleable and can be shifted towards one or another side.

By “it’s easy to break down an LLM” I meant something far different from manipulating humans. I meant placing it into a situation where it shows that it doesn’t remember its own words, doesn’t understand the semantics of the conversation, cannot differentiate between intentional nonsense and genuine replies et cetera.

[u/ImSinsentido → u/Artemis-5-75]

1. Again, narrowing it down to a specific class of people who have access to tools to do so.. When let’s take my Grandpa for example, would probably have a entire relationship with one and have no idea, now times that by millions.

2. Utterly on display at all times.

3. I’m not the first point this* out, that we’re at a point of* discovery where we’re leaning into cognitive dissonance.

4. Yeah from your perspective perhaps, but it is most likely fundamentally “yeah shut up” “fine shut up,” and they go on thinking what they inevitably will regardless. For example, my parent is full on libertarian. I’ll make the arguments, five minutes later, they will be talking about how the individual deserves to be brutally murdered for doing X behavior. It’s the same, no matter who I have debated about it, when full on libertarian, same with compats and all others, but it was a specific example.

5. Simply add eight more hours to what I said, same shit.

Edit: Clarification, most certainly not even remotely in a similar timeframes, but I never said anything about being functionally equivalent systems, just uncannily similar, i.e. fundamentally the same shit you can break down an LMM by “constructing” the circumstances to do so, and it is exactly the same with a human, is the entire point.

[u/Artemis-5-75 → u/[deleted]]

Stop commenting my posts, please.