Am I ever doing things because I can and not because I have to? Also, what mechanism determines what things I want to do because I can do them? And isn’t that mechanism then just not just another part of the machine.
Just because it feels as though I do things because I can doesn’t mean that is actually true.
As long as you can imagine different possible futures and decide upon which one you want to try and realize, I think you have choice.
Choice stems from uncertainty, partial knowledge. It might be an illusion for an observer outside of the system, but as far as a participant within the system is concerned, there is choice, then there is free will.
I am writing this because I ca n but I don't need to do it. I have futures where I don't do that and do something more rewarding instead and still. As long as I am aware of the choices, then I have free will.
Traditionally, a program is a series of instructions. The program doesn't really act on its own.
Now, a program which is objective driven and can infer from new inputs might be something else.
Just like humans try to maximize the stability of their structures via a reward system. (it got slighty complex, faulty at times, or the tradeoff between work vs reward is not always in favor of work because we do not control every variable, hence procrastination for example, or addiction which is not a conscious process but neuro-chemically induced).
But what does "act on its own" mean? If I give the program some randomness over its next action, is that "acting on its own"? When I'm at work, I act according to a series of instructions. Am I not acting on my own?
This is a very philosophical discussion, but if I had an infinitely-powerful computer and could simulate an entire universe based on a series of instructions (physical laws), would the beings in that universe that created societies not be "acting on their own"?
Yes, as long as the computer chooses its next set of instructions in order to maximize a given value (the objective), I would say that it acts on its own. Instruction set that was never defined by anyone that is.
If the instruction set is limited and defined by someone else, I believe it doesn't.
I think, re. the simulated universe, that for us, they wouldn't have free will because we know causality (as long as we are all knowing about the simulation). But as far as they would be concerned, wouldn't they have free will if they know that they don't know everything and whether the future they imagine is realizable?
If they knew with certainty that something was not realizable, they wouldn't bother, but since they don't know, either they try to realize a given future or they don't.
Partial information provides choice of action, therefore free will.
Computable by who?
Because you don't have the full list of correlations and there are superlinear things (tail events) you'll get a probabilistic estimation at best.
Just because we have quantum RNG in our heads that doesn't make us automatically better. If anything it makes us worse since we don't act on reason alone.
I don't know if there is a quantum rng or just an inference machine that manages to recognize patterns within input data and can do some math sometimes.
Just because it feels as though I do things because I can doesn’t mean that is actually true.