[mikeash]

I'm sorry if you think I'm being pedantic, but I truly don't understand the concept. The more I think and talk about it, the less I understand what it's supposed to mean.

As far as I can tell, there are three possibilities:

1. The entity has no internal state. Any stimulus always produces the same response.

2. The entity is deterministic and has internal state. The same stimulus does not necessarily produce the same response. The same stimulus combined with the same internal state will always produce the same response.

3. The entity has some random factor in how it works. The same stimulus does not necessarily produce the same response, even with the same internal state.

Which one is "free will"? It's definitely not 1. It doesn't seem to be 2, from how people talk about it. But neither does it seem to be 3, as it's discussed as something more than just randomness. But what else could there be?

[nophilosoraptor]

You can think of free will as a control system. Like a PID controller.

A person performs an action, measures how the environment is changed, and modifies their behaviour to get better outcomes (for themselves or other people they care about).

Humans are a bit more sophisticated than a PID controller. While most animals, machines and nature itself are limited to blindly performing actions and measuring the result, people (and crows) can ponder what will happen IF they do something. Several steps ahead. They do not need to perform an action to anticipate the consequence.

When we say the law assumes free will, we mean that the law assumes a good control system. "If you do this we'll put you in a concrete box". The law assumes that threat will work.

This, as it turns out, is a flawed assumption. Many people do not think through their actions (stupid criminals), or they think through their actions and judge them worth the risk (e.g. weed smokers), or they have no other choice of action (e.g. prostitutes).

tl;dr: your rice cooker has free will.

[derefr]

Before this gets any more out of hand: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)

[mikeash]

That appears to be discussing the problem of free will, while assuming that you already know what the problem is, and more importantly what "free will" means. My problem is that I don't know what the very concept of "free will" is, completely separate from questions of whether humans actually have it or how.

[derefr]

No, the concept of what free will is is actually exactly what the series of linked posts is meant to address. Read the first, http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid..., in particular. "Free will" is a term with the same properties as "sound."

[mikeash]

If I understand that analogy then it's basically saying that "free will" is an excessively vague term that evaporates entirely when you describe what you're thinking of more specifically. Which is basically what I'm saying: I don't think it's a coherent concept by itself, and I don't know what people mean when the use the phrase.