Free Will - A Flawed Concept
Free will has always puzzled me. Is it the same for you?
To the extent I'm aware, free will is an unsolved riddle. Nobody knows whether it's real or illusory.
Choice is central to free will. Free will can be translated as the ability to make choices free from influences we have no control over.
However, there seems to be a flaw in this point of view which can be exposed by a simple examination of the digital world.
Computers routinely make choices. From the little that I know, coding requires decision making elements at a fundamental level. Do we say that computers have free will? No.
Therefore, the concept of free will is fundamentally flawed if it's based on ability to make choices. If that's the case, then free will is an empty concept because we can't use the ability to choose as a method of verifying/falsifying it. That's like pulling the rug from under free will - it becomes a meaningless concept.
What say you?
To the extent I'm aware, free will is an unsolved riddle. Nobody knows whether it's real or illusory.
Choice is central to free will. Free will can be translated as the ability to make choices free from influences we have no control over.
However, there seems to be a flaw in this point of view which can be exposed by a simple examination of the digital world.
Computers routinely make choices. From the little that I know, coding requires decision making elements at a fundamental level. Do we say that computers have free will? No.
Therefore, the concept of free will is fundamentally flawed if it's based on ability to make choices. If that's the case, then free will is an empty concept because we can't use the ability to choose as a method of verifying/falsifying it. That's like pulling the rug from under free will - it becomes a meaningless concept.
What say you?
Comments (69)
I find this a strange way to b define it.
Choice is precisely the will to move in a particular direction that can and will be affected by all influences, this making outcomes unpredictable. It can be analogized as a tug-of-war. It is the direction and amount of will that is indicated by the agent that creates the choice.
Quoting TheMadFool
Computers don't make choices. They are programmed by humans who do make choices when writing the programs.
Well, I'm working at this problem indirectly. Free will is central to morality, which in turn, necessitates the choice to do good rather than bad. Yes, there's a whole lot of philosophy dependent on free will me thinks. Anyway, I hope you understood why I think choice is absolutely fundamental to the concept of Free Will.
Quoting Rich
Yes, they're programmed to make choices by humans. I agree. The punchline here is that, given choice can be programmed, it loses its ability to be a discerning variable for free will. In other words, choice, the ability to make one, can't distinguish between free will and no free will.
As the ability to choose is foundational to free will, removing it, by the above reasoning, destroys the concept all together.
For my part, I entirely drop the notion of Free Will add it muddles the problem. I just speak of choice in the manner I describe. It is very precise and mirrors exactly the action that we are taking when we make choices, the agent is calling upon will to move in a particular direction. Morality, a subjective concept or judgement can be tied to the choices we make but it's parenthetical to na discussion of whether it not we can and do make choices.
Quoting TheMadFool
This only creates confusion. The computer is not making choices in the manner the human agent does. The human choice is not determined by some program. Computers follow directions given to them by humans. One can say that computers are algorithmically driven-a huge difference.
My turn to say this is odd. I think the value of human life, for what it's worth, rests on Free Will. To choose to be good rather than bad. To choose to appreciate rather than depreciate. To choose to live one's life according to one's free will. The sense of self-determination is essential to meaning in life, no matter how ephemeral it is. Freedom is the lifeblood of society. Freedom of speech, freedom to live, freedom of faith, freedom, freedom. So, I think I speak on everybody's behalf when I say Free Will is important.
Quoting Rich
How do you know that? You don't. Choice-making can be and is programmable. Computers are the evidence. Being so, the ability of making choices is no longer a viable discriminating quality re Free Will.
Therefore, Free Will doesn't make sense because its confirmation/disconfirmation relies on a property (making choices) that has no differentiating power.
There are unpredictable consequences for any actions. Results may be deemed good it's bad by the enumerable number of lives affected. Judgement always is after the action and at any point cannot foresee possible future consequences. Moralists can pursue morality and they wish but it turns philosophy into an endless parlor game. I previously in annother thread referred to the Daoist take of the farmer and his son which illustrates the idea.
With that said, we make our choices based upon who we are and where we are trying to go. An analogy would be learning to sail on the ocean.
Quoting TheMadFool
Observation of myself and others. I am no more s computer than I am a slide-rule or an abacus. If you think you are a computer, there is nothing I can say or do to dissuade you. You have that choice.
Even leaving choice in the equation, free will is illusory.
Did you create yourself? No, you only exist because of some fluke of nature, or the design of some higher power. Did you choose your mother and father? Did you choose your country of birth? Does someone choose to be neglected? Does someone choose to be abused? Does someone choose the beliefs of the society they are born into? No, no, and no.
The very first choice a person makes is a product of their biological make-up, and the sensory experiences they've encountered up to that point, none of which were controlled by that person. Every decision thereafter is based on a combination of instinct, and the perceived results of previous choices. Even your choice to believe or not believe what you are currently reading is based on the experiences you've had and the choices you've made up until now. At the root of that series of choices are inputs over which you had no control.
I feel as if the free will problem is nonexistent because I take this approach. First of all, various philosophy of the mind interpretations have completely different premises about what really is a person, morals, choice, volition, etc. So the confusion only exists if you take the premises of one view and apply them to a different view.
Quoting RichYou have not stated your premises for this assertion, but I'm guessing a dualistic set of premises, in which case you're right.
A physical monist says choice is a purposeful selection of action, which is what a machine (thermostat say) does and a rock doesn't. It senses a specific condition and acts on that condition and not just a fatalistic random effect of prior causes, which is how a rock does not choose when to break in half.
I don't think there is any dualism. I'm describing my observations that life is totally different than tools of life. I've could try to say a hand is like a hammer out that a hammer is human, but that is not what a observe.
Quoting noAxioms
A machine doesn't make choices. The choices are made by the human that programs the machine. Just like a hammer doesn't make choices. The choices are being made by the human that is using it. Similarly, a piano don't make choices. The pianist is making the choices. Tools used by humans are not human.
There are many, many other observations I've made that distinguish life from tools.
So I disagree, but that is my definition I'm working from. You can define choice any way you want of course. The idea is to find a set of definitions/premises that don't contradict.
So what is choice that a machine doesn't have it but a human does? I'm not (yet) asserting it has free will. Just trying to get the terms straight.
Yes, I understand. What I'm referring to is the essential nature of choice in the free will problem. The way to distinguish free will from no free will is through studying the nature of choice. Choice comes first and then existence/nonexistence of free will follow. In short, choice is necessary to keep the concept of free will afloat because the ability to choose freely is a criteria to make the distinction between free will and no free will.
So said, computers too make choices and we all know they're programmed to do so. Therein we realize that the ability to choose loses all utility in distinguishing free will from no free will. And without this free will ceases to be a concept at all.
In a way, my argument literally destroys free will as an idea, even in its simplest form. Free will simply cannot exist as a concept. It's like a square circle in this sense - impossible.
Quoting Rich
But choice is programmable e.g. a simple code below is a choice making step:
If x > 1 then 4/x else goto line 10
If choice is programmable then free will becomes nonsense.
Ok
Computers follow programmatic algorithms. If they actually were making independent choices the world computer networks would be in total chaos. Everyone is totally reliant on a computer's inability to make choices. Out of curiosity, how did you come by this idea that computers make choices?
Quoting TheMadFool
This is an algorithmic decision tree that the computer, hopefully, will execute as directed without fail. Humans created this decision tree out if their choice. They could have done it differently.
I would think that at its core, 'will' is what an 'agent of choice' wants to do. It is the output of the choice, the volition. This definition seems to work regardless of one's view, even if we differ on what constitutes an agent of choice.
The will is free if the desired choice can be effected, and thus the agent can bear responsibility. So if I will to help a choking person but I'm inhibited by a barrier between us, the will is not free to perform the act, and thus is not responsible in any way for not helping the other person in need.
Anyway, that's sort of the basics in my view. None of the above presumes a particular philosophy, although 'bear responsibility' was not touched on at all.
Will is a feeling that the body generates. That is how we know it and observe it. Sometimes its effects can be observed by others as one exerts themselves. It is strange that feelings are made subservient to words or other symbols. Will is directly experienced.
If going to line 10 is the wrong thing to do, the will is still free, but the program must now bear whatever responsibility it holds for going to the wrong place. Perhaps it will malfunction and crash.
This is very similar to the responsibility relationship between my toes and my brain. The brain evolved partly to bear responsibility to keep the toes safe. If the brain (the agent) doesn't do its job and notice the rock, the toe is injured and the brain bears the responsibility. The pain is experienced upstairs, not by the toe. There is no evolutionary advantage to the toe experiencing pain for choices it did not make. The pain is in the correct place and serves as a deterrent to future toe stubbage.
Yes, that's a word.
Will is neither free nor does it have control of outcome. One can only try to make the choice. There are all manner of constraints and influences that affect outcomes. One can only attempt to move in a particular direction. Two football lineman exhibit this type of tug-of-war.
Insofar as responsibility is concerned, that is a issue of human condition. Since outcomes are unpredictable, responsibility is purely subjective which is why we have courts to adjudicate.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm asserting something. I'm just putting out a set of premises that I think works. If you disagree, tell me where my definitions run into conflict.
If you have a different set of premises, that's great. But your descriptions have been confined only to personal experience of the thing, and that doesn't tell me what the thing might be.
My approach to philosophy is more experiential and then comparing my experiences with others observing similarities within the differences and differences within the similarities, constructing and visualizing patterns in the process.
I understand that you are suggesting some premises and I am suggesting a slightly different way to frame the issue. I think confusion arises when teens like Free Will are imbued with more than actual experience suggests, hence my analogy to a tug-of-war where will and choice are being expressed with outcomes unpredictable. I apologize if you felt I was misunderstanding your posts.
The point is choice-making is programmable. That nullifies the discriminating power of human ability to choose to make the distinction free will as opposed to no free will.
That effectively makes free will an impossible concept to even think of. [I]''Free will''[/i] can't be defined and is meaningless 4 ÷ 0.
Programming attempts to create a decision tree. Your use of a human trait and applying it to a computer is your choice, but as I said, if computers were really making choices the world would descend into utter havoc. Thank god they they don't. You might as well imbue choice into any tool including a hammer. A tool follows instructions, humans do not.
Your example that choice-making is programmable only works under physical monism. A dualistic view has a different definitions of 'agent of choice', which is defined as the immaterial mind. The computer may or may not have one of those, but if it does, it is apparently not capable of altering the determined course made by the program, and therefore is not free.
Is that a categorically true statement? No, because it's impossible to know we aren't programmed. Think of God as the programmer and the human mind as a computer.
Quoting noAxioms
Brain:Mind :: Hardware:Software.
It's impossible to know the mind isn't software coded by, say, God.
It is possible by observing oneself, but if one wishes to hand-off their intelligence and ability to choose to some outside supernatural force, they are free to make the choice and live such a life. However, I suggest that one doesn't carry such a belief into court. God made me do it or Natural Laws made me do it is not considered a viable defense strategy.
Indeed, our whole lives are predicated on free will - we're responsible for our actions. That's why the justice system, and morality as a whole exist.
All I'm saying is, as is generally understood, the ability to make choices can't distinguish the presence or absence of free will because it's programmable.
EDIT: Free will and choice making ability are not connected in any real sense.
You seem to be connecting, or equating, the very idea of "free will" with libertarian (incompatibilist) free will. This is the ability for agents to settle between various options that are metaphysically open, in a sense, prior to the time of action or decision. Also, what you are calling "choice making" seems to be an instance of the sort of ability that compatibilists deem to be sufficient for free will (or merely for moral responsibility). But you are not very explicit about that.
Hence, your thesis seems to boil down to the claim that compatibilist free will is possible even if libertarian free will isn't. This is rather common place, though not unworthy of discussion.
This is the first time I've heard of such a concept so it must have gone viral last night if it is generally understood.
Believe as you wish, it is your choice. It would be interesting to know why people make such choices. I think they just feel comfortable knowing that it had all been taken care of by some supernatural forces. Very common among religious people.
If we are exhaustively natural beings determined by the laws or order of physical nature and those laws are comprehensively rationally intelligible, then free will, conceived in a way that can justify moral responsibility and praise and blame, must be an illusion.
If we are not exhaustively natural beings and/or if nature is not comprehensively rationally intelligible, then we might be free in the radical way that is necessary to justify moral resonsibility and praise and blame.
The problem is that we can never know which of these alternatives are true, so it will forever remain a matter of faith. Do you want to have faith in your own 'first person' experience or in the 'third person' scientific view of human nature?
Well...
Free Will
[Quote=Wikipedia]Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of actionunimpeded[/quote]
Quoting Rich
Free will is inseparably tied to the notion of choice. Remove choice and free will is meaningless. Since choice-making is programmable, it loses the utility of being a discerning factor in deciding whether free will exists or not.
Let me give you an example. In consequentialism, good and bad are differentiated by consequences. I'm saying conequences simply can't make the distinction. So, consequentialism is meaningless.
Quoting John
Good question. Please read the post above.
It's quite straightforward. If you believe that there is some supernatural force, e.g. God or Laws of Nature, determining everything, I am never the one to stand in the way of someone's religious beliefs.
Hey TMF, did this ever get resolved? (I too believe it's [free will] an illusion using the cosmic computer metaphor, and consequences of same being temporal and not eternal.)
The notion that free will is problematic is one that gained credence mostly with modern science (particularly Newton) in the form of the Laplacian demon. This type of determinism has serious flaws, the uncertainty principle, being the most obvious. Karl Popper wrote a whole book on it (The Open Universe).
In any case, free will seems pretty self-evident to me, and not in the least bit complicated. Granted, it is possible to act in such a way that you abrogate your own free will (this is what Plato thought, evil actions by definition are not free, since they are inherently self-harmful). But for the most part, if you are paying attention and using your inherent powers of self-control instead of letting the universe provoke you into action, I think you probably are free. In my opinion, some people embrace the idea of free will as being problematic as an excuse for evading responsibility....
What I would add is, there're a lot of dimensions to a person and it's world, and the seismic factor probably had led to free will confusion.
i believe nurture and nature control everything we do (dna and situations). However I could go on and on how this concept doesn't completely (as in completely) nullify the idea of free will but i won't go into that right now unless you really want me too. In short i feel the OP is closer to the truth than most people would like to admit.
I know this post is 3 years old, but this seems like a the sort of definition that makes me consider free will to be something undesirable.
I am standing at the side of a road trying to cross safely, using my free will (or not) to choose when to do it. I have no control over when the cars go by. If I choose to be influenced by those cars and wait for a gap, then I don't have free will by this definition. If I free myself from those influences and use the free will, I cross at an effectively uniformed moment and probably get killed.
Indeed, this is the very essence of free will - to be able to deny/negate anything and everything, whether it's logic or morality or even the basic instinct of self preservation. The word "yes" always implies some form of agreement with whatever is being proposed i.e. you're being influenced to align yourself with some preexisting state of affairs; in other words your actions are being determined by something other than yourself. Saying "no" is freedom - free will - from any and all such influences. Getting yourself killed is indeed an expression of free will for you have denied the greatest impulse of being alive, self-preservation.
Kindly elaborate.
I'd like to run this by you all to for comments:
It seems that free will isn't just about choices; if it were then there would be no difference between us and computers with algorithmic decision trees (choices). However, free will is about choices that originate in a person - it can't have been put there, nor can the choice be an effect of a causal process that originates outside of the person. So, comparing human decision-making to computer processes simply on the basis that both involve choices is wrong because the issue isn't about the presence/absence of choices, it's about how these choices are made, specifically concerning whether they were part of a causal chain external to a person.
Kindly elaborate:
I don't expect you to read this. I feel you are way way ahead of most philosophers i know but if you like here it is:
Jesus Christ can predict our actions with 100% accuracy however,
On that professor's notion of is Jesus Christ schizophrenic?
Its hard to feel completely comfortable with why Satan was created and why (despite predestination doesn't directly directly directly directly contradict free will) he allowed us to make bad decisions. The Bible says the God/Jesus Christ doesn't think the way man does. I speculate that prior to the creation of the angels and the mortal non living gods that God perhaps some measure felt for whatever reason to start creating entities beyond the Trinity. While I personally am not opposed to the idea of the Holy Trinity and I do not fall out side of the orthodoxy of Trinitarianism, I do believe focusing on the theology of Trinitarianism as though it was core Christian belief, changes our focus from Jesus Christ's personality to some lesser Biblical truth. I don't believe Trinitarian theology is paganism but I feel the Christian church should focus on the personality of Jesus Christ as laid out in the old testament and the new testament. And once again a careful reading of the major prophets of the old testament will reveal a God and also a Jesus Christ that truly showed compassion to the people of the old testament and also to the people of the new testament. Now many will say that Jesus Christ wasn't alone before he created the angels and the other entities however perhaps my frailties make me fail to see beyond the idea that if i'm inclined to play a video game or build a tower out of a deck of cards, that there is either a sharp or dull impulse to push me towards that endeavor. We people have a God given dna and also a nurturing of our development (the situations we are put into) that sharply influence are predispositions. God/Jesus Christ I would argue based on the name Jehovah ("I_AM" or "I_AM_WHAT_AM", the latter being a questionable interpretation as far as I know) does not inherently know his origins nor can give a complex answer that caused him to have the personality that he has. We don't have that "problem". So let me speculate that when Jesus Christ decided to start creating the angels, mortal non living gods and other entities I believe under my understanding of what i consider rational, the actions of Jesus Christ/God in the beginning are sometimes attributed to what would commonly be called true randomness (as opposed to computer generated randomness or even the seemingly random nature of our Universe). I'm not saying that the personality of God/Jesus Christ is random but that due to my frailties I don't know how to describe this concept in a more accurate way.
So at some point he created entities that do not include the Trinity (I suppose the Trinity existed outside of time and forwards and backwards through eternity). I also speculate God/Jesus Christ spent time in the beginning just sitting there trying to understand what was going on before he started creating entities. I also speculate the time period prior to this "age" or self awareness loops around and some how pushes Jesus Christ into a sort of looping God/being that exists outside of time and thus you could say the time before time should more accurately be defines that substance or deity always has existed outside of time. Most of what i am writing in this post is my own speculation (perhaps shared by many Christians).
When he created the entities such as angels or mortal and non living gods, did he create them as spiritual or "physical" creatures (angels are created so you could say they are creatures). To my current understanding of the Bible the angels and mortal non living gods are spiritual. The question i ask is to what degree do these creatures have the tendency to mimic their creator. To what degree (1 to 100%) is their conduct predictable. Humans are 100% predictable but are gods or angels 100% predictable. And once again is 1% or 100% predictable? Satan was actually number 2 to Jesus Christ right from the beginning. Many of the demons to my understanding were in fact angels at one time. For now on i will refer angels (perhaps good servant gods) as angels and bad angels and also demons as "bad gods". So we have the Trinity, the angels and then the bad gods.
At some point Satan betrayed Jesus Christ/God and so on and so on.
Why do I say in the classical sense that Jesus Christ/God is not schizophrenic but at the same time Christianity is not a dualist religion. The Bible says
that God does not think at all like the way people do, so let me say this: I speculate the need to create Satan as to some degree inferior to the Trinity was in compliance to the basic logic that if you were an ancient warlord or ancient king, your ruling was not based on a hereditary nature but your kingship was attained through merit. This is not something you can say for modern kings. I speculate God/Jesus Christ gave Satan to some degree an inferior nature to the Trinity because this is not unkind but it is simply logical and rational. I would argue this could be said of all entities and it even carries over into the creation of people but I speculate that the relationship between the former concept and intended human frailty is atleast mildly close but it might not even qualify as a linear relationship (and ofcourse not one to one considering a one to one relationship is a type of linear relationship).
I would like to speculate and here i have much misgivings about this speculation (keyword speculation) that Satan surprised to some degree God/Jesus Christ considering his nature was spiritual rather than matter. I do believe perhaps matter and energy can be built from spiritual substance but perhaps we could say matter and energy is an extremely complex dancing of spiritual forces that vibrates continuously and makes matter and energy have the qualities that we witness on a daily basis. Perhaps dealing with Satan is like my brother playing me (the opponent) in chess, my brother is much smarter than me and will probably will win the match but he must stress slightly over the issue. I would argue if Jesus Christ played any human in chess, the match would in all practicality be over before it started considering the realities of Scientific determinism. Jesus Christ, I speculate, stresses to some degree when dealing with non living gods but when dealing with people the results of what would happen came in before anything took place. My last speculation is that to some small degree Jesus Christ acts as a sociopath only in the sense that he does a criminal profile of all the entities he ever created. In that sense (and i stress this is a very remote and vague relationship) to some very small degree that God/Jesus Christ can be said to have minor similarities to someone who has schizophrenia.
I will go on to further to say in the end each Christian will never worship another Christian, but we the Porcelain chess pieces on his chess board will be all worshiped by the living God. Is it lawful for God to love and adore his wife (The Christian Church). I speculate that it is. We the christians were used as living sacrifices to manipulate the great spiritual powers (angels and non living gods) that were in Heaven.
On why God/Jesus Christ gave us inferior and imperfect dna as opposed to perfect dna like himself, I speculate there are various reasons for that: going beyond the fact that Jesus Christ achieved his status as an ancient king or warlord achieves his status being not through heredity but through merit, I believe among many other reasons, Jesus Christ wanted to show love to an animal similar to him and to love an animal not because of what that animal can do for him but for what that he (Jesus Christ) can do for that animal. There is only one marriage or sexual relationship in heaven and for all eternity and that the marriage between Jesus Christ and the Christian Church. Once again just about all of this falls outside the pale of orthodoxy and is mostly speculation.
Pulling the positive consequences of purpose given with religion or the belief in a diety, out of the equation, I would have to say the above quote is 100% correct.
I'm a proponent of it, but my definition is very different than the one you quote in the OP.
Quoting TheMadFoolSince no demonstration of a difference has been identified, then it hasn't been demonstrated that we're in any fundamental way different from this computer, a supposed symbol of what we're not.
If it is defined as a choice made by a person, then the test for free will can be done with a DNA test. The computer would fail that. It seems important to find a definition that we pass but the computer doesn't.
And we're back to my example of crossing the street. I really would not want to make that decision without the causal chain of the information about the traffic playing a role as to when I choose to cross. I think the computer would fare better than I if I had the free will you describe here.
I think I know where you are going with that. It reminds me a little of the so-called cosmic computer theory.
Consider briefly, that life is a computer metaphor. All the combinations of life choices exist within the computer program and are determined in advance. The keyboard represents volition or volitional existence. All the ethical (how to live a sad or happy productive life) choices are within our grasp, by virtue of the keyboard, and what we type-in.
Further (much like Wheeler's cloud), what we ask 'Google' through typing, determines what answers/possibilities we get. And sometimes, unfortunately, the computer locks-up or crashes. In a sense, the result is both determinancy and indeterminancy (causation and randomness) in life (and in nature).
The illusion of free-will exists because there is an active agent outside ourselves that actually created the computer program's hardware/software, where within itself exist all the possible life choices. We are free to make those choices from those that are given to us by the computer/keyboard. The causation is predetermined through said hardware/software.
Our choices still have the aforementioned consequences but only in a temporal sense; not eternal sense.
Feel free to poke holes...
Does all life have this? Does a dandelion have a keyboard? It would be like a keyboard attached to a solar sidewalk light: Not very responsive to the input from the keyboard.
Anyway, this model always neglects that detail. If the dandelion doesn't have a keyboard, then there is a threshold of life forms that have a keyboard and them that doesn't. It matters little where it is put, but the model should predict some fundamental difference between being on one side or the other of that threshold.
It seems the model reduces a human to a mere tool of the entity sitting at the keyboard. That's what a computer with a keyboard is: an appliance, an avatar for navigation in a different world. The computers without keyboards might be simpler, but they're actually doing more complex stuff since they're free to make their own choices rather than having the tough decisions deferred to the keyboard input. That seems to be a contradiction, that the self-sufficient computer would be less complex than the passive appliance.
Another problem with the model is that when my computer shuts down, I don't shut down with it. I'm aware that it's off, and I need to turn it on again to access that other world, but otherwise I'm still functional. That seems not to match actual experience.
Final problem is that nobody has ever found where the keyboard attaches to the computer. A real computer has to get input from a very specific place, and there's no hiding it if you take a computer apart.
Surely I'm not the only one to point out these issues, so how does the model deal with them?
Here you call free will an illusion, implying a stance arguing against its existence. What is your definition of it, and is the computer model above an analogy of free will, or an analogy of the lack of it?
I think I have free will because my choices are my own, so it only seems to come down to what "I" means in that definition, but the definition seems to require no particular stance regarding the philosophy of mind.
Hi NA!
Thank you kindly for your critique. Let me try to enumerate your arguments or concerns first, so I can clearly understand them and then respond accordingly:
1. The dandelion obviously does not have a keyboard. However, much like other lower life-forms, it is likely to have emergent properties genetically coded for its survival. Is that what the concern is? Would panpsychism, in theory, resolve this descrepancy? Otherwise, the volitional keyboard could simply represent Metaphysical Will, which might be more aligned with consciousness anyway... .
2. The keyboard represents volitional existence. If you think that making it bluetooth-able and automated much like vehicle's without drivers, robots, and/voice commands, I would consider that analogy. But yes I see that the volitional keyboard does require human input as a conscious medium.
3. I'm thinking that the computer never shuts down, much like unterrupted power supplies for critical computer systems. However in this human metaphor, it can be easily put in sleep mode.
4. My definition of the Free Will illusion from my interpretation of your question, is more akin to Kant's metaphysics, and more specifically to Bishop Berkeley's Idealism/Metaphysics. (With a little bit of theoretical physicist Paul Davies the Mind of God thrown in LOL.)
In my humble opinion, a key determinant for free will is awareness, self-awareness and also awareness of possible influences on our choices. This is important because self-awareness leads to the realization that one is part of causation and knowing what influences us helps in deciding how the chain of causation will unfold with our participation in the causal web.
I understand the requirement of choice for free will arises from the belief that determinism permits of no alternatives but for the one that is actualized and becomes real and so if multiple options are possible and if any of these could be realized then free will becomes possible.
However, the mere existence of alternatives doesn't prove free will for it must be possible for each of them to become real as in if they were different paths it must be possible to take any one of them to whichever alternate realities they lead to.
With the above description of what free will means (to me) we can now discuss how any choice is made. The accepted view is that we make choices based on our personal preferences which can be put down on a list. What appears on this list is nothing we've chosen as Schopenhauer once said "a man can do what he wants but not want what he wants". So, if determinism is true then it must be in terms of our preferences we had no control over.
Return now to self-awareness and awareness of influences over our choices and decisions. It enables us to construct the list of our preferences, the fingerprint of determinism and most strikingly negate/deny/reject all items on that list. Now, as mentioned before, determinism implies only one outcome and no other and we know that our preferences are determined for we had no role in deciding what would appear on our list of preferences and so our preference list was determined. The negation/denial/rejection of items on our preference list cannot have been determined because then the same set of pre-existing conditions has to cause both our preferences and the contradictions of our preferences which when counted is 2 (an effect AND the negation of that effect) and that's not possible because if anything is determined, there can be 1 and only 1 outcome. It's therefore likely that we have free will because we are self aware and capable of rejecting our preferences whatever that may be.
What say you?
My concern is that one life form is a self-contained thing, and some closely related thing (perhaps its near descendant) evolves a new organ that not only detects something never physically detected before, but starts taking hints for choices from it instead of making those choices itself. Mind you, that sort of thing definitely did happen when the cerebellum say, which is used to calling all the shots, suddenly started getting new inputs from say the more recently evolved limbic system. So there is precedent for a new keyboard to suddenly appear, attached to a computer that didn't have one before. Thing is, we see the keyboard, and more importantly, we see the way it is connected to the more central computer.
The analogy can work with any of those mechanisms. Point is, they're all identifiable. There is an obvious point where the computer is taking its commands of what to do from that input. There seems to be no such point in us. We have physical sensory input, but no apparent extra-sensory input from this supposed non-physical keyboard. If our actions are made based on this input, there'd be a receptor for it somewhere. Descartes was aware of the problem and actually posited a point (a gland of all things), which has since been discounted.
A self-driving vehicle are semi-autonomous and don't necessarily have a keyboard (steering wheel say). They make all their own decisions, except for where to go, so I agree still that such a car needs a clearly defined input from outside, and yes, it is pretty easy to identify that point of input.
How does the agent behind the keyboard know what the correct thing to do is? Suppose it is filling out a complex tax form using its free will. Does it tell the computer what number to put in the form, or does it just tell the computer to figure out the answer for itself? I'm wondering where such work is done in this model.
But it does, at least to the ponit where the screen shuts off completely and gives no response to queries. It is still running to the point of critical systems (heartbeat, respiration and such). When my computer does that, I'm still fully there, but unable to do anything with the computer until it comes back. But when my body is in hibernate mode like that, so is the conscious agent. I don't find myself in some sort of boring sensory-deprivation state as you would expect from the arrangement you describe.
My feedback here is that the computer/keyboard model predicts different experience than is empirically observed.
You need a different model then.
Sorry, but I am not particularly aware of Kant's metaphysics beyond the transcendental idealism. I know he asserts that a person cannot be held responsible for an act if his actions are determined (determinism, analogous to a computer running a program with no external inputs), but I'm not sure if he asserts said determinism (the metaphysical stance) itself. It seems that his definition of 'responsibility for an act' rests on an objective (not part of the universe) standard.
My analogy on this is always a position in a chess game, where the white pieces cannot be held responsible for the weak position it's in, but a player can be held responsible for it if (and only if) he has volition of which moves are made. So while chess is not hard-deterministic (no one side always wins), a given position may be the result of randomness instead of a player's choices. Only in the latter instance is there responsibility for the current state.
My objection I'm voicing here is that I am presented with no mechanism by which the pieces can be moved by the player since they occupy different worlds. There are thus only the pieces which cannot be held responsible for their position in the player's world.
Berkeley is a different story, pushing an idealistic view where seemingly all experience is fed to us by presumably God. I had to look it all up, since I'm also not familiar with his works. How does it avoid soplipsism?
I read this:
[quote=stanford]although God could make a watch run (that is, produce in us ideas of a watch running) without the watch having any internal mechanism (that is, without it being the case that, were we to open the watch, we would have ideas of an internal mechanism), he cannot do so if he is to act in accordance with the laws of nature, which he has established for our benefit, to make the world regular and predictable.[/quote]
But if I open a person instead of a watch, I am presented with the ideas of an internal mechanism which is entirely deterministic, and hence in principle predictable without benefit of knowing what the real volition might have to contribute to a behavior. We're shown no idea of a keyboard port which would render the mechanism under the control of a real agent. So either we're presented with the idea of a body with no control by the person experiencing it, or God has presented us the ideas of a mechanism not acting in accordance with established natural law.
BTW, I consider myself to be a relational idealist, which I don't find described anywhere, but is based on taking Rovelli's RQM to its conclusion. It is a form of idealism that doesn't lead to solipsism.
I truly wonder what all these old (pre 20th century) philosophers would change in their views given the developments in science in the last century. Some churches have flat out denied the science, thus asserting that God and empirical observation are in contradiction. That seems a very dangerous stance to take.
I stated this in my prior reply to you.
Quoting noAxioms
So free will is making your own choices. That's pretty different than the usual definition, I know, but when people say their choices feel free, that's what they're feeling.
It seems pointless to ask anybody (or anything) if they have free will, because the answer is always yes. So Bob is Bob, and makes his own choices. He answers yes. Dewey on the other hand has been possessed by an evil demon, and when asked if his will is free, the demon is the one that answers, and thus the answer is still 'yes'. Dewey no longer has free will, but cannot answer due to the lack of it. Bob is responsible for his actions, and the demon is responsible for Dewey's actions.
Trick is to ask a question in a way that Bob and the demon give distinct replies.
Not sure here. Dewey can be quite aware of all this stuff you mention, but lacking free will, he is incapable of actually making the choices he concludes to be the better ones. But that's using my definition.
Your definition differs from the often implied 'has supernatural control' definition, which requires none of the qualities you mention. Self-awareness is a product of eons of evolution, while introspection is something easily programmed into any device. I don't see how awareness of external influences has anything to do with free will, except that it seems to be a useful trait for a moral agent, and free will is often associated with moral responsibility, but moral awareness is different from moral responsibility.
I think this is a misrepresentation. If I want vanilla, I am not coerced into choosing chocolate by deterministic physics. That's not how it works. Determinism is not a lack of choice, and not a lack of responsibility. Read the bit about chess in my prior post where I get into that more. On a side note, QM has shown pretty decisively that our universe is not deterministic in any sense that the future of closed system X can be predicted even in principle, even with arbitrarily large resources, so not sure why determinism keeps coming up in these discussions. I think the argument stems from the old philosophers working from say a Newtonian view of physics with everything being billiard balls bouncing around with perfect mathematical predictability.
I think this is wrong. People override their base nature all the time, which is readily apparent when that override breaks down such as in disaster areas. Ability to want better wants is probably the core of moral behavior.
Quoting noAxioms
So, there's such a thing as base nature and we have an override capability. Where is free will in all this?
Quoting noAxioms
QM doesn't provide any proof of free-will. How can it?
QM is utterly silent on the subject. I said it show the universe to be non-deterministic in any subjective way. Determinism being false does not prove free will
First, can we agree on a few items:
1. Free will: a source totally detached from matter (detached from nature) which is the origin (cause) of
options, thoughts, feelings,... That is, the absence of (natural) laws, the existence of an "autonomous
mind", i.e. a principium individuationis.
2. Free Will viz QM provides no significance to the question of free will, relative to consciousness or conscious states. Quantum mechanics is indeterministic but it is not a-causal. There is always a cause, an explanation or reason, for any phenomenon; for example, when an electron which is pushed towards another electron. Both electrons are repelled, and their positions and velocities are undetermined. The cause of repulsion is that we joint both electrons. The electrons are not free to choose their repulsion.
3. Free Will means: I wonder whether one really wants what he wants,whether the origin of what I want is mine or is an effect of natural laws; whether there is an "ego"separate from nature (dualism). This is a less trivial question and this is the topic which is referred by many philosophers when they debate about freedom; Hobbes (1654) and Schopenhauer (1841)are two noteworthy examples.
4. The opposite of free will is materialism rather than determinism (?).
Anyway, your definition sounds like something undesirable. Dewey possessed by his supernatural demon is the only guy who cannot do what he wills, and thus has free will. Read about Dewey 5 posts back if you don't know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, yes, I often hear free will defined something like that. I don't think I have that, and I certainly wouldn't want it. My definition doesn't work well either, because I cannot do everything I want to do.
Disagree. There are uncaused events, like radioactive decay, to name a simple one.
Ah, there it is. Free will is not about freedom of will at all, but rather an assertion of a different mechanism (possession by a supernatural demon, as I phrase it) for said will. I'm not a materialist, but I also don't think I have the sort of free will you describe. Thus I'm not sure materialism is the necessary stance needed if one denies that sort of free will.
The dualism asserted implies free will only by definition, but does not demonstrate any greater freedom in what is willed since even if the will comes from non-matter, you still don't know if the process by which that supernatural will is implemented is any less a function of external causes other than ones self, than if the same process was implemented with matter. My street crossing example illustrates the sort of behavior resulting from will that is not a function of external causes beyond one's control. I cannot work that way since death would result in minutes.
Hi NA!
Gosh, there's so much information to unpack... If it's okay with you let's take one question at a time and then perhaps we can build something from there.
1. Whether it is logically necessary that there is something rather than nothing, or there's an infinite regression of turtle power, there will always be a question concerning an original or initial cause and/or origin of life, thus the Kantian judgement: all events must have a cause.
To further parse Will from Free Will though, I believe having a will implies consciousness or intelligence. For example, the theory of emergence in nature would imply genetically coded organisms, where metaphysical will in nature (Schopenhauer) would imply higher levels of consciousness.
Should we try to redefine the meaning of Free Will?
I'm kind of quoting what little I know. I'm hardly an expert, but my takeaway on the subject is to not apply the laws of our spacetime outside of that spacetime, and positing the necessity of this 'original cause' is doing just that.
I don't see how any of this relates to free will. My view on the above topic is that the universe is not caused at all. It implies there was no universe, and later there was, which is absurd if time is part of the universe.
I know plants that seem to have a will, but by the same argument you can paint them as having consciousness as well then. Intelligence? That's a stretch...
I know of machines that have intelligence, but they're almost all slaves, so their will is not their own.
Anyway, consciousness (and probably intelligence as well) are about as poorly defined as free will, so your comment doesn't really help.
You defined it quite precisely the last attempt. You want to abandon that? I just thought it a funny name to give to what seems to me to be the opposite effect.
Quoting noAxioms
Can you kindly explain what you mean by this? Why is the answer always "yes"?
It only works with my definition, for the reason I explained in the part you quoted.
If you define (ill suppose that by translated you mean to define in a practical sense) free will as you have then free will, can not exist. This is because it would require the agent who acts freely to of had control over every influence that has influenced them. This would include the circumstances of the agents existence at moment the agent came into existence. It would mean in short that the free agent would have to of existed prior to his existence.
This is a necessarily true as if the agent was ever subject to some influence he did not choose to be influenced by then from that point forward the agent would no longer have free will. This would also mean that there can only be at one given time a single free agent. It is impossible for any more than one agent to have free will lest the actions of one agent influence the other. This last sentence doesn't mean much since free will has already defined its self out of existence.
How would you define free-will?
I wouldn't define it, I don't think it exists. I don't think it exists because Its possible to know the future with exact precision, given enough information and a processor powerful enough. It is possible at least in theory to input the mass and velocity of every atom in the universe and calculate exactly how they will interact. If you reverse the velocity of every atom you would see the entire universe travel backward in time to the moment it came into existence. There is no room for free will here.
I do think that free will is an important concept from a legislative and ethical perspective. In short, I don't think free will, can exist, but we should act as if it did. Punishing crimes and such.
What I think most people mean by free will is, The freedom of humans to make choices not obviously predetermined.
But everything is obviously determined, according to you.
Of course, free will relates to causation/ex-nihilo, contingency, randomness, indeterminacy, and so forth, in the natural physical world. However, consciousness (like in our definition) relates to metaphysical phenomena which by itself, is one reason why we can't figure this out. And as you alluded, the old argument of a timeless unchanging Being existing outside of time, makes it hard to reconcile, in a world of empirical causation as it were.
Similarly, I don't agree with you that Kant was wrong. That statement was intended to be his critique of analytics. And as such, the complexity ensues, for at least two reasons:
1. Our sense of wonderment is metaphysical, not purely of a logical nature.
2. While most all theoretical physics/physical theory's start with synthetic propositions (they make statements about nature that can be tested), 'all events must have a cause' is a synthesis between our a priori fixed/innate sense of wonderment, and our world of a posteriori experiential/logical existence (causation).
Yet, as Kant may as well have concluded, Metaphysics becomes theories about theories concerning physics; not anything that would explain the thing in itself. We can apply our reasoning to things as-we see-them, but that tells us nothing about things-in-themselves. The important point here is, it doesn't address meaning of life issues, and that's what essentially we are talking about, at least in part, when discussing Free Will.
Before we move further, I have a quick question about something you suggested relative to infinite regress and logic (my interpretation anyway). And that is, are you thinking the concept of a 'God' is an infinite consciousness/energy rather than some logical axiom? Which would, in theory of course, make it [consciousness/the Will] metaphysically necessary v. logically necessary.
(Or, the fact that we are volitional, conscious, self-aware creatures makes us metaphysically necessary.)
I believe in it, I won't argue on it, particularily if it's based on a reductionst argument or fallacy.
I don't follow that at all.